Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19841002 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 03 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Harvey commented on the letter sent to the commissioners whose terms have expired. Harvey encouraged Hunt, Tygre, and Pardee to definitely reapply. The city is now ,following proper procedures; when a term expires the opened position is publicly noticed and new applications are encouraged. Hunt requested a reaffirmation of his position now. Is he allowed to sit as a commissioner until he is reappointed or relieved? Harvey replied that Hunt can sit on the Commission until relieved. (Jasmine Tygre arrives in the chambers. ) Harvey reminded the commissioners there is a joint meeting with City Council on October 15th at 5: 00 p.m. in the council cham- bers. This will be a work session on SPA. Alan Richman, planning office , remarked that Council has many questions about the resolution. He preferred the commissioners as opposed to the staff answer the councilmembers' questions about the resolution. He wanted the councilmembers to see that the commissioners support the resolution. Harvey asked Tygre if she has reapplied. Tygre replied yes. .1hite reminded the commissioners that tomorrow at 4 : 20 p. m. in the council chambers Council will resume its discussion over splitting the planning department. MINUTE September 18. 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING AGATE LODGE Harvey said this is a pre-application meeting on the Agate Lodge. The problem is that the PUD requires architectural review. The applicant requests an approach to mandatory PUD that does not require the review of the architectural design. Colette Penner planning office, reminded the Commission it reviewed the application on the Agate which was submitted by 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 Stevenson and his group a few months ago. They had the property under option from Butch Clark. Stevenson ' s group presented a plan which had some problems. The Commission defined those problems and suggested revisions in certain areas of the plan. Stevenson' s group did that, but the Commission still had problems with certain fundamental areas in the site planning. The Commission again directed the group to address the issues. The Stevenson' s group decided it did not want to work with the city; the group decided not to purchase the property. The property is still owned by Butch Clark. Clark wants the Commission to discuss why the mandatory PUD was imposed on the property. Is there an approach which would not require the design of the houses and would not require the review of the architectural design. Could the Commission just review a site plan? Would the Commission support the removal of the PUD so that the parcel is zoned R-6? The R-6 zone would be in conjunction with the west end neighborhood. Clark does not want to design and build the entire project. Clark wants to go through full subdivision, divide the parcel into into single family and duplex lots , and sell those subdivided lots to individuals who would design their own houses. Penne reviewed the requirements of the PUD and the feelings of the planning office. Remember this is only a pre-application conference and discussion. One question the Commission needs to answer is whether or not to amend the code in the PUD section. Would the Commission support removing a PUD through a rezoning? Architectural design and landscaping plans are required under the preliminary PUD plan. The code reads that the plans should be in sufficient detail to enable the planning commission to re-evaluate the architectural and landscaping design features of the develop- ment. The plans should show the location of floor area of both existing and proposed buildings, the maximum heights, the types of dwelling units, etc. The Commission is provided a commencement and completion construction table. The Commission is provided preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of all structures and improvements. The proposal by Tom Wells, representative for Mr. Clark, is for full subdivision of the property. Those lots would be sold as raw land for the development of single family units or duplex units without architectural design. There possibly would be a site plan . This proposal is difficult. The division is along original townsite lots. Wells has indicated his client would be flexible about lot arrangements offered under a PUD. But the applicant does not want to design houses. The PUD can be utilized 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 in terms of the land planning. But, the applicant does not want to go through all the requirements of PUD. Planning office believed that the PUD overlay was placed on that particular property because of its visual sensitivity. The property has a real impact on the entrance to Aspen. Therefore, it is important to review more than a site plan for the property. There are no slope or viewplane problems. [dells did mention in his letter of application, which is included in the commissioners' packet, that originally the property was used for a lodge. But, during the L-3 rezoning process the property was used for long term residential accommodations. The argument by Tlells is that things have changed and therefore the PUD is not appropriate anymore. Planning office disagrees. Nothing has changed. The use on the property is not as important as its exterior, visual impact. Penne recommended a solution to accomplish what the applicant wants. Perhaps the parcel should be zoned R-6 without a PUD overlay. The disadvantage with that solution is it does not provide the flexibility to be innovative with the property. R-6 has a certain amount of compatibility with the neighborhood. Many R-6 