Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840807 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 n.m. with commissioners Jasmine T_ygre, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee , David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt complained about a storage shed moved east of 506 West Hallam a few years ago. The shed is dilapidated. flow did the owners get a permit to move the storage shed? It may now be located on Lou Deane ' s property. It was moved by Frank Christopher, resident of 506 Ylest Hallam. Can people just move a shed onto a piece of property? (Lee Pardee arrives in the chambers. ) Alan Richman, planning office, answered if the shed is an accessory structure that meets the setbacks it is allowed by right . Building regulations treat structures which are uninhabited differently from those structures which are inhabited. He suggested talking to Jim Wilson about condemning the shed if the shed is a public nuisance or a public danger. If the shed is simply ugly and is uninhabited they, there is little that can be done. Zoning and building codes are based on public health, safety and welfare. Aesthetics are only a consideration for an historical question or sign question. Hunt said then under the code anyone can move any kind of shack on any kind of piece of property in town. Richman said that action is appropriate as long as the shack is an accessory use that meets the setbacks. Hunt noted the properties are under different ownerships. How can the shed be an accessory use if it is the only building on a separately owned piece of property? Richman asked if the property is part of a larger parcel with a structure. Hunt replied the parcel is a separately owned parcel. Richman said the shed should be an accessory use to a residence. Sunny Vann, planning office, said strict interpretation of the code does not permit the use. The shed is not accessory. This raises a question . If one owns a piece of land and wants to build an allowed garden can he also build an outhouse that is not adjacent to the house. The question comes down to reason- ableness. At at a certain scale the structure requires a building permit to be erected. Hunt will approach Drueding. (David White arrives in the chambers. ) Hunt asked about the status of the KSPN antennae. Vann replied that the antennae is to come down this week . There has been discussion with Joyce Hayton , who has received a show cause letter to appear before the city attorney. Hunt asked about the elevator at mill Street Plaza. Vann said he has not checked this. The first step is to check if the elevator RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. , 1984 is on the plans which the building permit was issued tor . He will check this. r7hite addressed the parking lot ne:zt to slacDonalds. Fie is upset with the amount of debris strewn in front of IlacDonalds and in the parking lot . He understands that there is two hour timed parking. Originally it was eight hour tided parking. The lot is now being used for a narking lot for 11acDonalds in the eariv morning hours, similar to a drive through. Hunt remarked near bill Street there is no designated barking. But it is becoming FlacDonalds parking. Vann noted CCBC charged the time limit to short term. It originally was being used as a long term parking lot for the residents. That was not an appropriate use either. The lot was meant to be a short ter=n parking lot for the downtown area. The trash problem is certainly an issue. The prohibitive parking on hill Street is a problem. Peyton said there has been a dumpstcr sitting in the alley since 11acDon:alds opened. Anderson said he saw thirty minute parking there t lis morning. Paul Taddune , city attorney; suggested ToI:? Du:� a =3virolhmental health, be approached OIh Elie issue off ti-le dumnster . Vann said city engineering acted on the til:ie Y:)arlking winich a, . _: - uostec: ii)in:il01, 1 . '.:_'Pere is a concern. `l'h;r-'re lu diScu'1-'!.i1Un aIDOU- :oinn, a.��'r:zli ir: l'?tion and )ar �i ?g nor the city,. Tile long ter-, of J.:—o;-1sist nt with t_ie intti:h : t7� t 10 downtown are;? . TD-tdiune con-1 r`T1icd h L- show cc l -)r OCL C 1 17 s a''1= . e ,-),yen Eai:tn QIh �lll' J w l ,ii Lit J11. _' r id a ! 1-2 had La conversation -.Tith Joyco Hayden. JT1unt said the dish wlas still there today. 91 addiunc reported that -'Hayden said tl at the 4�roblem 's"lad been addressed. Her electrician was there the day the shot) cause letter was delivered. A day certain has been scneduled for F:ayden to elxplain ;ally she has not come into coyoOliance . ),Jhite rer)orted on tine trolley tasiS :force. The task :force talked jointly with Tore F°lells , Allen 11ovaik , representative for the Aspen T*lountain Lodge, and John Gilmore. The discussion was about a link between Rio Grande, Rubey Park, and Litt 1-A; about Lunding; about districts; and about assistance from the city. It has not been determined whether to use the trolleys which are sitting dormant . People favored a small transportation system through the city. There have been three meetings. The task force will go to Council after two meetings. Fie solicited Com.missioner ' s comments. The task force is considering asking Council for an In depth study Of cost. Vann informed the Commission that there is a meeting scheduled mid-September for conceptual trans-Dortation issues . This issue will be addressed. Fie advised the Commission to postpone comments until such time the Commission has an opportunity to determine khow this fits into the overall trans-oortation alternatives. MINUTES 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of July 10 , 1984; seconded I -i .1. by Jasmine Tygre. Al in favor ; motion carried PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED SPA CODE AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION Harvey opened the continued public hearing. Rlichiman said the resolution is very similar to the annotated outline presented at the past meeting. The resolution incorporates more detail and the comments made by the Commission. Tygre addressed the first "whereas. " "There provisions" should read "these provisions. " The Commission did not have questions about the whereas ' s. Richman continued. The intent section is similar to the draft. The statement identifies SPA as an overlay. The statement also provides the purpose of the overlay: to provide design flexibili t-,7, to provide design integration, and to obtain -precise development plans on SPA -,)arcels. Designation of sites is made in the same way as other amendments to zoning. Specifically suggested is an underlying zone to the SPA. The zone is to be a guide and not an absolute limitation. The designation will be a tool to take one into the process . Designation requires findings about unique characteristics . There are SPA recommendations for at least two parcels. Harvey suggested language in the statement of intent referencinq the fact that this is for the city' s benefit . The parcels are sizable and important. fie does not want to give developers the idea that the designation provides flexibility for them as much as it provides fle.,-,ibilitv for the city. Harvey addressed the procedure for designation. It states that the planning commission and city council shall make findings. The Commission is really making those findings right now and adding them into the resolution . Richman clarified this. The Commission is making these findings now on a preliminary basis. The Commission is identifying wilat parcels actually ought to be- rezoned SPA. In the formal rezoning resolution the Commission will make findings as to why SPA was necessary. There are certain parcels today that need the SPA. If the mountain should slide there would be a need for planning downtown and a need for a precise development plan. The Commission might designate other areas of the city as SPA in the future . Hunt asked if Richman is placing a new SPA on the places that are already SPA. Richman responded to an extent that is true. He perceives this as a fresh start witli a clear intent. Richman reiterated that the Commission does not want to see a 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 precise development plan. The Commission wants to make sure that the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the rezoning takes place. That burden of proof is indicated now in a cou-ole of places . Included is also a statement that if there are multiple owners on a site that consent comes from u all the Owners. Richman addressed point three: variations permitted within SPA overlay. Variations from the zoning requirements of" the under- lying district_ will be allowed only through the approval oZ a precise development plan. The language suggests not only will the variations be permitted with the developer ' s request but also might be imposed by the Commission and Council . This limits that which is allowed by right in a zone district. It is noted specifically that one is not exempt from subdivision requirements or the growth management quota system. on page three, 24 .7 . 