Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740207 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOECKELB.B.ItL.Co. co?tJnued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 Chairman Gillis reconvened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. with Commission members: Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, and Geri Vagneur. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stan- ford, and the City Attorney, Sandra Stuller. RECREATION PLAN - Parks & Recreation Department Ted Armstrong, head of the Parks & Recreation Depart- ment, was present to present the plan. Armstrong pointed out that he was asked by Council to come up with a Master Plan or Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan, for the City of Aspen. Stated that the Council had recommended that he come to the Commission for approval, disapproval or recommendations. Armstrong stated that the importance of coming up with a plan such as this is that they are currently involved in the proposal of the development of development I, which is the Golf Course property. Armstrong submitted a copy of the proposed plan to the members. Armstrong further pointed out that the Golf Course pro- perty was critical at this time, is because of a cur- rent lease with Westward Apple. Whether or not they are going to relinquish their lease this coming spring and give up their option so that the City can renegoti- ate a new lease, depending upon what development goes on at the golf course property. Stated that the City could lose up to $20,000. Stated that at this meet- ing, hoped to come up with a stand from the Commis- sion. Armstrong stated that in the report, basically tried to point out the inadequacies of what the City cur- rently has in its present Parks Department, and the current impact upon the continuing development on exis- ting park facilities. Asked Commission to review in the report the impact study. Stated that the City currently is in need of more active parks. Armstrong stated that if in the past, the development had been made in the same manner as the presentation which he made at this meeting, if, for example, five acres had been required for 1,000 people, the City would not be in the situation that it is now. Armstrong requested comments from the Commission on the report. Schiffer questioned why basketball courts were not in- cluded in the report. Armstrong stated that this was just a plan, of which the City can go into each of the nine different areas and come back with a Planning report to show the Com- mission what the impact would be in that area and what the citizens of that particular area would need. Would do study on what the age group of each area would be and what the best utilization for each park would be. Schiffer pointed out that in the report (Table #2) the recommendation was one basketball court per 500 people. Stated that based on the report's projections, that --~...._.,.^-_....---,-,..,..,,_."~,. - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR""~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 would mean 36 basketball courts for the entire city. Recommended that more basketball courts be constructed. Armstrong stated that any of the standards could be modified. Felt that you could not come up with a set set of standards. Schiffer stated that he was concerned with Garrish Park. Felt that no one used that park. Questioned if there were any facilities at that park. Armstrong stated that it was designed to be left as a passive park area, without any facilities whatsoever. Pointed out that there are facilities at Herron Park, which is right down the hill. Schiffer stated that he felt the softball fields that are currently being used are inadequate. Armstrong stated that what they hope to do, is within the development of Development I, is to provide those type of facilities. Stated that the City has had numerous complaints from the Aspen Manor about the current facilities. vagneur questioned how many acres were being requested per 1,000 people. Armstrong stated that they were requesting 5 acres per 1,000 people. Vagneur asked Armstrong if, when they are planning the total acreage which they think is necessary for the population, is any of the natural facilities taken into consideration, like the National Forest, etc. Assistant City Engineer Ed Del Duca stated that five acres per 1,000 is developed park land, and stated that he believed the National standard with passive parks and natural areas. Stated that this has been taken into consideration in the report. Vidal questioned if the National standard took this into consideration. Questioned if the five acres ad- justs for the fact that Aspen sits in the middle of a National Forest. Del Duca stated that it did. Vidal questioned what the procedure was on an adoption of this type of report regarding funding for specific parks and facilities. Questioned if there were any priorities and how you go about doing this on a park- by-park or year-by-year basis. Armstrong stated that first you must establish priori- ties as far as which areas need to be developed first and what the current community needs are. Vidal questioned if this comes out of a City budget type of thing. Armstrong stated that it comes from the budget pro- cedure on priorities, which would be recommended by -2- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECK EL B. B. II L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 the Commission to City Council. vidal questioned what the total impact of these pro- jections would be in terms of