neighborhoods exist along the original townsite lots . The houses in those neighborhoods are heterogeneous ; there are Victorians next to contemporary structures. Harvey understood the Commission' s concerns during the original application process was the visibility of the property (it is the first piece of property that one sees as one comes into town) ; the trees; and the elimination of the alleys. If a PUD land plan were done then the city might end up with a proper design. Deal with regular townsite lots then. Hunt remarked given the greater amount of setback on Seventh Street there would be more natural landscaping needed to buffer the noise from the dwelling units. That corner is noisy. An audio type barrier is needed. The PUD discussion anticipated the development of the property into a semi-commercial use. He did not have a problem with a straight subdivision. But there will be problems subdividing along the straight existing lot lines, especially for the lots along Seventh Street. Tom Wells , representative for the applicant, investigated what was meant by "more creativity allowed within a PUD. " He misunder- stood the PUD process in Aspen. He assumed that PUD could be used either for full blown developments or only for land subdivi- sions. Most communities provide the options. Usually one could take advantage of the mixing and matching of density and/or land 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 uses allowed in the process . In Aspen one has to go through steps A to Z , there are no interim steps . The system is built into the PUD ordinance. An applicant has no choice to not fully develop a project . The PUD ordinance will not accept Clark ' s intentions of designing a buffer and using some lot lines. The PUD requires review of a development through the entire process. 17ells did not suggest eliminating the PUD. The PUD is the one chance for the city -to look at a very sensitive lot. - He agreed with certain points in the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984 . The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen and should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of the community. The PUD overlay will allow for innovation in the site plan, retention of some major trees , a provision for a buffer along Seventh Street, and clustering of lots or structures. _..freed with that statement 100% . The lot is very v---,:ial. :e Agate Lodge is certainly substandard and has been that way for a long time. A PUD was imposed on the assumption that the property would be developed as a lodge. The city wanted to make sure a good project was developed there. I4leanwhile , the owner voluntarily engaged in long term rentals . The property was under long term rental when the L-3 zone which preserved lodge zoning was established. The property did not qualify for the L-3 status. The PUD still exists. Clark can develop the property himself. He can hire an architect to design a total development plan. He can find another developer who would accept that design. Or he can sell the property to another developer who would provide an alternative design. The extreme solution is to break the property along the lot lines into normal patterns of the R-6 zone and not respect the fact that the lot is special. House sites could be established and sold as residential lots, either as single family units or duplex units, with no change in density, no change in unit count. But the code does not address this. These individual lots could be designated with a PUD overlay, similar to Castle Creek Drive. He encouraged the varied natural textures of the west end community over a homogeneous development like the Villas. The west end is picturesque: new and remodeled Victorians side by side with contemporary architecture. He preferred to go through the PUD process as a land plan process. The R-6 underlying zoning establishes the density, therefore, there is no change in the density. Creativity can be established under a PUD. Perhaps berms and walls and landscaping can be established on Seventh Street to protect the visually sensitive area before the development is 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 built. Ile cannot detail the exact conditions. But, it is not realistic to establish building envelopes or driveways or to determine which trees to save under the individually owned concept . He cannot dictate to everyone how to design their houses. He envisioned many small duplexes , similar to the project for Doremus on Smuggler between Seventh and Eighth. He preferred a design of quiet small buildings. An entire block of similarly designed structures would not be interesting . Ile favored the varied textures of the west end along that visually vulnerable block. Harvey quoted from the planning office memo dated October 2, 1984 , page one, paragraph one : "sufficient detail to enable the planning Commission to evaluate the architectural, landscaping, and design features of the planned unit development. . . the plan should show the location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings, structures . . . including maximum heights, types of dwelling units. . . " Harvey asked why certain requirements cannot be waived within the PUD process. Richman replied the code does not allow the Commission to waive those requirements. Harvey argued the code allows for variances within a PUD. Perhaps an architectural control committee can be established for the project. Pardee reasoned there is a PUD overlay because the site is visually critical. Many times mandatory PUD is placed on a property for slope reduction without requiring architectural plans. The critical reason mandatory PUD is imposed on some properties is because of the slope. The area reduced by the slope affects the density. The critical