4 (e) , the word "PUD" will be eliminated. There is no reason for a SPA to be a PUD . SPA provides the same flexibility as a PUD. Harvev commented on the phrase "preliminary and final subdivision stages. " Preliminary is with the Com-i-Assion and final with Council. Richman said the process is traced with the a public hearing at the Commission level . It was suggested there be a public meeting at the Council level. Vann did raise the point if someone is asking for a variation in underlying use requirement that makes the action rezoning. To meet the state legal requirements it would be better to serve that action with a public hearing as well. Richman suggested that Council convey final approval at a public meeting unless someone is asking for a use variation in which case the hearing should be published at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date . This is addressed in "d" . There is one aspect of SPA in the code that is confusing. The public zone and the academic zone require the same area and bulk requirements bv a SPA. There is also a SPA process . There is some confusion as to the difference between a public zoned property and a SPA zoned property. A property zoned SPA, such as the institute or the Rio GranAe, contains such a variety of uses or such potential that it would be appropriate to give the applicant the opportunity not only to vary the underlying area and bulk requirements but to come up wit h-a use plan that works for the site. An opposite example is the water treatment plant. It is zoned public and the use is one use, public. There will never be a retail shop or residential development in that zone. The reason the public zone has its area and bulk requirement set by SPA is not to vary use but to get a precise development plan. Examples are the 111arolt property and the water treatment. The parcels should not be set by PUD because PUD is designed for clustering . Clustering is not necessarily the answer for Rubey Park . The parcels cannot be set by special review because special review is a Commission-only process. Clearly in the case of Rubey Park the Council would not delegate that authority to 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 the Commission. Instead the Commission is a recommending body. Leave the public and the academic zone as set by a SPA with no ability to vary uses. PUD is a process in and of itself with a more limited set of properties zoned SPA whose uses can be varied. Therefore, many properties do not need the SPA. The intent is for SPA to be a review process for all publicly zoned parcels. He did not want to set up something that is terribly onerous . - That is why he is not requiring a four step - process. Four steps to make an addition to the water treatment plant would be terribly onerous and unproductive. When there is a complicated case, then there is the provision to provide a conceptual SPA plan. Richman addressed point five: submission requirements for review of precise development plan. The requirements are similar as to preliminary PUT). Since one is not being taken through PUD in SPA, the one PUD requirement of slope reduction was incor- porated as a special requirement in the SPA. Slope reduction would apply to the property and would determine the density as "x°' . request x Someone could come through SPA and requc that the density be "x" plus one . Slope reduction is used as a guideline . The applicant cannot argue that because this is a SPA that slope reduction does not apply and therefore a right is being denied. lie was sensitive to the fear that people might see the underlying zone as a bargaining mechanism. The intent is not to replace something that is taken away. I - Point Live: criteria for review of the precise development plan is the same as the prior outline with one deletion. The burden is placed on the a'pplicant. And in the "be it resolved" it is clarified that in the municipal code that SPA and PUD are to be overlays. (The Commission discusses the rezoning of the SPA designation of parcels that are currently designated SPA. ) -Richman - could- only justify - that two parcels -absolutely need a SPA overlay. The city cannot anticipate the uses for the properties because of the unique circumstances surrounding the Parcels. Castle Ridge: Harvey asked what is the current zoning of the parcels. Is Castle Ridge R/MF? Richman replied that Castle Ridge is currently 2-15-PUD-SPA. R-15 was the county zoning when it was annexed. There has been a tradition of carrying the zoning over from the county to the city during annexation. The SPA in this case is varying the R-15 zoning up to a R/ IF. Harvey asked if there is Richman said there would be some R any buildout potential there. - buildout potential under MIF within growth managementE. competition. Harvey asked if the parcel would require competition in growtil management in employee housing. Richman said if the buildout was 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 to increase the employee housing then the competition would not be required. Harvey asked if the property is being u-,-)zoned. Richman replied the parcel is being upzoned within the RZ-15 zoning. 17ith the SPA that property is P,/ ',F and is not being upzoned. Hunt reasoned the SPA limited the development of the property. The SPA set the development of the property. Richman said that would be continued through SPA adoption. Harvey wanted information on what the potential was and what the potential will be for the parcels. Pardee asked what the affect would be if the parcel was R-15 (A) . Anderson noted there is not anymore developable land left on the parcel. The parcel was a SPA when it was R-15 (PUD) . A specific plan was adopted . It was carried through . And it is over . Designating the parcel R/MF acknowledges the parcel as a residential multi family. The parcel is not a R-15 kind of use. If someone argues that there is some potential left then the Commission can argue that a plan has already been adopted. Harvey said he does not know if that is the case. Is the owner of the property now a private owner? Vann reasoned the parcel was designated SPA because multi family building could not be built in a R-15 zone district. The applicant wanted to establish the density according to R-15 standards. The R/14F district would be in the middle of nowhere. Instead, the parcel was designated R-15 (SPA) . This was justified because the project was employee housing. Richr"lan remarked he will calculate whether the parcel is at its maximum buildout. He can also evaluate if this action will upzone the parcel. Water Treatment Plant: The Commission addresses the city water treatment plant. The proposed zoning is public. Richman said the lot is currently zoned public . The intent is to get the development to come through the Commission and Council for review. There is no need for public/SPA. Public requires approval of a plan under SPA. By granting SPA the Commission insures that no one can return and request the parcel be used for a store. The intent is to discourage the variation of uses on the property. On the other hand SPA accommodates variation. The Commission wants to see a development plan. It recognizes that a water treatment -plant does not necessarily 'Lit in the 1 : 1 FAR or standard area and bulk requirements. The Commission wants to encourage someone to build the necessary facility. Forest Service• . Harvey asked what is the point of zoning forest service land public. Richman said at one time the area was zoned R-G, .