Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110104 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 100 E Francis Street — Given Institute (Ordinance 48 negotiation) 2 1 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday January 04, 2011 to order. P &Z members excused were Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss was not present. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. HPC member excused and recused was Sarah Broughton. HPC members present were Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie Brewester McLeod and Brian McNellis. Jay Maytin arrived at 5pm. Staff in attendance John Worcester, City Attorney; Jim True, Special City Counsel; Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservationist; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Stephen Ellsperman and Jeff Woods, Parks Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Jim True stated that Sarah has a conflict, that was why she was not attending and this has been noticed as a meeting of P &Z and HPC. True said because it was P &Z's regular meeting night it was appropriate for the P &Z to take the lead and Stan to chair but it is an HPC meeting also; if there are occasions that individual motions need to be made then we will just deal with those as we go forward. Comments: Bert Myrin thanked whoever put the packet on the WEB and asked Community Development staff if the applicants could submit the applications on PDFs to come out a little clearer. Chris Bendon said they could look into that and that a lot of people do submit digitally but they have a lot of folks that like the physical paper. Stan Gibbs asked if HPC had any comments. None stated. Stan Gibbs asked the planning staff if they had any comments. Chris Bendon said there were two things the minutes from the Boomerang and there was an appeal to City Council so they would like to use official minutes but we can use draft minutes. Chris Bendon noted a joint meeting with City Council Wednesday night on the Aspen Area Community Plan. Stan Gibbs asked if they could go forward with the minutes on the Boomerang from December 14` Jasmine Tygre and Bert Myrin were not at that meeting so Stan Gibbs stated that they would wait until the next meeting. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest Bert Myrin stated that he was one property away from one that was notified. Amy Guthrie said that she and Chris Bendon and Jennifer Phelan attended the University of Colorado. PUBLIC HEARING: 2 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 100 E Francis St. Given Institute (Ordinance 48 negotiation1 Stan Gibbs opened the joint public hearing and it was properly noticed. Amy Guthrie introduced herself and the applicant's representatives Bart Johnson and Mitch Haas. Amy Guthrie stated that she would give an overview of the staff reports; the proposal was for a possible voluntary historic landmark designation of this property, a subdivision and an Ordinance 48 negotiation. Amy Guthrie said that in 2007 City Council adopted an Ordinance 48 named 52 properties that had potential historical significance from the mid 20` century and this was one of the properties; being listed does not ensure that a property will be preserved but opens the door for discussion; a negotiation of possible incentives that would motivate a property owner to voluntarily protect landmark and designate the site. Amy Guthrie utilized power point for the site plan. Guthrie said that they are not suggesting a decision be made tonight but trying to provide an introduction and an opportunity to give feedback to the applicant. There was a second hearing scheduled for January 12 and they are hoping to proceed to City Council with a recommendation from this joint board on January 24 and February 14 if additional time is needed. The applicant has been given some strict deadlines from the University of Colorado and whether those can be extended or not isn't something that staff is well informed about. The first thing on the agenda was to discuss the historic landmark eligibility of this property; this is typically HPC's purview but P &Z is asked to participate in the review. Guthrie provided the history of the Given Institute and the surrounding properties previously owned by the Paepcke's including the architect, Harry Weese, who designed the Given Institute. The Given Institute building on the outside is fairly unaltered and even the interior with the theatre in the round, the UN style; staff recommends the property score 96 out of 100 points on the architectural integrity form and all three of the designation criteria are met. The "Aspen Idea" that Aspen is a meeting place for intellectuals to come together began before the interne or more ways to share information about advances in science and having a central gathering place was more important and very much in the spirit of Aspen Center for Physics, Aspen Music Festival and all the other organizations that are so much part of the community. Guthrie said the applicant thought that residential development would be placed behind the Given site and the purpose of the residential development would help make it feasible for the City or a non - profit to acquire the lot that contains the Given Institute Building; the idea that this could continue to be a non - profit functioning facility is a top goal of the project. If that is not feasible the City has 3 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 one year to make that happen at a price of 3.75 million dollars. If there is no buyer in a year there is a possibility that the building could become a single family residence but it would still be landmarked and protected no matter what its future use might be. Guthrie said this is a property that the community has enjoyed access to for almost 40 years but it is owned by the University of Colorado and have expressed for over a year and a half their intention to sell the property. There