dollars. Armstrong stated that he had no idea what the cost of these projections would be. Gillis stated that one of his concerns was with the Forest Service, when 83% of the County is Forest Ser- vice property, has a hard time trying to imagine that we do not have enough open space. Gillis questioned Armstrong on how he would define rec- reation in Aspen versus other communities when he is trying to use a National Standard. Questioned if he found Aspen the same type of community as perhaps a suburb of Chicago would be. Armstrong stated that he based it upon the need and what the City has to develope it in in regards to other communities, based upon what current programs the City is currently offering and the wishes of the people who are currently participating in them. Felt the City should have some standard to adopt in order to comply with the needs of the community. Chairman Gillis questioned Armstrong on the type of questions which were asked in the survey done by the League of Women Voters. Armstrong stated that basically, the questions were what current recreation activities would the community like to see that the City does not currently offer. What type of facilities would they like to see and what priorities. Chairman Gillis stated that he could not understand how the figures for open space were arrived at. Del Duca explained that the figure of 18,000 people was the ultimate population, which may never occur. Stated that the recommendations were based on the ultimate populations of the various areas. Armstrong stated that the projection of 18,000 was low since currently, the City facilitates the areas of Snowmass, Woody Creek, etc... Gillis suggested putting lights in at the softball facilities rather than providing more facilities. Armstrong stated that he has had the lights budgeted for four years. Del Duca stated that he felt there was a difference in providing a standard regulation soft ball field which people from town would go out and play on, and a neigh- borhood park that children would use. Stated that al- though it could be partially overlapping, felt there was a distinct different area which should be provided. Gillis questioned if the Trueman property was being considered in this plan. -3- -, - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOECKElB.B.Ill.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 Armstrong stated that the Trueman property was not being considered. Gillis stated that he felt it should be part of the plan to consider the Trueman Property, because he would like to see more facilities in town than out. Del Duca stated that the purpose of the plan was just to establish a standard for each area. Stated that currently, a site plan was being developed for the Trueman Property. Del Duca explained that the present system of dedica- tion is 4%. Felt this was very unfair to the developer and the City, since all zoning districts, whether multi family or single family, require the same amount of dedication. Felt the population difference should make a difference in the amount of land dedicated. Schiffer questioned if he had a ratio for the dedi- cation. Del Duca stated that he of population per use. any lower than national felt they should take standards Felt that it should not be standards. Vidal stated that he felt the City should put their active type of facilities and activities on a higher priority than the passive. Chairman Gillis stated that he found a lot of items in the report confusing and misleading. Vidal questioned if there was anyway .that priorities could be established in a phasing way. Armstrong stated that that would be possible as soon as they had a basis to go by. Bartel explained that the report does two things that the Planning & Zoning Commission should have had long ago: (1) Gives the Commission some national stand- ards as a guide, and (2) It divides the area into plan- ning units for the purpose of park and recreation faci- lities. Stated that in order to adopt any plan, the Commission must publish for public hearing and then consider it for adoption or revision after the public hearing. Felt that what Armstrong really wanted is to get feedback from the Commission with respect to those two items. Stated the most important area which Armstrong is currently working on is area I. Vidal stated that he did not have a problem with the designation of various areas, but did not understand how they were applying national standards. Armstrong stated that the 5 acres was arrived at by their own analysis. Del Duca pointed out that the national standard was ten acres per 1,000. Del Duca stated that the timing of this plan was very good since the Planning Office is now looking at some -4- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOEC!<;ELB.B.ltL.