reason the PUD is imposed on this lot is because of its visual vulnera- bility. Therefore, he does see a problem with a site or land PUD. Penne explained there is a problem. The only thing that is exempt under a mandatory PUD is a single family house. Even the owners of duplexe-s,- like Roush, - had- to come in with a request for exemption from mandatory PUD. Pardee suggested an exemption from PUD if the applicant were to agree to restrictions defined on the property by the Commission. Penne argued a PUD may be desirable for the buffer zone. Harvey interpreted Pardee ' s recommendation: blackmail an applicant from an exemption from PUD with an approved land plan. Pardee said the Commission is not so concerned with the area to the east. He would insist there be a buffer on Seventh Street. He would insist the design plans for the first two homes on Seventh Street be reviewed. Exempt the other lots from PUD . Under PUD he would be willing to grant the allowed 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 maximum FAR for a 6 ,000 square foot lot even though each lot may be less than 6,000 square feet. The lots may lose land, approxi- mately 500 square feet, to the buffer zone. Wells commented that Clark ' s original preliminary layout included two duplex lots on Seventh Street, which provided 90 feet to play with. That layout provided flexibility to create a meandering buffer. Pardee requested the trees be saved and the alley be maintained. Harvey interjected the issue is not what the Commission wants to see in the PUD, but the issue is how can Clark ' s request be done legally within a PUD. If there is not a legal solution, then should the PUD be removed. Richman explained this request can be accomplished through an exemption from mandatory PUD. If the Commission were to find the development meets the intents and purposes of PUD then the applicant would not have to go through all the rigorous requirements of PUD. However, the applicant would still have to go through full subdivision. This project would have to go before the Commission and Council twice. He did not know if Council would agree to this concept. The Commission is entrusted with exemptions from mandatory PUD. If the project were consistent with PUD intent then the project might not have to meet the PUD requirements. From the perspective of design and results Wells said he did not have a problem with Pardee' s recommendation. However, that solution still forces Clark into either designing or developing the two duplexes on Seventh Street. Perhaps there could be an agreement that the city maintains total control. With the understanding that their is PUD, that their is a buffer, the Commission can review those two duplexes as they come along as a neighborhood PUD overlay. Wells specified that Clark' s original plan included two duplex lots 90 feet from Seventh Street, and three single family units on each side of Sixth or a total of six single family units. white remembered the Commission' s concern during the review of the original application was the buffer , the trees , and the alley. There was a concern about the homogeneity of the houses. He favored the varied textures. If there were someway the city could have its concerns on Seventh Street mitigated and the applicant could accomplish his goals then he would be willing to work out a system whereby free enterprise was not limited in the less critical portion of the entire site. Perhaps an easement is the answer. Wells assured the Commission that the R-6 zone spells out height, 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 setbacks , floor area, parking , everything. It is only the aesthetics of the design concept that the Commission is required to review. White encouraged the solution be as simple as possible. He would be willing to remove the restrictions of a PUD on much of the site if the city were to receive what it wants on Seventh Street. wells remarked the city does not have an architectural review committee. Hunt recommended that the Commission establish the preconditions which the Commission has stated before. If lot M were to stay within those prior stated conditions for the entire PUD then the Commission would define the lot for FAR purposes as 6 ,000 square feet even though the lot was only 5,500 square feet. If all the prior conditions were met by the individual lots then what would be the problem. If the lots were to maintain the precondi- tions then the lots would be exempt from the PUD. Require that the two lots on Seventh Street have a full PUD. Richman suggested the Commission come to a consensus as to whether the applicant ' s approach is acceptable. Do not design the legal solution, let the planning office discuss a legal solution to the problem with the city attorney. If the Commission were not worried about consistent architecture across the entire PUD then that would be all the planning office needs to know to work with the applicant. Tygre noted the PUD overlay will have to remain. If the buffer zone were created the PUD would have to remain to address the changes in the sizes and arrangements of the houses. Harvey said the site plan indicates conforming lots ; the con- figuration is six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet, six thousand square feet, and nine thousand square feet. The buffer area would be some kind of easement. The difficulty is creating the mechanism which would provide for permanent maintenance of the buffer zone, whether it be a stonewall with ivy or whatever . If the owner of this particular lot were to grant an easement to the city, then how would the buffer zone be maintained by future property owners. There is no incentive to maintain the buffer. The buffer zone generates nonconforming lots on Seventh Street. The critical question is should the city require a PUD on those two duplex lots fronting Seventh. Should the city require the owner or developer to create the buffer the way the city wants? If so, should the buffer become a common element in an homeowners organization even though those two duplex lot owners would maintain the buffer? On the other hand, if an easement were given to the city, then the city could create and maintain the buffer area as it wants. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 Pardee asked if a duplex or a single family structure is going on the duplex lot . If a duplex were built there, then it would occupy a greater portion of the extra lot. The city would not gain that much. The concern is the size, description, and looks of the two duplexes or single family homes. The other concern is the appearance of the buffer. He would not release anything until the city has reviewed those two lots. [dells repeated he still does not want to design the buildings. The city is forcing Clark to develop something he does not want to develop. Design flexibility is important. Flexibility is much greater with a duplex on 90 feet rather than with a single family house on 60 feet. Pardee opposed the development of the six family units without addressing the two most critical lots. He did not want to see the most critical lots developed or reviewed last. Pardee would not release any PUD until the Commission has reviewed those two parcels and reviewed the mitigations. Wells commented that the original layout by Clark included a buffer . But the original plan did not consider who would maintain the buffer. It would be advantageous if the city maintained the buffer . The city could coordinate the buffer with the island. The city could define and maintain the kinds of trees and shrubs in area. Then Commission can review the design when the duplexes come up for development. Pardee asked if the same setbacks would be maintained for a duplex. How much would be given to the city? Harvey answered that would be determined through the process of negotiation. Harvey asked if the Commission favored an approach to enable the Commission to do a PUD land plan for the critical Seventh Street frontage and if the Commission favored retaining the PUD overlay on those two lots . Richman interjected that PUD involves a minimum of 27 ,000 square feet. This solution is not workable . Harvey asked the Commission ' s position about exploring a thirty foot easement. Harvey concluded the solution will probably be some agreed upon land plan and easement granted to the city. The city would then maintain that sensitive part of the property. Penne remarked the Commission may not want to extract the maximum density for the property. Even if the Commission were to want a buffer without a PUD there might not be room for maximum allowed density. The suggestion to allow the maximum FAR that the block will absorb is not necessarily a good solution. If houses with 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 maximum FAR were allowed and if the houses were grouped more closely together, then there might result a tighter grouping of larger houses. The visual impact would be massive. Wells maintained that the lot sizes did not have to be limited. Keep the full PUD process for the two sensitive lots on Seventh. Richman reiterated that cannot be done, PUD requires 27 ,000 square feet. Hunt said keep the PUD on the entire block but exempt the lots which comply with the preconditions from the PUD requirements. Richman supported the exemption approach. Keep the PUD on the entire property. Go through PUD review procedures. The Commission could determine that full architecture was not appropriate and could exempt the individual owners from the full architectural procedures if the applicant were to demonstrate the alleviation of the Commission' s concerns with sufficient detailed information. If the Commission were to agree with this concept then planning office with the city attorney could try to design a program to make that happen. Pardee asked the Commission if it wants to review the architectural design of the two houses on Seventh Street. Seven commissioners favored this; one opposed. Pardee commented that it was a mistake to impose the PUD on the entire block. But he would not support removing the PUD until the two most critical parcels are reviewed. Fallin did not support carte blanche exemption nor did she support the request by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE CONCEPTUAL GMP SUBMISSION AND SCORING SESSION Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne provided the commissioners a project profile and the score sheets. There is only one application. It is for 4,500 square feet of commercial space. The space is part of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. The applicant came through the original lodge competition with a proposal for 8,500 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space has been reduced to 4 , 500 . The commercial space is on the ground floor of the hotel. The space is for retail space for permitted uses in the cl zone; the same uses permitted in cc with the provision that the space is at street level with lodging above. The quota available in the cl and other zones is 3,000 square feet. The request is for a year and one-half quota. Harvey acknowledged that 3 ,000 square feet is available in the 1984 quota. But, how many square feet did Council eliminate in 1983? 