is a demolition permit issued to the University of Colorado and there are some conditions before they could act on it; they could probably fulfill those conditions. This is an alternative to demolition and a preservation opportunity and the applicant is requesting a number of City fees waived or paid by the City or otherwise paid by the potential non - profit user; listed on page 12 of the memo all of the fees as best estimated are listed since we don't have exact plans; it would be about 2 million dollars. A good chunk of that is tied up in tree removal waivers and staff was hoping to avoid some of those tree removals. Guthrie said the proposal is to subdivide into 4 lots; the property is 2 ''A acres so each lot is between 25,000 and 30,000 square feet and the property is affected by 'steep slopes that drop off to ACES and there are some city streets that used to run through the property. Staff has asked the applicant to re -study and bring back to the Commissions; one is the access to the property, a gravel road and proposed is a separate road to service the residences. Staff had concern with the number of trees that would have to be removed and there was not a lot of open space around the Given Institute so staff suggested several possibilities. There were fire requirements for getting a fire truck into the property. The Parks Department has trees that are absolute priorities for preservation; the tree removal plans remove almost every tree. Guthrie said that staff would like see the applicant revisit the site plan starting with those trees and working around them; we think there is a possibility of a home in this area (pointing to the power point) and the least burdened lot for residential development would have the least amount. Guthrie stated the property is subject to Hallam Lake Bluff Review because of its location above ACES; there is a required setback of at least 15 feet from the top of slope and even at that point you have to lay back the new construction so you progressively reach the city's maximum height limit internal to the property. Guthrie said the application requests exemption from the layback height requirement and also exemption from having the Planning & Zoning Commission 4 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 review the specific design and we can revisit with the applicant team so the impacts on ACES are mitigated. Guthrie stated the application requests some floor area bonuses on page 16 of the memo. The applicant is asking to go up to 5,500 square feet and the allowable is about 4,200 square feet; staff is concerned about adding impacts on the property by increasing the FAR and the staff recommendation if that is something that is important to the negotiation that we make sure it is part of the tree preservation plan and mitigation of impacts on ACES. Guthrie said the applicant request waivers from the residential design standards, which staff thinks is a possible area for agreement because these properties will not be visible from the road and are off the grid. Guthrie said the applicant was asking for a 10 years vested rights; every project that receives approval has an automatic 3 year guarantee protected from any changes in the city code. LJ Erspamer asked what the residential design standards are that you are going to waive. Guthrie responded the project was already exempt from some of them because it isn't located directly facing a city street and the remaining ones the applicant has asked to be exempted from have to do with primary and secondary mass; standards of how garages are placed on the property and fences. Bert Myrin said on the staff memo page 3 you mention the possibility of using the un -built section on Garmisch Street; could you explain what you would like the applicant to bring back next time with regard to opening that street. Guthrie replied that un -built section of Garmisch Street is 24 feet wide and staff will need to know if that it is adequate space for two lanes of traffic, fire access, the turning onto the property, how many trees would be removed. Guthrie noted there was a site visit today. Myrin said on page 38 the Parks memo talks about hydrology and the negative effects on the trees and with basements; is it possible to approve a subdivision without basements and we can recommend so we don't disturb the hydrology. Guthrie replied there are staff members from Parks present. Stephen Ellsperman, Parks, said it was important how the hydrology of a site would affect important natural resources as it relates to an application and in this particular case it is unknown so the concern here was to do an investigation. Ellsperman didn't know what mechanism wouldn't allow basements but certainly if there was some evidence that showed from a hydrologic report that an excavation in that area 5 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 would hurt a natural resource and not just a tree but wetlands or other areas of natural importance that Parks might recommend something to that effect. Chris Bendon said that procedurally you can adopt a subdivision that has particular construction techniques or prohibitions unique to that subdivision. Myrin asked if we will know that information. Bendon replied that it doesn't sound like we know that now and might not know that until they get closer to development. Myrin said on page 8 of the staff memo to use the parking at the Red Brick for Given events; do we have the authority to give away somebody else's parking. Guthrie responded probably not, the Arts Council has not provided any feedback; in general the Canary Initiative is very supportive of trying to encourage all kinds of alternative transportation. Myrin said there seems to be a huge disparity of what can be done by right between staff and the applicant; is it by right that an applicant can subdivide the property into 6,000 square foot lots. Bendon replied not necessarily there is practically nothing by right that