•,7hich 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 allowed multi family units to be built. The city did not support this zone . R/1.11F zoning was also discouraged. Therefore,, the city imposed the SPA on the property. There will never be a SPA plan. Public zoning works. Richman reasoned that Zone allows the currently existing public building and allows necessary attendant accessory facilities . It can be reasoned that the housing for the forest service employees is a necessary facility. The facility is then a conforming use . The forest service is not a candidate for SPA at all. Vann commented the forest service agreed to come through the city processes for the purpose of being consistent with the city policy. The planing office has reviewed the application, has made substantive comments, and has made the land more in compliance with the city' s standards. Hunt asked about the postal department. Richman said the jail has been separated from the SPA. It was given approval under the public zone . Little Nell: Richman said Little Nell is zoned cc/SPA. Only the cc portion of the Little Nell property has the SPA designation on it. The cc allows a combination of commercial uses and hotels as a conditional use. He cannot come up with a reason why this portion needs a use variation. The city will want to see a plan for the entire site. Hunt said if the ownership includes other zones in the immediate area, then an overall plan is desire(]. It is difficult to do this with this mechanism. Vann interjected the owners can come in under a PUD and request a rezoning. The ability to change the use already exists with the SPA. JJ i th the present proposal, the owners will not be able to extend. the SPA as proposed before . Instead of extending the SPA over the entire property it would be better for the applicant to submit a request to rezone portions of the property. Hunt reasoned the commercial and lodge zoning relates to a geographical area. How is an area handled that does not have the identifiable geographic boundaries but should enjoy certain of those zone uses? Vann replied that Hunt is arguing for an extension of the existing SPA designation. That did not receive favorable support before. If the commercial areas are zoned commercial there is no reason to apply an SPA. If the entire i holding ) s considered and uses other than conservation are contemplated then the SPA should be extended to include more of the entire pro- perty. Given the controversial nature of the proposal , he suggested remove tile SPA. SPA is not required on the commercial area. In the event the ski company comes forward with an application that envisions commercial type uses in c-conservation that is consistent with their PUT) application then they can submit a request to rezone. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 T-'ichman suggcsteC-1 that the areas zoned L-1 be part c- --t,lified A- I L- C!-/PUD. TT.unt asked what part of the cc oucji-it to Dart of: conser- vation. Ric l'iy-.-Lan said he T.-,,oulu like to review that on a site rgued ti-ic SPA does not accomp-1111sh specific basi.-j. !:I,- �7-0 -ierc. That JElexibility under the t, -, e.- o 1: p r o c e ss, jo-ing envisioned 1 is not needed. The SPA -..-)rocess may in fact take something away from the owner, for exai,.iple, some underlying rights. Little Nell does not need the SPA. It is not to tile owner ' s benefit to have a SPA under the present circumstances. If the circumstances change substantially then a rezoning can take --)lace. Vann said the action that achieves ultimate fle:xibility is to leave the underlying zoning there, and overlay the entire property with SPA. Then anything can be dealt with. In order to do that the extension of the SPA designation needs to be processed as a rezoning. The extension would be recommended to Council but with the absence of a plan Council will not approve the expansion of the SPA zone. The attempt now is somewhat more pragmatic. The same results can be achieved through a request to rezone and to develop under a PUD. A plan would be provided at the time of rezoning. Hunt asked what the other zones are in the cc zone that are not accommodated in the c zone. Vann replied only those uses wIllic-In are allowed in the c-conservation. But those uses are not going to be built at the base of the mountain. Fie warned the Commission that the Council that would not c,,-tend the SPA designation because somehow it granted or created ulozoning which did not exist is the present Council. Richman clarified that for the parcel now zoned cc/SPA, those kinds of cc uses represent a reasonable zoning designation. There is no reason to look at variation in the cc unless there is a desire to build a residential project in the cc zone. He cannot justify at this point a hotel or commercial use for the c zoned parcel without a plan. If a plan is presented it might demonstrate a basis for a SPA designation. The site is not that complex that multiple uses cannot fit under one zone . The cc allows both commercial and hotel. Those are the only uses proposed to date that make sense. The cc/PUT) is a barrier to a residential project. Vann reivarlked Little Nell is very different from the Rio Grande or institute property. The later parcels have multiple uses which already exist on the site and which cannot be accommodated under any generic zone. The institute' s uses exist in such a way that one cannot outline discreet parcels for specific zoning. Richman said he cannot accommodate Cap' s, a parking structure, a performing arts center, and transit terminal in any one zone that exists today. But, he can accommodate the tourist development at the base of Little dell in the cc/PUB zone. Pardee asked if the c, whicn is part of the Little Hell property, 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 will be able to handle a rezoning request with specific plans . Richman said there is no reason to increase the flexibility on that parcel. Vann said the parcel was zoned c for a purpose. The mechanism to determine the appropriateness of uses is through a rezoning not through SPA. The Commission already knows the uses of the institute property. There are problems. The problems cannot be dealt with through specific rezoning of pieces of the property. Richman commented that only two parcels are designated SPA. The process is not used much. SPA is a tool for future redevelop- ment. SPA is important for those two parcels. Marolt• Richman commented on the Harolt property. It is currently zoned R-15 . The city owns the property. The public zone allows a whole series of institutional type buildings . If the 11arolt property is developed it would be for recreational use not for a transit facility. The Marolt property is there for park purposes. Park does not require a SPA -plan. Vann noted there is no plan because there is no specific develoiDriient. Harvey asked if someone is sponsoring the rezoning. Richman I L - answered. The Commission is only recommending that twelve sites be rezoned subsequent to the adoption of the code amendments . After the SPA is rewritten, he will come back to the Commission with a class action rezoning on the twelve parcels. The Commission is not rezoning now. Vann said this action is to illustrate to Council the reasons for the SPA amendments. Hunt- asked if park zone is so limited in development then how can there be a plan unit development. Richman cited the golf course. The reason for the PUD on the golf course was to get a good landscaping plan and to make any development that comes through PUD to comply with the intent of the property. If there is not a PUD then the Commission cannot review what happens . The alternative is set park by SPA. Hunt said park is a public type use. Why not keep the processes consistent for park and public? Harvey responded that public allows jails and parking lots. Richman said the alternative is to have the park zone ' s area and bulk requirements set by SPA just like the public zone. Vann said establishing a consistent review mechanism regardless of the underlying zone is a good point. Richman will change park from park/PUD to simply park. lie will change the langauge also to list the area and bulk requirements set by SPA plan. Rubey Park: The proposed zone for Rubey Park is public. Hunt asked if public includes commercial uses, snack bars, etc. Richman replied if the uses are accessory. If the uses are principal then the answer is no. Vann noted it will be difficult to zone Rubey Park because 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 everyone wants to see it zoned park . There is a common mis- perception