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 There was an 8,000 square foot accumulation over the years of unallocated commercial square footage. Penne commented it does not make sense to phase 4, 500 square feet over the years. Harvey reasoned the Commission is officially taking from future years allocation, but remember there was 8 , 000 square feet from the past never used. Penne noted that construction activity like the Skier Chalet and the Pro Shop at the golf course are subtracted from this category. Skier Chalet is exempt from the allocation because it is an historically designated structure. Penne remarked all employee housing is being considered for the lodge project as a whole. The employee housing number is still being revised. The number of employees has been reduced drama- tically since the original submission. The provision of housing for this particular application, 4 ,500 square feet of commercial space, is for six employees in addition to the lodge' s require- ments. These six employees will be put in housing at the Airport Business Center. Th sL anits will be converted from free icarket to emp :yee housing. As __°,-:,hers are refined in preliminary PUD for the entire hotel project , the six employees for this application will remain fixed. Those six have to be provided. Harvey said 4,500 square feet translates to 15. 8 employees (4 , 500 times 3.5 employee per thousand square feet generated in the cl zone totals 15. 8 total employees) . Six employees are only 38% of the total required. Track these six employees. Keep these six employees in perspective with the 15 . 8 figure. The employee figure needs to be related to employees per 1 ,000 square feet and to be related to the project. Penne encouraged the Commission to consider the amenities package for this project as part and parcel of the entire hotel project. Peyton asked if there is a formula for determining the number of employees based on the zone category. Penne explained use is the critical factor; 3 .5 employees per 1 ,000 square feet of commercial use . Peyton asked if the planning office has calculated the total number of employees generated for the entire PUD based on the square footage per use. Penne answered yes. But, she is not familiar with the numbers. Vann has been handling this. Joe Wells, consultant for the applicant, explained the figures have been developed over the years by the housing authority. A formula exists. Peyton asked if all the different uses for the hotel are added together for a total number of employees for the PUD. Someone said yes. Hunt cited some problem areas in the application. How will this commercial space be serviced by service and delivery vehicles? 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 Commercial uses require semi-vehicles , trucks , and service vehicles. J. Wells responded the service bay as proposed is along Deane. The proposal complies with the city' s standards . Hunt said the city standards may not be good enough. The commercial building will probably accommodate a ski shop and other retail spaces which will require some degree of service vehicles. Deane Street appears to be a divided street or two single lanes with a divider in the middle of the street. Park a semi-vehicle or truck which services the building on Deane and the circulation is affected. Accommodate the service vehicles on Galena or Durant Street, a main transit route, the circulation again is affected. There is a major design flaw for the service vehicles. J. ,fells clarified there is a service bay for semi-vehicles and trucks at the east side of the east wing of the hotel . He considered refiling the hotel application in order to obtain a scoring for the commercial project. Harvey said details have not been shown for this problem. J. Wells again said there is a full blown service bay associated with the east side of the hotel. Hunt asked the location of the service bay on page twenty-three of the documented submitted for the GMP application. Incidentally, page twenty-three and page twenty do not agree. He does not understand what is going on. The proposal is insufficient . John Doremus, consultant for the applicant, mentioned the median on Deane is nonexistent in the current plan. Perhaps include that as a caveat in a condition of approval. This is not an alley to be used necessarily by other trucks. The public may access the street although the applicant owns the street . Therefore , the regulations regarding parking can be somewhat different than the parking regulations on an alley or public street . The easiest way to handle semi-vehicles and cars on Deane, which has no median, is to create a two way alley which would be twice as wide than a standard allev. Remember the building is a one floor commercial building. The commercial building will not be as active as a two to four story building. :Iunt interjected part of the problem is exacerbated by the fact :.e has not received any floor plan of the commercial building. Service areas are extremely important . There are also major inefficiencies in the service bay for the main hotel project. These issues need to be addressed. J. tlells reminded the commissioners the project is continu-a,i,7 in iiu_:. This is a conceptual review. Tile prorc;:_: __):aplies with the service requirements of the city. There is a ramp proposed to tale underground parking in the immediate area to accommodate service vehicles . Review that option later on in the oth er review TDrocess . Presently, there is a service bay on Deane Street; the street will be vacated for the applicant ' s ownershi � on the south end of the commercial building . There is also a 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 complete service bay associated with the east wing of the hotel. The full range of service solutions should be handled through the Preliminary review process. Hunt noted there is no curb cut shown on the sidewalk on Deane. He does not see a service area for the commercial building . J, Hells again said the building is constantly being redesigned. the only assurance he can give to the Commission is that it will