can happen in Aspen; if someone were to subdivide this property they could divide into more lots than purposed and theoretically go through subdivision review and may not end up with the number of lots that are theoretically possible here; there are a lot of constraints to this site. LJ Erspamer asked where is the theoretically source of the integrity sheet. Amy Guthrie replied that is a city form used since 2002 for analyzing post war properties to have an objective way to determine their condition and if it should be land marked. Erspamer asked if this was a national form. Guthrie replied no that was what the city developed. Ann Mullins asked if the drawings included the TDRs. Amy Guthrie said that any West End Lot was allowed to land a 250 square foot TDR; the proposal wanted 5,750 square feet per house including landing a 250 square foot TDR that they would purchase from another historic property. Jason Lasser said regarding the Engineering in DRC he was curious if the applicant was asking for exemptions from some of the standards like the Hallam bluff; he asked how do we do that and the same thing with the Parks Department comments on the heritage trees. Lasser asked what does it mean the Parks Department will allow low development. Guthrie replied the heritage trees map was being displayed from the power point and the Parks Department highest priority; the ones shown on the Given Lot may or may not be affected by proposed new roads. Guthrie said to the extent that the city or non - profit would own them the city could try their best to maintain these trees. Guthrie showed the 2 lots overlooking 6 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Hallam Lake, which were the trees with the highest resource value and there were other trees that they would like to see preserved; they have recommendations on other construction methods. The applicant is asking for the storm water fee to be waived. Jason Lasser asked about the standards citing numbers from the code; if they are exempting a blanket review of Hallam Lake Bluff and Residential Design Standards how do their comments tie in with this application. Chris Bendon stated that those standards were part of the land use review and City Council can waive those standards; staff was not recommending that be waived. Bendon said that City Council will want to hear from P &Z and HPC as part of the recommendation. Ann Mullins asked to hear more from the Parks Department on the heritage trees. Stephen Ellsperman responded that the City of Aspen has a tree code that has been designed to protect all trees within in the City in a way to be proactive and work very carefully with developers who purpose to remove trees so they can understand why and what the mitigation for removal would be. Ellsperman said the net gain was to maintain our community forest and integrity of those trees that are important to the community. Ellsperman said the word heritage tree was subjective to describe those trees which this tree code was designed to protect some of the most important trees within the community. Ellsperman said this particular area of Hallam Lake and the associated Hallam Lake bluff happens to be the location of some of the most important coniferous or evergreen trees and a number of those trees are on this lot. Mullins asked for a little more explanation on the hydrology and how that change could affect the trees. Ellsperman said there were a couple more things going off the lot and just adjacent to the lot 'and just down below were seeps and springs; one of the largest identified cottonwood in the state of Colorado. Ellsperman said that they don't want the technical resources on site affected by development. Stan Gibbs said that he did not see anything from the fire department. Amy Guthrie said they did send an email and it was incorporated into the staff memo; they were requiring sprinklers for all of the new houses, no matter what their size and the fire department will need to review and approve the access road. Bart Johnson stated that he and Mitch Haas were representing SC Acquisitions LLC, the applicant in this case. Johnson said they were here to develop input and their client wanted to preserve the Given and spoke to CU about obtaining the property; there was a tight calendar to close with CU in spring. Johnson said that 7 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Mitch had to put an application together within a week so this was very much a work in progress. Johnson said there were various stakeholders within the City and the community, the Parks Department was a good example. Johnson said they didn't understand the heritage trees until yesterday afternoon. Johnson said they submitted an application that has basic fundamentals that are important; the 3 free market lot and figure out how that is going to work is a critical element to this plan. Johnson said the design elements will be a work in progress and they have a lot of studying to and tried to sort through the issues and get input from Planning & Zoning, HPC and the community and go back a figure what they can make of it all. Mitch Haas said the starting point is here and put together a preliminary plan for the site and their intention is to gain feedback and not argue the points in the application or in any way defend them; all of it is subject to change. Jamie Brewster McLeod asked what the applicant's representatives saw as the large issues. Haas said he didn't want to start discussing those points but would like to hear about all of the issues from the members of both commissions and the public. Johnson said there is some feedback that would be appreciated is the use of Garmisch right -of -way and opening that up for a road that comes in from the west side or using the existing entrance but there was probably a balance with which approach concerns more trees. Johnson said that 2 of those trees takes out one lot. Haas said they were trying to determine if a