about Rubey Park. The fact is that it is not a park but a well landscaped public facility. Richman reviewed the use tables before he recommended the public designation . He is comfortable with the variety of uses that that designation accommodates. Harvey directed Richman to check out the range of uses. Excluded uses might be desirable , for example , visitor services. Hunt said SPA does not allow a variation in use. Smuggler Trailer Park: Harvey asked the same question about Smuggler as he did with Castle Ridge. Richman explained nothing is changed. The underlying zones are identified on the plat. Smuggler has an adopted SPA plan. The adopted SPA plan sets the three zones . People are having problems in the new park . In order to make any minor addition repetition of the entire SPA is required , ordinance adoption, etc. The proposal is to put Smuggler into a PUD. This deals with the fact the area and bulk requirements cannot be met to the nth degree in the park. This allows amendments to take place easierly. Harvey asked if the designation of the mobile home park as a PUD eliminates some of the nonconformities . Richman said yes especially for the pre-existing park . The new park is conforming. Vann said the pre-existing park is not in compliance. Trueman: Harvey asked if anything is being ci-langed on lot one, Clark ' s, (:TIC/SCI/PUD) or the Trueman property. Richman replied the only change is that PUD replaces the SPA designation. Hunt asked if this gives the owner any development rights. Harvey said no . Richman said the only case where there is a concern about develop- ment rights is Castle Ridge. In that case R/MF replaces R-15 . Vann noted the Trueman property is at or above FAR. Richman said this action takes away the ability to vary uses. Hunt asked if the city will be able to administer that parcel as it has under a SPA. Richman responded not only does the rezoning process and the elimination of the SPA need to be addressed, but the approved SPA' s need to be cleaned up. Plans need to be pre- sented._ In the case of Trueman the error is identifying the building as NC/SCI. A subscript class action is needed. He needs to sit down with the city attorney to determine the proper mechanism. Subdivision, PUD, or SPA documents are needed as the case may be. Vann said there may be a problem. It is an after the fact case. There is no previous record. The cases have only been addressed administratively. Harvey asked if the change in uses comes before the Commission. Vann answered the approved SPA plan says NC/SCI . The Commission has always administered this along certain guidelines. Technically speaking, under the approved plat the Commission cannot preclude 1 () RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 one from the other. Hunt reminded the Commission what happened under the approved plat. Anderson asked if most approvals for this parcel are use determination approvals . Vann said yes . Someone who wants to occupy the space designated NIC may ask for NC use for the space. Regardless of the SPA, the Commission has the authority to review it under the use determination. Hunt asked for the breakdown in percentages of uses in the Trueman building . The building was to be mixed use . Vann reiterated the legal problems. The Commission is coming back and asking for something it did not write down. Hunt said it was written down as a result of someone else ' s action. Vann said to the extent the city can clean up the approved SPA' s the city will do so. The ability to do so will be difficult. Richman noted in some cases it may have to wait for a development request . There is a lack of approved plans in many of the cases . Hunt suggested approaching the landowners . Explain that the city wants to eliminate the SPA but the city needs a plan indicating the mix of SCI and NC uses. Harvey asked if the PUD should be removed from lot three (city purchase) of the Trueman property. Where is lot four? Richman answered it is the undeveloped strip that travels up the trail on the hillside, the back side of ACES. Vann said the flat area on the back side of ACES is zoned R-15 . The hillside, near the residential area, is zoned R-6. Richman clarified that lot one of the Trueman property is currently zoned !TC/SCl/SPA and the other three lots are zoned SCl/SPA. The proposal substantially downzones. Vann said this recommendation is consistent with the plans for ACES. Institute: Richman addressed the paragraph of intent for the institute land. He looked at what the zone district was in the case of academic and in the case of public. fie looked at the language on the zone district. He reviewed the resolution that Council adopted when it established the institute advisory committee in 1980 . The resolution included flowery language as to the historic nature of the site and as to why the property is unique. He lifted that language for the intent of this resolution. In the case of the Rio Grande he went back to the ordinance that adopted a preliminary SPA plan. The language provides very broad guidelines. Harvey thought the reasons for the SPA should be described more in terms of what actually happens at the institute property. There is an academic-cultural environment with attendant housing and administrative facilities. There is short term lodging. There is food service . Employee housing is desirable . Is the intent of the property to preserve what has existed , for example, the Aspen Institute? It is not clear what academic zoning allows. The property will have to be redeveloped. Harvey 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 recommends a statement of intent which describes the city' s attitude about the use of that land . Vann said that is difficult to answer given the present Council . The principal use of the property can be more specific or more generic. It can deal with other considerations as Dart of a specific proposal. How does the Commission want to handle this? Harvey said consider someone who purchases the property. The buyer will see a multiplicity of uses (short term housing, lodging, restaurants, etc. ) . Harvey does not want to see a transient hotel facility. Ile favors something that has existed to date, a situation in which people come in for one or two weeks. flaintain the character associated with a conference center or meeting place. The 1• est End Association will want to make sure that the people using the facility are using the facility for specific meetings and not for a one or two night lodging. 7ohn Doremus said it is difficult to put a single zone on a property U L which has several different existing uses . There is also the potential of creating more uses. Historically there has been academic use and institutional use. The only zoning classification for this is academic . The academic site is composed of 24 undeveloped acres. That site includes the three institutional uses, parking lots, and most of Anderson Park. There is also the old Meadows . The Meadows was built as a lodging facility. falter Paepckels dream was never fully completed. There was to be a few more major housing units. There are dwelling units . There is the trustee house which has been occupied on a short term and long term basis. There is a restaurant which can be inter- preted either as an accessory use or non accessory use. The health center also could be either an accessory or non accessor-',7 use . The restaurant and the health center have served the community for a number or years. Finally, there is vacant land or open space. The open space designation may be inappropriate because it is surrounded by the R-6 and R-15 residential zoning classification. There are also 27 acres of Meadows 85 acres that remains zoned conservation; 24 acres are academic use, 16 acres are the Neadows , and 15-20 acres are undeveloped. It is very difficult to determine the right zoning classification if the Commission follows the procedure that Richman is suggesting. One -one designation may not be appropriate. There is mixed use on the -property. It is wrong to assume that the entire 85 acres are purely academic. Richman responded that nothing precludes the multiple zones, the procedure does allow it. Doremus commented on the process. The risk of rezoning is not worth it. No one understands what the word "variation" means in a PUD or SPA. There is an incredible amount of confusion. Other boards do not understand the