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 specific areas which are also in the map. Del Duca explained that any new development would not be required to supplement what Aspen now lacks. Schiffer questioned if the were recommending amending the subdivision regulations so as to require a dedi- cation based on density as opposed to land. Del Duca explained that that was correct. Vidal questioned if it would be appropriate to include in something like this report, a situation where a neighborhood would try to buy a piece of land and give it to the City, and if there was some dialogue in the report whereby the City would say, "If a group of people did that, that the City would them be able to put some funds in to improve the facility or put some facilities on it." Armstrong stated that he felt there was a possibility of that, but explained that in the area which Vidal was referring to, in the plan it is taken care of. Vidal stated that he felt that may encourage some other areas to do the same if the City had a policy whereby if a neighborhood would participate and help purchase land, it would be a commitment by the City to facili- tate it. Chairman Gillis stated that he found the report con- fusing, although he agreed with the conclusions, but how they arrived at the conclusions could not under- stand. Bartel stated that he felt that Armstrong had probably used a low figure as relates to population projection. Felt that in the summer, you have to go for peaks. Bartel further explained that procedurally, the Com- mission could pass this back to Armstrong with their recommendation that he use it as a guide. Could not adopt this as a plan because of the required publi- cation and public hearing. Concensus of the Commission was to send it on for ap- proval, but pointed out that there are some areas that could be cleaned up in the way of logistics. Schiffer made a motion to approve the plan, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Armstrong stated that periodically he would be appear- ing before the commission with specific plans for all the areas based on these standards. UTE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS - Preliminary Plat & Ordinance #19 Conceptual Review Attorney Jim Moran, Ed Baker, and Ms. Pat Maddalone were present to represent the project. Moran discussed developments which had taken place since the last time that the applicant came before the commission. Stated that the density problem which the Commission had addressed themselves to from time to -5- ._~,---,_....~,.., "~. - ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM IG C. F. HOECKEL B. B.II: L CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 time, feel this project, feel the developer has also addressed himself to it. Moran pointed out that the proposed density in this project is 10.6 units per acre. Looking to either side of it, the Gant is 25 per acre, the Clarendon is 15 per acre. Stated that yesterday at County P & Z conceptual approval was given to the Stillwater pro- ject at 2.6 units per acre, and further on out, to the Northstar project, as week or two previously that was given conceptual approval at the County level at 1.2 per acre. Stated that the transition flow is there. Whether the curve is at the right level is something the Commission might discuss. Moran stated that the other problem which has been bothering both bodies is the low cost housing problem, and this project has in its plan an 18 unit apartment building that would be covenanted for permanent resi- dents and would be this project's answer to that com- munity need. Ms. Maddalone pointed out that they are very aware of planning standards in the Benedict Office. Feel it was quite natural that these standards were taken into consideration even in the beginning planning stages. Stated that many of the things the P & Z is discussing now were considered initially and stated that this was there best presentation. Baker stated that rather than coming in with some high- er number in hopes of negotiating it down to a lower level the applicant had come in with a realistic plan. Vidal stated that he did not feel he could make a purely objective decision on this, consequently was removing himself from the Commission for this presen- tation. Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that when subdivision was tabled there were two major considerations: (l)the water pressure in that area. That has not changed;and (2) the drainage channel that is shown on the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has been in contact with Wright-McLaughlin, who is designing that channel, and Ken Ash, their representative, informed her that it could be accommodated on that site with some plat changes. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant is not presenting a new plat, so therefore, feel that as re- fers to subdivision, the Commission cannot approve a plat they have not seen, therefore, should deny or ask the applicant to withdraw without a time limit on that. Ms. Maddalone stated that Mr. Taggert in Wright-Mc- Laughlin's Denver office, was actually the one who de- signed the Urban Runoff Plan. Stated he felt that ap- propriate action should be taken by the City Council to use funds which have already been budgeted for and that Wright-McLaughlin should be directed to solve this problem with the landowner since it was a community problem and not a problem that was caused by this par- ticular parcel of land. -6- .Ii--.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.6t L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 Ms. Maddalone stated that there are several alternate plans which could be used to accommodate the community in that way. Stated that some of the plans do not re- quire revision of the site plan. Ms. Baer stated that she would agree with the first part of the statement, but stated that her information from Taggert and Ken Ash was that there would have to be a modification of the site plan. Baker stated that he did understand that this could be accomplished underground. Stated that it is not a natural drainage channel, but rather, a revised drain- age channel and feels this amounts to a taking of land. Felt that if someone is planning to take the land there is some procedure which should be followed. Ms. Baer stated that whatever the case, it needs to be dealt with before