conservation approach is feasible here. Johnson said that they were trying to minimize the controversy and make something that works and not have a process that a project that has a lot of angst because we don't have the time for that and our client does not want that. Jason Lasser he read the application as they are asking for the universe and this was not an opened ended discussion. Lasser asked their expectations and where do they expect him to start. Haas replied you tell us what you want and we just told you where we stand today. Ann Mullins asked what was entailed in the Hallam Lake Bluff Review and the applicant requested to be exempted from that. Chris Bendon said that P &Z deals with these environmentally sensitive areas with project along the river (stream Margin Review) and this was similar to that that there is a top of bank that is mapped with a 14 foot setback and a progressive height limit from a 45 degree angle so the review deals with both of those in compliance and not shining light down the slope along with the height and top of slope. 8 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic 'Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Nora Berko asked about the 16 conforming lots. Amy Guthrie replied it was the R -6 Zone District with the minimum lot size was 6,000 square feet; based on the lot area that they have the applicant has suggested that they could create 16 6,000 square foot lots and each could have one single family home. Guthrie said duplex required at least 9,000 square feet. Berko asked about in the staff memo was there a possibility of an ADU. Haas replied that the standard mitigation was either cash - in -lieu or ADUs be provided for 3 of the units and he didn't know if the Given was changed to a single family home if it would be required to have an ADU. Nora Berko wanted to know what they meant by the building envelope being flexible. Guthrie replied that the building envelopes were bigger than what was needed but they drew them large enough but ultimately you will be provided with a subdivision plan. Jay Maytin agreed with Jason on the negotiation and was surprised for what the applicant was asking for the exemption from residential design standards and review or is it exemption for the trees, the vested rights and asked if it was appropriate to negotiate. Maytin asked which of the 6 or 8 Ordinance 48 negotiations or requests were needed. Haas replied that he didn't know at this time because it was hard to say but they were fine with the 15 foot setback from top of slope, the progressive height limit and an administrative review of the Hallam Lake Review was okay but where the houses would end up is hard to answer right now. Johnson said the 3 lots and the FAR were the two biggest points and we recognize because of the trees those lots are getting pressure. Chris Bendon stated the applicant has to respond to what the commissions feel is most important, what are your priorities and what they hear from the public. Biran McNellis said that he assumed that the town would still have no control over any interior changes in the building. Guthrie responded that if the city purchased the Given it could place covenants on the building but she didn't think that the building was well- suited to be a residence. Amy Guthrie asked for the continuing of this hearing to January 19 Wednesday. Public Comments: 1. Tom Cardamone, director of ACES, said there was some flux at play and the bluff review was a 20 year old ordinance and as a community we need to stand behind it and be very firm about it. Cardamone said the tree ordinance as well was sacra scant; we know that Ruthie Brown's father watered some of those trees and Elizabeth Paepcke did in her lifetime as well. The springs 9 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 that feed Hallam Lake emerging all along the base of the bluff are a concern; the parking garage built 2000 feet away from Hallam Lake changed the flows by 50% in 1988 and reduced the rate of flow and we put a pipe in to recapture some of that flow back into Hallam Lake. The aquifer was an important part for the ducks to be able to land on the lake in the winter. Cardamone said that as the proposal stands they would like to see it denied but to move positively he thinks there may be a solution so that might be a gathering of players who would make this work. 2. Anne Nitze stated that she lived near Hallam Lake and is married to Elizabeth Paepcke's nephew; she has been involved with the family and all of the environs for many years. Nitze said that she was on the board of ACES for at least 10 years. Nitze said Mrs. Paecpke requested that she go to the University of Colorado to accept her honorary degree for her because Mrs. Paepcke was not in good enough health to go. Nitze said that Mrs. Paepcke would be extremely unhappy at the thought of development the property. 3. Jonathan Lewis said that his property abuts both the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and the Given Institute. Lewis said that they (his family) would like the public record to reflect that the location before you tonight is not a Lewis application. Lewis said the concerned neighbors and community members were all there and the secret applicant was not in attendance and was represented by his attorney Bart Johnson and successful land use planner Mitch Haas. Lewis said there was a misleading purchase amount by the City or non - profit entity, the ESA exceptions, the boundaries of the ESA, the height variances, the bonus FAR, the proposed access and circulation and the increase in traffic where Mrs. Paepcke wanted no cars of any kind on the property. We encourage the joint P &Z HPC to reject this application as excessive and out of step with our community plan; this is no gift it is an attempt by a developer for profit to permanently and irreversibly harm the properties of the Given, Aces and all of us. 4. John Pappas said he was a licensed physician for 33 years in the State of Colorado; said that he and his wife had a home in Brush Creek; he took a course at the Given in 1976. Pappas said that this was the most beautiful place and he was upset that the University of Colorado was selling this property; he will write a letter to the regent. 