meaning of "variation. " The developer is penalized for this. Any kind of reliance on the flexibility of the PUD or SPA is risky. Pardee commented that the flexibility that is envisioned in SPA and PUD and is desired to create better projects Council does not 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 understand nor allows. The process creates a situation that the developer will not build that which is in the best interest of the city. The process tries to anticipate what the developer will build. The Comrnission should not place an appropriate underlying zone on a property it is not familiar with. At the same time there is not one zone which picks up the multiplicity of uses. SPA is the answer. Doremus said there is no reason to assume that 85 acres should be zoned with one zone. Can this parcel have three zones? Gideon Kaufman requested that no specific action be taken on the SPA amendments as they relate to Little ?Jell. Richman assured him that action would not be taken for another two .weeks. Hunt said a developer likes numbers to put into a computer. The developer wants to maximize his quantity. The developer wants to come up with an approach. The developer probably wants to see so many square feet for commercial use , so many square feet for lodge use, so many square feet for institutional use . That is an easy way out for the developer. Richman said that detail should be deleted from the SPA plan . There should only be a broad statement of intent. At some point there will be a rezoning on the :nap. I�otizir�g is being finalized here. The purpose of the SPA plan is to remove that level of detail. However, if it is too general, be more specific to the extent this can be done. The property should not be planned in the next two to three weeks in anticipation of a SPA. Harvey concurred. White said the word "variance" solicits different interpretations than what the Commission wants. Harvey said "variance" receives a different meaning as it applies to the Boari ot" Adjustment. The sword is really "variations. " Doremus said only two )ar being r +-a ,r,'iended for SPA designation. 1e wonders what would have happened if the process Richrnan is suggesting had been in effect for the Ashen Nou.l�ai project. Tio�w would v .e Aspen 'iountain project have �c :n treated with a SPA designation? Does SPA iily ; any use for future redeve- lo_ment in the city? vYill the SPA prows: be more understandable, or will there be less confusion with a PUD process? Ratner than attempting to pick a zoning classif ication initially why not write a paragraph that picks up the history of the ileadows and the desires of the developer in broad terms . Recognize , for e.,ample, that there might be a residential use in addition to the academic use. Realize the institute wants short term accommoda- tions. Expand the academic use. Tygre questioned the statement of intent. It evades the problem of what to do with a multi use type situation like the institute. People ' s perception of the history of the institute is very different depending how long one has been in town . PerhaE?s 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,. 1984 extend the institute' s statement of intent. The historical aspect of the parcel is one of the reasons why it is such an important site. The shear size of the parcel makes the parcel critical . She opposed an insertion as part of the intent of what the city might want to do. It is wrong for the Commission to anticipate that and take that away from the developer . If there is going to be a wish list there should be a general public list . Do not create reliance. Realize the wish list may be opposed. In this instance, the Commission needs to take an adversary position in terms of what the Commission wants to see on the parcel as opposed to what a developer might want to see. She suggested in this case specify what the Cor:imission wants to see developed at the institute parcel. Richi-iian asked if the Commission wants to move away from the underlying zone . The Commission responded no. Harvey said the point is that the SPA process allows for variations in the use from strict application of the zone. Peyton asked if there is not an underlying zone what are the variations from. Harvey remarked there has to be a zone because SPA is a process not a zone . There cannot be simply a SPA designation without an underlying zone. Paul Taddune, city attorney, remarked that a SPA allows the city to defer to its own staff and imagination. That is where the resistance is. The community does not trust deferring to the city staff. He interpreted SPA to be a free zone . Anything designated SPA gives the city absolute control and also gives the city the ability to master plan the parcel and to come up with what the city and the developer can agree to a site specific solution. Pardee concurred with Taddune. Council has said that SPA was a Pandora' s box because there were so many parcels designated SPA. But parcels with the SPA designation have been reduced to two. Those two parcels are very critical. He does not want to give any reliance . He wants to discourage residential development. Because these parcels are so critical to the city and its residents the Commission will accept review within the criteria of SPA. That takes into account adjoining uses , adjoining zones , etc. It will not create reliance. Let the developer come through the process with a plan with no reliance. One problem with the procedure through which the Aspen Hountain Lodge project is going through is reliance with all the underlying zones and the Council ' s misunderstanding of PUD or SPA. lie does not want an underlying zone on these critical parcels and does not want any reliance. Harvey suggested a statement of intent which indicates why the institute property is being designated SPA. List the historical uses that have occurred on the property. Deal with the academic, ..I with the institutional, with the Paepcke area, with the restaurant, with the health club, and wit'i-I the long and short term residential use. Pardee agreed with 11arveV. The statement expresses why RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 these areas are historically SPA. There should not be reliance. Richman said the statement is not an explanation of what the Commission wants to see developed there. It is an explanation why the Commission is designating the parcel with SPA. Harvey also suggested language about the impact on the west end neighborhood. Indicate the impact has been restricted because there has not been public lodging. The restaurant needs to be talked about in the statement of intent . Include how the restaurant has been used. Pardee discouraged the designation academic/SPA. He encouraged simply SPA. lie discouraged an underlying zone. There are only two parcels with that designation . He reasoned that if the academic portion is retained it becomes a bargaining chip. Use historical as the underlying zone. Use the language that SPA is the zone for those areas that do not easily fall within an underlying zone classification. Richman noted the city attorney would not be comfortable with SPA as an underlying zone . PUU has an underlying zone . SPA should also have an underlying zone. Pardee argued the underlying zone is the historical uses. Harvey remarked that zone designation does not exist. Joe Wells , consultant for the Aspen Nountain Lodge project, said the institute property has never been zoned academic. Harvey read a definition of academic use : "The intent is to establish areas used for education and cultural activities with attendant research housing and administrative facilities. All development is to proceed according to a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of article on special planned areas. Permitted uses are private school or universities, teaching hospital, research facilities , and testing laboratory, provided that such facilities are enclosed and that there are no adverse noise or environmental affects, auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures, galleries, museums, library, and administrative offices. Conditional uses are boarding house and dormitory for housing students and faculties, student health care facilities, student and faculty dining hall, satellite dish antennae. " Harvey said his concern with academic is it does not address the 11eadows Restaurant . The only reference to food