subdivision approval. Stated that it was her understanding from Ms. Maddalone that the landowner was willing to accommodate this channel. Stated that the design of the channel would have to be changed somewhat in order to put it on this site, and Taggert and Ash informed Ms. Baer that the site plan would have to be modified. Stated that if there is a question of willingness to do that, then that has to be settled. Baker stated that he aid not feel that was really a question. Stated that as long as both parties agree that the modifications can be made, questioned if there was some way the applicant could get an approval sub- ject to that modification being made. Ms. Baer stated that she did not feel the Commission could approve a preliminary plat they have not seen. Baker pointed out that they had been asked to table once before voluntarily. Stated that they were not told at the time that there was going to be a proposal to downzone the property. Stated that the applicant wondered if perhaps they were being asked to withdraw so that something could be accomplished that would pre- clude all of this. Ms. Maddalone stated that their position would be that they have seen the subdivision plat which they are asking to be approved and that just as this subdivision plat does not show detailed engineering drawings for the waterlines that it also shows Wright-McLaughlin's Urban Runoff plan, conceptual design for this same run- off plan. Stated that she was certain the Commission was aware that there is a great difference between ac- tual engineering drawings and conceptual design. Moran questioned Ms. Baer on the state of the discus- sions with the Water Engineer as far as accomplishing the necessary drainage. Ms. Maddalone stated that they had three proposals or four proposals. Stated that one of the proposals went through the site and stated that it could be handled through the site in several different manners: could be an open drainage ditch. Have discussed the pos- -7- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.Il:L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 sibility of going underground, and stated that this was the type of thing Mr. Taggert and Mr. Ash felt should come to the City Council and they should be directed to take care of this particular part of the Urban Runoff Plan first because they considered it to be the highest priority. Felt the responsibility was with the Council to appropriate the money to let Wright-McLaughlin do the engineering in connection with their office. Gillis questioned Ms. Maddalone if the City was not willing to appropriate the money now, does that mean that the developing is going on faster than they can keep up with. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt the City was miss- ing an opportunity if they don't, because she under- stood that this money has been budgeted and it is a matter of whether they spend it on the Urban Runoff Drainage Plan or whether they might use it for some kind of sedimentation ponds that might be landscaped. Felt that from a hazard point of view, according to Mr. Taggert, this has top priority in their office. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt this was an oppor- tunity for the City to be able to have an easement in an area where they might not. Stated that if they would not be able to develope there, there is not much reason for them to volunteer an easement and then work around it. Stated that they should work concurrently. Chairman Gillis questioned if the developer would be willing to hold the development until the City is ready to put the plan into effect. Ms. Maddalone stated that she did not wish to question the credibility on holding things up. Baker stated that it would depend a great deal on the timing. Assistant Engineer Ed Del Duca stated that the Engin- eering Department had not seen any revised plat that showed any allowance for a drainage channel. Stated that the Department also did not accept designs di- rected for Wright-McLaughlin without reviewing those also. Stated that the cost consideration in under- grounding can be three times that cost to the City. Stated that they would like to see what's going to happen before approval of the project. Ms. Maddalone stated that the applicant would like to know what the City is going to do before they get an easement. Del Duca stated that it was very clear on the Drainage Plan. Stated that the intent was for an open channel. Further stated that the plan was heard publicly and adopted by the City Council. Moran stated that he felt the problem is that if the City feels that it needs an open drainage channel ac- ross that property or some rights across the property and they are concerned about acquiring them now, they ought to direct the City Attorney to file a petition -8- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. II: L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 in condemnation. Stated that the other aspect is "no" unless the City is prepared to get in and deal and bargain on this thing to look for a common solu- tion to what seems to be competing desires here. Stated that as far as this subdivision us concerned it requires for its drainage no drainage channel other than is as shown on the plats. Stated that if the City wants some drainage provision to take care of runoff from Aspen Mountain, feel that that does not affect this subdivision application at the present stage. Ms. Baer stated that she would agree that it does not directly involve the application. Stated that it does involve the plat. Stated that if the