5. Dave Smith, attorney representing the Lewis's, said that there is an unfortunate situation here where the tail is wagging the dog. Smith said with this application you are being requested to throw the standards out the window. Smith asked if the commissioners were willing to give up the 10 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 development standards requested. Smith cautioned the commissioners with the baseline set forth in the code and that is where you should start not finish. 6. Michael Fox stated that he was on the board of ACES but was speaking as a private citizen. Fox said that when you think of the Given site you think of the whole site with the trees that were planted and watered by D.R.C. Brown, the garden that Elizabeth Paepcke planted and tended, the views from the garden, the views from ACES up towards the mountain that overlooks the site. Fox said that he wasn't sure why we were spending all of this time on this process. 7. Zizka Childs stated that she was a long time local resident and a scenic artist; with Jerry Long they photographed the Given Building extensively. Childs said when you film this you see how integral the site is to the building itself; it has an integrity with the site that the best of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings have. Childs said the heritage trees were specified but not all the trees that were important to it architecturally; there is a huge sensitivity to the trees within those circular windows and that is a theme that you see reoccurring during the time of day when the sun shifts within it from the different points of view. 8. Howie Mallory said his wife Nora Berko was on HPC but his comments were his thoughts only. Mallory said that Ordinance 48 was a conundrum of how to deal with this request. Mallory said the landscape was part of this whole and to preserve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review; hopefully you can make a decision so that in 20 years it can be said that you have done the best for the town. 9. Bill Sterling said that he has favored the flow of information freely but at the same time he didn't want to give the terrorists any more advantage that they already have. Sterling said this has to meet certain community goals for historic preservation for a historically post modern building and community asset; does it still have value as a home. It could protect the urban forest there and could protect the water and the balance and harmony with the campus of the Given, ACES and the Red Brick. Sterling asked Amy if P &Z was exempted from the process. Guthrie replied that HPC and P &Z are asked to make recommendations to City Council on every part of the application but it would come back to them in part. Sterling said that it looks to him like 1/3 is slopes. Sterling asked who the person in the LLC was. Sterling said the plan just had a "but" to it in making it better. 10. Pam Alexander said that she agreed with most everyone except why do we have to consider this plan; it seems like this should be a catalyst to get all of 11 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 the information out on the table for the Given as well as Aspen and all of Colorado because all of the same people they are asking money from are the big environmentalists. Alexander said hopefully we can get the people together to make it a better project. 11. Gina Murdock said that she was a West End homeowner and on the board of ACE; she agreed with Tom Cardamone and what most of the other people said. 12. Joanie Lebach said that if you want to live in the city then live in the city but many of the people want to enjoy Aspen for the town that it is and all the nature that we have here. LeBach said she didn't know how far that we have gone to approach the University; maybe we should send letters to the alumni. 13. Junee Kirk agreed with all of what has been said and felt the primary key thing was the landscape and trees. Kirk said the requests this developer has asked for is absurd and she thought that this should be denied in totality. Kirk said to consider subdividing this beautiful site is a huge mistake and should be denied. 14. Mary Janss said she had to say that her husband was Stan Gibbs. Janss said it would be a travesty for anything to happen to this site and keep the building the way it was. 15. Ala Azezzee said that he didn't think that the building was anything special; where is the consideration to the University because they want to sell the lot for education so the mission is to accommodate everybody. He said he thought the site was wonderful. 16. Al Dietsch said that he now lives in Woody Creek and used to live at 210 Lake Avenue and the first person they saw was Elizabeth Paepcke with a shovel over her shoulder patrolling to make sure that they we not going to throw anything over the bluff down into Hallam Lake. Dietsch said that he was on the ACES board and he worked with Tom to protect what Elizabeth Paepcke had in mind by protecting ACES. Dietsch said that he had a vision of Mrs. Paepcke screaming in horror about this proposal and this should not happen. 17. Amy Guthrie summarized a letter from Sara Burrows, the director of the Early Learning center, and she said the children often walk down to ACES and how important it was for the children to have access to the property. 18. Amy Guthrie received an email from Sally Broughton who express the important of the city to work with the community to come up with a possible public /private relationship for the property. 