is a dining facility for students and faculty. Does the academic zone qualify the restaurant as a nonconforming use? Is a use permit required? Richman said he did not Snow if there would be problems for existing operations without an approved SPA. Harvey noted the definition refers to :health care facilities not a health club. Hoarding housing and dormitories are conditional uses for 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 students and faculty. In reality, there exist lodge rooms and condominiums for participants in the seminars . Richman said clearly there is not a zone that encompasses what is there . That is the reason for the SPA. Harvey did not want to create nonconforming uses. Wells expressed surprise at moving away so drastically from t1--he approach which has been used for ten years to try to find a way to preserve the use of the institute. Ten years ago a decision was made not to apply academic zoning to the site simply because it was so inconsistent with a program that was to accommodate the use there. For the Commission to apply an academic zone district does create a series of nonconforming uses on the site. The zone classification should indicate a clear direction as to what the community feels is appropriate. The academic designation is not a clear guide as to what might be achieved with the retention of the institute. Harvey asked if anything else is zoned academic. Wells said nothing is zoned academic. Tygre said the academic classification is not all that bad. The fact is the academic zone may not include all the current uses, but as a general intent zone the academic designation is appropriate. Perhaps create a variation on the academic zone to include the current uses. The academic designation does address the intent the Commission wants to see there although it precludes some of the existing uses. Hunt said one way to eliminate the nonconforming status of the academic zone is to approve a SPA plan. That is the inducement to get a SPA plan . He reported that people voted against the the performing arts center because they did not want the building located on the Rio Grande property. Could a performing arts center be considered for the institute property? Richman said under the comprehensive plan the institute property is a place to be considered. Richman will put the history into the statement of intent for both the institute and the Rio Grande property. 1�7 e 1 public hearing on August ton Anderson moved to continue the p �I - 21 , 1984; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING THE NUGGET LODGE CONDOMINIUMIZATION-ZONING CORRECTION Colette Penne, planning office , introduced the case. There are two requests . One is to condom iniumize the lodge and the second is to correct zoning which the Commission is sponsoring. Harvey rioted the Commission does not have a problem with the zoning. Penne continued. The 1'iugget is zoned L-3 . It is conforming in terms of FAR; in fact the lodge is below tine FAR. The allowed 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 FAR is 1: 1 , it is . 53:1 . The applicant is providing the required employee housing. The applicant has presented an affidavit of what services have been provided for the past few years. The applicant is meeting all those services. Transportation services will not be provided since none has been provided before. The applicant is committing to retain membership in the Aspen Resort Association, is committing to advertise in the yellow pages, and to stay open for tourist use . (Bob 11orris, applicant , called himself the .Hotel Aspen, Limited . ) Common areas are being maintained or enhanced. The lodge will have to be physically upgraded with condominiumization. A city ordinance reads that at least 30% of the assessed value of the condominiumization has to be put into the project. The IC�-E h tax assessor ' s office determines the assessed value. is might T. be a moot point because the applicant is remodelling the entire lodge. The assessor adds 20% to the assessed value. That is the value after condominiumization. It is not a very specific science. That valuation after condominiumization is $163,000 . 3000 of that is $48, 900 . The applicant has committed to spend $350 , 000 on improvements. There is no problem in this case . There could be a problem in the future with this. Harvey inter- jected that one issue could be that an applicant states that they are going to spend a half million dollars on improvements to influence the Commission for the upgrading and condominiumization approval and turn around and spend much less. Penne said that cannot happen in this case, there are promissory notes. The engineering department did note that the applicant requests a vacation of the alley . There are some requirements . Penne attached a memo stating this is not a request for alley vacation. Harvey understood something is encroaching onto the alley. Anderson said 'historically the alley takes a left hand turn on to Bleeker Street. It is a dead end. Harvey' s concern is if something currently exists in the alley and the Commission approves condominiumization then is there a problem. Penne commented on the retention of utility easements through the alley. Harvey pointed out item two of Barry Edward ' s memo: "viewing the plat I see that engineering may have some comments regarding encroachment licenses required. . . the alley that appears to run through a used portion of the project. . . " Penne commented that Edwards is simply stating that if engineering determines that encroachment licenses are required, Edwards wants to review the language. Penne has not asked about this specifically, but she can. Hunt said the reference may be to the walkways in the alleys. The alley is landscaped. Harvey said if the Commission authorizes the area as common area as part of the condominiumization then the city does not have any review ability to say that it will not vacate the alley. Penne said the condominiumization and vacation are not dependent on each other. If the city does not want to vacate the alley because it wants to retain it as an right-of'-way use then the improvements have to be made. 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 Taunt said this brings up an issue with �Irtilur ' s Restaurant . The trucks back up to the dock and cross the street. The alley is effectively blocked off. Dunaway said the city gave Arthur ' s permission before the city blocked the alley off. That should be in the record. Hunt asked if the agreement was that the alley be upgraded for truck use. Dunaway did not recall the specifics. Penne recommended the rezoning of the east half of lots H and 0 to L-3 and that subdivision exception be recommended for the -ourpose of condominiumization of the Hotel aspen, formally the Nugget, with the conditions that the applicant submit and record a condominium map, that the applicant and the future condominium association is subject to special improvement districts, that the condominium declaration documents be approved by the city attorney following approval and prior to being recorded, that -)lans be submitted to upgrade the lodge by a value of $350 , 000 to the building department from nine months of this approval, that the work has to be completed within twelve months of the issuance of the permit, that the applicant will have to execute a promissory note payable to the city secured by a trustee deed encumbering the lodge property to insure the physical upgrading will be accomplished according to Section 20-23 (a) (6) (c) of the code, and that a deed restriction has to be approved by the city attorney and must be filed restricting unit ;x100 to employee Dousing. (Note in condition sir, county attorney should read city attorney. ) Penne assured the Commission that Gideon raufman has supplied the appropriate information in item one of the memo by Edwards. Harvey asked if the condominiumization runs with the land. Someone said yes. Hunt asked who reviews the $350 ,000 upgrading. Penne responded that HPC has reviewed the exterior upgrading. Hunt noted that if the plumbing is not addressed there will be problems. He knows the plumbing is composed of galvanized pipe and concrete slabs. I,7ithout a plumbing upgrade the project is not worth anything. Bob rlorris , applicant , said he will replace the plumbing systems. That is in the plans. Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne explained there was an incorrect legal description of the zoning. The action by the Commission is to correct the error. Harvey in response to a query by Peyton said the intention is to zone the entire parcel L-3 , a portion of the parcel was deleted in the legal description. Anderson reminded the Commission of a case a feet years ago, the Black Swan condominiums on Ute Avenue. The original name was too close to the Cottonwood condominiums. In the subdivision process 119 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 the Black Swan was required to change its name because the name was causing confusion. To date there has been before the Commission the Aspen Ski Lodge , the Aspen Nountain Lodge , the Lodge of Aspen, the Aspen, the Hotel Aspen, and the Inn at Aspen. This is confusing to tourists in partic;u3 -ar. ,orris explained the purpose of the name. He started with the 99 Nugget . e talked to marketing -1c . The na.L.- — Ot rei-And-ed many people oJ: Las Vegas. T11e wanted sometilling t1­l cat was a little differs i and yet not totally different . There are only three hotels in As)en: Hotel Jeroiniie, Hot-L'l Aspen, and 1110te1 Lenado. This project is not a lodge, inn, or motel. The logo has - en c big word on tle logo. s be lesigned. "I'llotel" is a I I'A 2inde r son thought- there is something in the codie which addresses ,.,iai.-,ing one subdivision or one condominiu,­,Azation similar in name to another all(], that it confuses the tourists. Morris agreed the original proposal was the "Lodge of Aspen" but it was decided that was too confusing. .,orris re-minded the Commission there T is the Aspen Ski Lodge and Aspen Ski Lodge Two. The word "hotel " is used in only two other names. That is why "Hotel Aspen" was chosen. "Hotel " is prominent on the stationary and the logo. The lodging is listed in the telephone book as "Hotel Aspen. " Norris noted one-third of the listings in the phone book, incorporate the word "Aspen" in their name. Anderson read from the municipal code, page 121�, Section 20- 12 (b) : "Proposed name of the subdivision which shall not be the same or similar to any name used on a recorded plat in Pit-kin County, Colorado. " That was the justification used by Council for the condominiums on Ute Avenue. Hunt suggested including a recomr,.tendation that Council enforce that ordinance. It is becoming very confusing among commercial lodging facilities that are using the name "Aspen. " Harvey said convey this with this particular application and cite the section in the code . '.!orris asked if under the same argument the Aspen 11ountain Lodge should be denied its use of that name. Harvey said he is trying to make Council aware that there are many pending projects in the planning stage which are using the name "Aspen. " There will be a substantial problem. Penne asked how the Commission wants to write this condition. Pardee said include this as a condition of approval . Harvey suggested language that Council consider the -particular section of the code and then consider a request for a name change because of the great confusion with the number of similar names. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984. T the applicant, noted the first ,)avid EisensCein, attorney for affect on the applicant a name change is economic. Also, consider the purpose of the provision in the code that one should not name something deceptively similar to something else . The idea is consumer protection . If someone subdivided a small , poor piece of land and named it Starwood East the consumer is protected from the deceptively similar name as Starwood and would be protected from buying into the project the consumer thought was the quality of Starwood. This project is different. This is not raw land that is being subdivided into building sites. This project is the condominiumization of a lodge. In many cities businesses are named after the city. In this case the name is the Hotel Aspen. The name is a modification which takes out any similarity. Consider that in the recommendation. rLnaddune noted there are state regulations which address this . This is not necessarily a land use planning issue. Harvey informed Taddune this is in the municipal code . The code states that no subdivision shall be named similarly to another. Harvey said the Commission' s intent is not so much to -,put the onus on the applicant to change the name as it is to put Council. on notice of the fact that the Commission is concerned about the number of names which incorporates the word "Aspen" and that Council does have the mechanism to act on this. Hunt ' s concern is identifying this project as hotel. The concept of "hotel " is being stretched. Morris said on the plat the legal description will be "'Hotel Aspen, condominiumized lot . " Pardee concurred with Hunt. Hotel is deceptive. Hotel Aspen sounds like a full service hotel . Pardee suggested that the project not be called "Hotel Aspen. " The name is not only con-'using but it is also deceptive. The project should not be called a hotel unless in fact the project is delivering hotel services . This deception will hurt not only the applicant but also all the accommodations in Aspen. Eisenstein mentioned that it is a requirement the name be followed by the words a lodge condominium or condominiunized lodge on the plat and the condominium document . Morris responded to the argument of name deception. This project will have the highest level of service in comparison to any other place in this town. There is not the ability to have a restaurant on site now. The rooms will include wool carpeting, jacuzzi ' s , enclosed solariums, wet bars, etc. There will be a variety of services. Therc is the expectation to go through a GMP application in the future for expansion. The level of services is planned to be high. Harvey read the recommendation : "The Commission recommends Council consider the choice of the name "Hotel Aspen" under the criteria of Section because of the confusion of so Zany similar lodge names in town. Further the use of hotel 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 is deceptive. " Harvey suggested adding : "given the oroposed amenities and service. " Pardee added: "as compared to the general conception held by the public of services provided by a hotel. " Harvey closed the public hearing. Lee Pardee moved to recommend rezoning of the east one half of lots E and 0 to L-3 and subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization of the Hotel Aspen, formally the Nugget Lodge with the -following conditions (extracted from the planning office memo dated August 7 , 1904) : 1 . Submission and recordation of a condominium map. 2. The applicant and future condominium association is subject to participation in future improvement districts by covenant pursuant to the city' s standard language . 3 . The condominium declaration and associated documents must be approved by the city attorney following approval and prior to recordation. 4. Submission of plans to upgrade the lodge by a value of $350 , 000 to the building department within nine (9) months of this approval and the work must be completed within twelve (12) months of the issuance of the building permit. 5. Execution of a promissory note payable to the city secured by a trust deed encumbering the lodge property to assure that the physical upgrading will be accom- plished. The terms of the note shall be as set out in Section 20-23 (a) (6) (c) of the code. A deed restriction approved by the city attorney must be f iled with the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado , restricting unit 1,U00 to employee housing guidelines. I-7ith an additional condition: 7 . Council should consider the choice of the name "Hotel Aspen" under the criteria of Section 20-12 (b) because of the so many similar lodge names in town and, further- more, the use of the term "hotel " is deceptive considering the perception of term by the general public. The motion is seconded by Mary Peyton. Discussion. Hunt requested a minor amendment to the basic motion. Indicate that the rezoning of these half lots is to correct a surveying error . Pardee moved to amend his motion to include the rezoning is to correct an error , it is an administrative 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 rezoning; seconded by Mary Peyton. Anderson requested strengthening condition seven to make a condition of approval that the name "Hotel Aspen" be changed not to include the word "Aspen. " Pardee moved to amend his motion again to include Anderson' s suggestion; seconded by Mary Peyton. The final motion read: The Commission moved to recommend rezoning of the east one half of lots E and 0 to L-3 to correct an error in administrative rezoning and subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiu- mization of the Hotel Aspen , formally the Nugget Lodge with the following conditions (extracted from the planning office memo dated August 7, 1984) : 1. Submission and recordation of a condominium map. 2. The applicant and future condominium association is subject to participation in future improvement districts by covenant pursuant to the city ' s standard language. 