Commission could not see it on a plat to evaluate it on that basis, could not recommend adoption of a specific plat to the Commission. Further felt that something could be worked out. Stated that first it was necessary to approach the City Council since there would be public expenditure there. Moran stated that the applicant's subdivision plat, the way it is applying to subdivide the land, does not have anything to do with the City's desire to run a drainage channel through that land. Are saying that when the City comes up with its plan and they can lay it over the plat and make a dedication or an arrangement, then that would be fine. Ms. Maddalone stated that there would certainly be mod- ifications to the plat. Reminded the Commission that this was only the preliminary stage. Johnson stated he would like to hear Ed problem of water pressure. address the Del Duca stated that they are finalizing the study on the entire City. Stated that they have not got a final answer. Stated that they are presently looking at alternatives. Do not think there is adequate pressure in present system. Schiffer questioned if the preliminary plat were ap- proved at this stage, not knowing about this drain- age channel, that it could jeopardize the City's drain- age plan. Ms. Baer stated that her point was that the Commission could not approve a plat until they have seen it. Stated that the drainage plan must be worked out. Vidal stated that he had withdrawn from the Ordinance #19 aspect of the presentation, but felt he could com- ment on the subdivision review. Vidal questioned Ms. Baer, if approval were appropriate or approval with conditions, to make it conditional upon the applicant granting the necessary right-of- way to accommodate the drainage plan and work concur- rently to develope engineering solutions to that. Ms. Baer stated that she did not feel the applicant -9- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM 50 c... HOECKEL B. B. 8: L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 would want to do that. Stated that the Planning Of- fice would like to see it on a map. Felt the appli- cant should work with Wright-McLaughlin. Del Duca pointed out that Wright-McLaughlin had been hired to do the conceptual stage, however, they have not been hired in any way to do detailed design. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt it was unfair of the City to put the applicant in an adversary position. Moran stated that if the applicant were planning a sub- division building tract, would layout the streets be- cause those streets are necessitated by our dividing that land into building tracts. Stated that what is present in this situation is an application for a sub- division plan and the City is saying that they might want to use some of that land for something that they have in the hopper, and that is a drainage canal. The applicant is saying that they will try to work with the City on this. Feel that the drainage plan is not part of this applicant's subdivision application. Have been notified of the City's desires in that re- gard. Ms. Baer stated that she felt it should be a common effort but required to have the endorsement of the City Council. Vidal asked Del Duca if the City could give, as it re- lates to this piece of property, can they determine where this drainage plan enters the property and where they would want to have it exit and the quantity in- volved in going through the property. Del Duca stated that the City could give the appli- cant that information. Vidal stated that possibly that was a criteria that the City could give the developer. Del Duca stated that that was all in the report which the developers have seen. Vidal questioned if it would be satisfactory if the Commission looked at all the other elements of the sub- division, because felt that possibly the drainage pro- blem is the easiest problem the Commission would be addressing itself to, since there is a common goal. Felt that it would be possible to approve the prelimi- nary plat conditional on that design being created at the next stage. Schiffer questioned if it was possible that the design would be so radical that the preliminary plat which they have submitted would be meaningless. Ms. Maddalone stated that that would be something which the developer would have to work out with Wright-Mc- Laughlin, but do not think so. Stated that Wright-McLaughlin's study is in the con- ceptual stage, and this is the same stage which the developer is at under subdivision. Stated that the -10- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM'~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. Il L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 the next stage is for Benedict to do more details on their plan and more details from Wright-McLaughlin. Schiffer stated that one of his concerns is with the possible traffic congestion in that area and the pro- blem with access. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has agreed to dedi- cate ten feet. Chairman Gillis questioned Del Duca if the Engineering Department had an opinion on the traffic problem in that area. Del Duca stated that as Bartel had previously the traffic on Ute Avenue is already serious. the City has no current plans to improve that tion. presented Stated condi- Baker stated that he understood that all of the devel- opers in that area have dedicated additional right- of-way for street widening. Stated that the street could be improved to handle the traffic. Ms. Baer street. point. pointed out that ute Avenue is not a through Further, are no cross streets after a certain Vidal also withdrew from the discussion on subdivision. Del Duca pointed out that the drainage channel proposed by Wright-McLaughlin would go through several buildings on the preliminary plat. Felt the plat could not be approved due to the scope of the drainage plan. Pointed out that the channel is 100' at some points. Ms. Baer stated that, given the location of the pro- ject, the position of the Planning Office has always been that tourist use is the incorrect use in mixed- residential, particularly at the far eastern end of ute Avenue. Stated that they were recommending denial on the tourist use. Ms. Baer stated that they are further recommending that the Commission adopt the zoning plan that was pre- sented, and thus set that density on that piece of pro- perty. Moran stated that he disagreed. Vagneur stated that she found a great deal of difficul- ty in equating square footage of land uses for the pro- jects on Ute Avenue with the proposed zoning. Stated that the Gant uses about 1500 square feet of land per unit. The Clarendon is about 3,000 square feet. The Ute project would be one unit for 4,327 square feet of land, and the proposed downzoning would be five times as great. Felt that it was not fair to expect a de- veloper to cut back that much. Jenkins stated that in connection with the Gant and the Concept 600 building, the principal, using them as a standard, is not balanced because that is part of what caused Ordinance #19 to be placed in effect in -11- - "- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIol,O C.F.HOECKHB.B.8: L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 the first place. Vagneur ~ated that she could not see within a few hun- dred yards requiring someone to have five times as much property. Chairman Gillis pointed out that the affect of traffic at the Gant is not as great as what there would be on Ute Avenue. Vagneur stated that since the present zoning would al- low the applicant to build over 200 units, and the fact that they were only proposing 77 units, shows that the applicant is bending an awfully long way. Baker stated that the applicant felt a particular har- assment from the Planning Office, in that they feel they were put upon and asked to withdraw. Were not told of the downzoning proposal in advance. Stated that they were told at the last meeting in January that they would be given some recommendations from the Planning Office in writing. Have asked for those recommendations several times and have not received them. Have not always been informed of what is hap- pening with the meetings. Stated that this has been going on since early last fall or late last summer. Moran stated that the talk always gets back down to density. Stated that in rezoning downward, given an area which has been allowed to develope in a certain fashion at a certain density, you cannot come down all the way to zero. Felt that in this situation, the ap- plicant is about at the point where you begin to break over into an area where the adjustment is too gross to be sustained. Stated that in this situation, the Commission has an applicant who is coming in with what is basically a third of existing zoning, and feel that the applicant here has proposed a solution that is about as far as you could come by the most strenuous exercise of the police power. Feel that deserves some consideration. Further stated that R-6 zoning would come close to allowing the numbers which the applicant is currently proposing. Schiffer questioned how many units the applicant could build under the proposed zoning. Moran stated that it would be about 23 units. Jenkins stated since that can include duplexes, it would be closer to 45 units. Michael Kinsley, representing the Environmental Task Force, stated that the talk is getting down to the profitability of the land. Felt that if that is the policy of the Commission, then maybe it would be ap- propriate to have some figures on this project as to what is the minimum feasible development. Schiffer stated that he did not feel the Commission, in the case of the Clarendon, made a decision based on whether or not the applicant could make a profit. Baker stated that the applicant interpreted Ordinance -12- - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F,HOECKELB.B.IIL.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 #19 as an attempt to reduce density. Stated that that is what there proposal has done. Stated that during the earlier discussions, the only problem that really came up was the tourist versus the permanent use. Stated that there is no desire on the part of the ap- plicant to try and block any plan to create a better drainage plan for the City, but insofar as Ordinance #19 is concerned, the applicant felt that they are fulfilling that intent. Schiffer stated that he appreciated the applicant's at- tempt to comply with Ordinance #19 in terms of getting a mix. Did not feel that it was enough of a mix to say that it is predominantly a residential type of development. Feel that it is too much density for that particular area. Ms. Maddalone pointed out that one of the things that is in the project is the 18-unit apartments which were subsidized by the other units. Stated that the Com- mission could remove the 18 units. Stated that they were told by the Planning Office in April that the recommendation for that area was 8-10 units per acre with a PUD mandatory. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office felt that there is a basis for their recommendations on rezoning. Baker questioned what the definition of a duplex is by the Planning Office. Johnson stated that he felt the applicants have defi- nitely addressed the question in good faith. Also feel that the density and use are too much. Johnson made a motion to deny the project under Or- dinance #19, seconded by Schiffer. Ms. Maddalone pointed out that the developer precluded this being permanent residential. asking for a definition of what is permanent dential and the enforcement of this. has not Are just resi- Jenkins stated that the use problem did not bother him. Stated that the density was his concern, and felt that possibly, that area should be developed like Red Moun- tain. MAIN MOTION Roll call vote - Gillis, aye; Vidal, abstain; Johnson, aye; Jenkins, aye, Schiffer, aye; Vagneur, no. Motion carried. Ms. Maddalone requested written reasons for the denial. Johnson made a motion to deny the preliminary subdivi- sion plat, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, with the exception of Vagneur who was opposed. Motion car- ried. Ms. Maddalone stated that she felt there were some very contradictory considerations. Felt the tourists would put far less impact on the public facilities. Peel that the applicant has been seriously misled. -13- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HO~CI(~L B. B. 8: L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 7, 1974 PROGRESS REPORT Bartel stated that he and Stanford had been working on the total mixed residential problem. Stated he would like to present what they feel are some very important additions. Stated that these are really separate from the land use recommendations. Stated that these are specific things which they feel should happen to upgrade the area. Stanford submitted map showing existing conditions in the north section of the mixed residential area. Showed quite a mix of uses. Stanford stated that they had also done an analysis of the density distribution and the resident to tourist mix. Shows a diversity in this area and mixture. Stated that by evaluating these items, have come up with their suggestions for a plan for the area. Be- cause of this diversity and the existing development, which is almost total in the area, very little that they can do in the way of recommendations on the land use plan. Stanford stated that their program for this area would be of primarily public actions which would include the trail system throughout the area which ties with the area-wide trail plan. Would include bicycle path a- long Cooper. Have also shown on the entrance to Aspen a tree planting program. Stated that the first phase of this would occur in this area - from the highway at the City limits on into town and leading perhaps to the municipal parking lot. Stanford stated that included in this would be an in- tersection design at Original and Cooper. Stated that this would be done by the Highway Department. Stated that the intent of redesigning this intersection would be to discourage traffic, particularly tourist traffic, from going straight into the downtown area. Would pre- fer to have them directed to the municipal parking lot. Stanford stated that they also have proposed, planned by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, a footbridge going across the Roaring Fork at the end of Hopkins Street. Have also recommended at the end of Hyman and Hopkins Streets a small vest-pocket park, which would also be connected along the Roaring Fork River with a trail system. Stated that they would like to come out with some type of possible street lighting that would, in addition to being street lighting for safety purposes, would perhaps be utilized in some way esthetically. Schiffer asked how resident units were distinguished from tourist units. Stanford stated that this was based on an estimate that Vagneur made, depending on if they were living there on a year around basis. Bartel pointed out a in the flood plain. the footbridge is in section of river frontage which is Stated that the application for process and there will not be an -14- --------....._~ ".... ,.-, " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.a.B.l.CQ. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Pebruary 7, 1974 answer on that probably until April or May. Bartel stated that they did not feel the answer was in totally building more streets, in fact concerned about that because of what it would do to the intersection at Glory Hole Park. Bartel stated that they hoped, with some conceptual approval of a plan for the Rio Grande, that they would connect substantially all of this area on the north side of Main Street. Stated that the next time they meet on this with the Commission, would like to meet about conceptual plan on the Rio Grande. Vidal questioned if, relative -- to that, do they have a format established to where if they had other bodies that they could help, or does it have to be done by Stanford. Bartel stated that they have placed the inventory bur- den on the Subcommittee. Ms. Maddalone stated that since she lived in that area was interested to know what kind of concerns that the Planning Office has for the people who live over there. Questioned if they concern themselves with the fact that practically all of the single family residents in that area are now owned by people who have lived there for more than 40 years and almost all of these people are over 60 years old. Vagneur stated that she brings this up frequently since her deep concern is that Aspen is a town, not just a resort area. Johnson made by Schiffer. p.m. a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:15