12 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Chris Bendon acknowledged CU deciding to sell this property is not controlled by the City; the City might have an opportunity to come up with a solution to that sale. Bendon said that CU could sell the property to another buyer which may be better or worse. Ann Mullins said that CU is trying to sell the property as is in tack and perhaps CU will lower the price. Bendon said not to focus on the market value or the seller's price for the property but what's important to you are what better principals can this property be developed that are successful. Jay Maytin asked if the City or Community Development is still considering rezoning for this property. Bendon replied it always is as an action of the City and Council initiated an Ordinance to rezone the property and decided to not continue with that. Bert Myrin asked staff for a checklist of all the tools in the land use code that would allow the commissions to set the lowest possible resale value for this property; whatever the tools were. Myrin agreed with the historic designation criteria. Myrin said that the view should be protecting the lake area and the historic grounds on the Given. Myrin said the ESA should be adhered to in the strictest way for the Hallam Lake Bluff and cannot support any variances that increase the property's development rights beyond what others can achieve; the heights limits and the award of bonuses. Myrin said that he liked Stan's concern about the fire department turn around to be addressed at the next meeting. Myrin voiced concern about the possibility of ACES going away from their property and it is unfortunate for the community. Myrin asked the applicant for the highest standards for lighting to be proposed in covenants for your subdivision. Myrin said that he would approve a remodel of the blue frame house that exists on the property and let HPC be the review board for that. Myrin suggested smaller homes and for the applicant to come forward with a plan that the voters would support at a referendum so it wouldn't be a waste of the commissions time to review this. Nora Berko said the Paepcke vision of Aspen ideas is the pervading theme of the application is the Aspen Idea; mind, body and spirit. Berko said the Paepcke's vision of the campus was the Given, ACES, and the Red Brick really are a campus. The Paepcke's chose to give this property to a educational institution; educational institution presumes public access, which is the Aspen Idea, you have a conference you look at Hallam Lake. Berko asked how far this property would be privatized that the public good of it is lost; ACES has a tremendous number of visitors, school children and is a huge part of our cultural landscape and we risk compromising both of them. Berko said that she would need to know exactly what 13 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 it is going to look like from that deck on Hallam Lake; she could support less building, smaller footprint but the entire landscape is what that is important. Berko said one of the important aspects of Aspen has been the cultural landscape and the Given is one of them and has a public element to it. Berko asked about the idea of a conservation development and asked how possible that was. Jason Lasser said that we have heard overwhelming comments against the proposal and addressed the code for subdivision not being met. Lasser said it wasn't just the building being designated historic it was the property also. Lasser said this wasn't a sensitive application where the driveway takes down trees so he wanted to see in addition to what Bert has requested. Lasser asked for a site plan that keeps all the trees and make it a small footprint; looking down at Hallam Lake is a huge priority for him and was non - negotiable. Lasser said he was not in favor of any of the exemptions requested; he said this is the worst application that he has ever seen. Lasser said that he wants to make this work. Lasser said Aspen Global Climate Change is on the property now and we are not even discussing them; that building should be there and that is where we should start and that scale of building is what we should be talking about. Jasmine Tygre said it was very disturbing to be involved in a situation which is so cynical and speculative. Tygre said that Mitch asked what we would like to see and she said on this kind of parcel she would like to see full review; the idea that you want to exempt this project from every kind of review ESA, FAR any of these reviews that would take place make her uncomfortable. Tygre said that she worked on the standards to protect Hallam Lake and the ACES and the environment; she would like to see the applicant go through the normal review processes willingly. Jay Maytin felt what Nora had said about the mind, body and spirit idea and it came through from the community tonight and he thanked everyone. Maytin agreed with Jason that this application was an insult; this is a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" application. Maytin said for the applicant to hide behind an LLC and come up with every exemption that you can find is unacceptable and doesn't fit into our community. Maytin said he is in favor of saving the building but it is more than the building it is the whole area. Maytin said that he wanted the applicant to sit in front of the commissions and the fact is that person won't do that; is that person part of our community at this point; not at all. Maytin said he didn't even know if this person lives here. Maytin said will they be able to protect the park and the bluff and the applicant has to come back with more specifics and 14 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 at this point he is in favor in asking Council to rezone the property so that nothing can be built there and then the community wins. He doesn't see the application as a negotiation and he will not support this application as it is presented right now. LJ Erspamer asked Mitch if they have looked at the Aspen Valley Land Trust or selling