3 . The condominium declaration and associated documents must be approved by the city attorney following approval and prior to recordation. 4. Submission of plans to upgrade the lodge by a value of $350 , 000 to the building department within nine (9) months of this approval and the work must be completed within twelve (12) months of the issuance of the building permit. 5. Execution of a promissory note payable to the city secured by a trust deed encumbering the lodge property to assure that the physical upgrading will be accom- plished. The terms of the note shall be as set out in Section 20-23 (a) (6) (c) of the code. 6 . A deed restriction approved by the city attorney must be filed with the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, restricting unit k 100 to em- ployee housing guidelines. "Jith an additional condition: 7 . Council should consider the choice of the name "Hotel Aspen" under the criteria of Section 20-12 (b ) and that as a condition of approval that the the name "Hotel Aspen" be changed not to include "Aspen" because of so many similar lodge names in town and, further- more, the use of the term "hotel" is deceptive considering the perception of term by the general public. Lee Pardee moved to approve the motion; seconded by liary Peyton. 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission August 7, 1984 All in favor ; motion carried with Jasmine Tygre opposed. THE ASPEN AMENDMENT TO GMP SUBMISSION/FAR SPECIAL REVIEW Penne said the lodge is L-3 . It went through GMP last year . The applicant asked for three units to be placed on stilts in the parking lot. 17hen the applicant came back through special review a-,pproval to increase the maximum FAR of 1 : 1 the Commission directed the applicant to redesign the rooms in some way that the rooms would not be in the parking lot on stilts. The germaine issue now is whether the Commission has to rescore this or can the Commission go through without a formal rescoring to determine if the application meets threshold. There is a big change in design. The applicant is not saying post-GNP that he wants a major change in the design. Instead the applicant was directed by the Commission based on the planning office ' s recom- mendation to change the design. The lodge units fit into the growth management criteria and do not affect growth negatively. The new design does meet the threshold score . There are no changes which would alter the scoring of the amenities provided for the guest or the conformance of public policy goals . In category one , public facilities and services, there will be no changed scores for water, sewer, storm drainage, or roads. However, one fire hydrant is elimi- nated. An extra fire hydrant is needed because of the extra building location. One point is subtracted for the removal of the hydrant. Category one totals 5 . 85 points rather than 6. 85 points. There are scoring changes in all areas of category two. In the memo, she outlined the previous scores by the commissioners . in terms of architectural design , most commissioners scored the application low; the average was 1 . 5. In site design, the average was one because of circulation problems in the parking lot. Energy conservation scored high and there are not many changes in the new application. Parking and circulation are improved by removing the structure and stilts from the parkling lot . The visual impact witil the new design has been minimized. All those points are increased. T,lith the multipliers , the score is in- creased . Unless the Commission disagrees then the scores are increased in the categories of architectural design, site design, parking, visual impact, etc. The new project has a much higher score than earlier. The score is above the threshold. Harvey asked LE anyone disagrees in principal that the categories are improved with the new design. Penne came up wit hl a recommended score of 706 .27 . The Commission specifically required. 20 parking spaces . Those 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7. 1984 spaces have been paved and delineated. Dave Gibson, applicant, said the twentieth space will be installed when the addition is made. Penne noted one drywell will be removed, but there will be a new roof with a new structure. Site drainage will be retained on site. Penne concluded the new solution is much better than the stilt structure. The design is of minimal visual impact. The Commission has already evaluated the project as sufficiently scored. She recommended that the applicant be allowed to increase the FAR to a maximum of 1 : 1 in the proposed configuration with three roof- topped penthouse units with four conditions 'Listed in the planning office memo dated August 7, 1984 . Condition three and four are carried over from the earlier approval. I.Tarvey asked if the traffic flow was a prior condition. P c n,,i e responded that Jay Hammond wanted to male sure that the cars did not exit on Idain Street , he wanted to make sure that the alley is used. Dave Gibson Dresented plans , elevations , and perspectives of the project. He indicated the old design and compared it to the new proposal . The new design includes a roof structure with penthouse units. Pardee asked if the new design complies with height restrictions in the zone . Gibson answered the ridge limit is observed. The structure masses toward the southwest corner , away from the area of most visibility. He indicated the parking plan and the area Hammond is concerned about . He confirmed that the parking spaces are regulation spaces. Harvey said, the original design includes solar devices on the Stilts. Gibson indicated how the solar assist for hot water systems will be accommodated in the new design. Dunaway asked about the height . Gibson replied that 25 feet to the top of the roof with additional five feet to the ridgeline 4 is allowed in the L-3 zone . The thirty foot ridge height is being observed. Jasmine Tygre moved to grant special review approval to allow the Aspen to increase their floor area ratio as proposed and not to e-.,-ceed the L-3 zone ' s maximum of 1 : 1 by the addition of three new roof-top units with the following conditions. : 1 . On site water accumulation must be retained and dealt with on site. 2. A new sidewalk along the west side of Second Street from 11-lain Street to the alley must be provided. 3 . All lodge traffic shall be required to exit the site I via the alley. This eliminates a --Ad-block conflict on Main Street. 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1984 A . Installation of clearly visible signing to indicate '"No Exit" on to Main Street. Signing also to indicate the parking lot exit to the alley. (Conditions extracted from the planning office memo dated August 7, 1984 . ) The motion is seconded by Lee Pardee . ,,jiscussion. Anderson asked if this is also an amendment to the GHP submission . Penne e,:plained this is not an amendment to the 1314P solution but it is a subsequent review. The Commission does not need to take action to amend a G"P submission. I I u 1 it as'K.ed if the motion should indicate that the changed that occur. rc-,-., was at the Commission' s request. to the mot-ion: the %'-'o.m-,,,,ission gives the special review ap,, roval --ind sc e C D t`ie Commission allows t"Ie af..-ier cl,.ient o--'L 4 sul ,.,iission bec u- - It WZ'Is at tIie Commission' s, recluost. I Jas lino Tlycfrc, movec] to f)r,'iend IC-lic -,lotion to include : t-nis chang,-% ,7a, s in accordance the -,,')rlor reciuest by the Co-in-mission ; s°cond',ed 'bv Lee Parcuee . All in `L�avor ; motion carriedi. I T 1- the Yieeting a- 7 :1 - �.Iarvev adjourne` �L: ty City Clerk Oarbara ;?orris, Depu