this to a private person or a conservation easement. Erspamer asked if they represent CU or the developer. Mitch Haas replied they work for the purchaser. Erspamer said this property was really like a sanctuary on one side. Erspamer supports the regular view; the city buying the property was a good idea. Erspamer asked about that house on the property; are there any thoughts of historic designation for that blue house. Guthrie responded that it was a Victorian era building and it wasn't designated because CU wasn't subject to the City's rules; it has historic significance. Erspamer said the road and driveway is challenging at best; how wide does that road need to be. Haas replied 16 feet. Erspamer said it looks like you could drive through there without impacting the trees; the road should be described with taking out the least amount of trees. Erspamer said that he was not in favor of 10 year vested rights; the bluff setbacks would be mandated. Erspamer said if this building was demolished and the zoning was R -6 what could they put on that site with an easy application. Bendon replied with a PUD you can proposed practically anything; zoning by right. Guthrie stated a single family house or duplex or 2 detached might not require any land use reviews or public input. Bendon said by right is a house of 6200 square feet or so. Erspamer said he wasn't concerned about who the owner is because ever person should be treated the same but he would go back to the city buying this. Ann Mullins strongly supported the historic designation but not just as a building but as a cultural landscape; Parks Department has done a great job explaining the potential risks of the extensive building that is being proposed so this plan is not worth the Given if you are going to give up ACES and potential effects to the eco- system there. Mullins said they were in a difficult position for the city and philanthropy for the city and what kind of example is this. Mullins said she did not agree with this plan proposed specifically the building envelopes were way too large and should not support being exempt from all of the various regulatory tools that we have; circulation is poorly figured out; the one year option is a risky thing to accept. Mullins thought something could be done on this site without taking out so many trees, there are areas that aren't as wooded. Mullins said that nothing was acceptable that was presented here tonight. 15 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend to 7: 30pm; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. Jamie McLeod said that she was torn on this; she agrees with saving the Given but the Given was given to CU without the requirement of it staying with CU and without the requirements of Paepcke saying it can't be torn down so it wasn't given to the city but actually to CU. McLeod said whatever the purchase price is whatever somebody thinks its value is; it is not up to this board to deem what it is worth. McLeod cautioned the board on making some harsh stance because this owner is a private entity. McLeod agrees with preserving the trees, smaller building envelopes, smaller FAR, preserving the bluff that were key things that the applicant needs to consider. McLeod said they can come up with a better plan for the site and she didn't really care who the owner is but would like them to be a little more sensitive to the site. McLeod said that City Council should look at the fee waivers and not these commissions. Brian McNellis agreed that this needed to proceed with caution; he agreed with everyone that spoke. McNellis wanted to see everything preserved to the greatest extent that it can. McNellis said his main concern was what could happen to ACES and the appropriate amount of trees; the setback from the top so that we are protecting the natural amenities of ACES. Jay Maytin said that Jamie wanted to see a more sensitive approach to this application; he said by the applicant not sitting in front of us it helps that person not be sensitive. Maytin said the lack of sensitivity towards our rules might stem from anonymity. Stan Gibbs agreed with everyone that has spoken tonight that this is an important building in the history of Aspen and has a lot of value to the community and there is a certain point that you can't sacrifice your principals and values for a bunch or bricks. Gibbs said if the applicant can come up with a much more sensitive plan but it would have to be pretty sensitive; reading this application and by the time he got to the end of it he said that he was almost livid. Gibbs said the applicant is using this building as a battering ram to our values, principals, land use code, the AACP; everything that we have embodied in our documents and values in our community. Gibbs said that he could never recommend to go forward to City Council with this proposal. Myrin said that he would support the possibility of using Garmisch. 16 Joint City Planning & Zoning and Historic Planning Meeting — Minutes — January 04, 2011 Bendon said there were comments from the public and the board about the position that CU has put this community in; there are folks in this room that can provide the leverage to CU to provide a little more time and flexibility. Bendon said there are often times that partnership or consortium that comes together that is outside the land use process and he encouraged folks to help move this along. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the joint hearing on behalf of P &Z to Wednesday January 19` seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Jason Lasser moved to continue the joint hearing on behalf of HPC to Wednesday, January 19` seconded by Jay Maytin. All in favor APPROVED. Stan Gibbs did not want to elect the Chair and Vice -chair with only 4 members present; he postponed this action until the next regular P &Z Meeting. Adjourned at 7:35 pm ,l i 4th4.4AJ kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk J k 17