have another opportunity to address this issue during preliminary review. Penne worked on certain assumptions for the scoring. If the proposal were to get through the entire conceptual PUD with a major design flaw then the system might not be working well . But , there is a preliminary PUD coming up. Any of those specific details can be worked out at that level. It is difficult to separate and divorce a small 4, 500 square foot segment from such a large project as the Aspen Mountain PUD. It is difficult to score the 4 , 500 square foot segment. The Commission has to assume that the -plan is at an acceptable level of design since the overall project has been extensively run through one step of the process. Hunt said even if the overall design is acceptable there are details which are quite unacceptable. Harvey said site design addresses landscaping and open space, it also addresses arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service vehicles. This specific scoring category for this appli- cation is deficient to the degree the Commission cannot satisfac- torily give it a score of excellence . Penne said there will be sufficient opportunity to work these details out at the preliminary level. Harvey commented that Hunt can by right score the category with a zero because the design is deficient in addressing service vehicles and circulation. J. Wells reiterated the city defines the standards that an applicant complies with. This applicant has complied with the established standard. The document states the applicant complies with the trash and access standards as currently defined with the city. Harvey responded but there is no design presented. Hunt believed the discussion in the submission under the category of energy is deficient also . The submission discusses lodge conditions but the discussion does not relate to the commercial portion of the lodge. The conditions of unoccupied rooms are not necessarily applicable to commerical spaces. The discussion does not sufficiently identify energy efficient equipment and design. "HBAC air conditioning" normally means closed cycled refrigeration type air conditioning. That is not an efficient system for commercial space. Harvey thought there was a generic reference 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 to heating ventilation and air conditioning. Hunt said there is insufficient information to grade this category with a good score. J. Ilells said the 4, 500 square feet of commercial space is a minor element to the whole. The overall issue of energy for the 500 ,000 square foot property is much more important than the issue of energy for 4,500 square feet. White said it is difficult to score this application when the overall project needs to be considered. One concern is with transportation; there is no circulation plan. There is a problem reviewing and evaluating one discreet proposal from an overall project. lie criticized the system : the Commission does not receive enough information for the one discreet project and vet proceeds to approve the discreet proposal. Is there a place to comment about the insufficient information? In order to evaluate the discreet proposal there is certain information which is needed now that will not come forward until the overall project is reviewed. Presently, there is no circulation plan for vehicles and pedestrians for the commercial space. Pardee argued there is a difference between conceptual and preliminary review. It would be unfair to require finite , exact, detailed architectural plans until the applicant receives conceptual approval . Harvey reasoned when an applicant is looking for approval to build only a lot then the GMP process is the greatest level of detail . But this particular case is associated with a preliminary PUD application. The preliminary review will be the appropriate forum for the detailed submission. There is a loop_ of good faith. Tygre shared the concerns expressed by Hunt and White . There is every reason to believe the applicant will show designs for all these concerns at -preliminary. The applicant is redesigning all the time. But, there is still a fee-ling that this is out of control . There are many elements to this project. Normally, under the growth management process the details would be presented now. But , much is being deferred to the preliminary level . The GMP scoring is based on the assumption that these questions will be resolved satisfactorily at preliminary review. But what happens if the problems are not satisfactorily resolved at preliminary. That is the concern. J. Wells remarked the entire process is very inflexible. The applicant is working with amended residential GMP applications and with amended lodge GMP applications. The more that is defined the more likely there will be amendments. The building design is in flux. Tygre said this situation is the perfect justification for the "Cantrup build now and ask permission later Man . " 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 J. Wells said the Commission has to find comfort in that it has control through the PUD process . Harvey said the Commission can grant a growth management approval or allocation with the assurance that this proposal will not be built if all the questions are not answered in the preliminary PUD process. Tygre said somewhere in the growth management approval process these concerns should be recorded . Penne said the concerns expressed through the scoring or through this discussion will be conveyed to Van; who is taking the- Aspen- M-ountain Lodge project through preliminary PUD. The concerns will be incorporated in the planning office ' s submission. Harvey requested the minutes of this meeting be submitted as part of preliminary PUD. J . dells clarified certain points . First he wants to try to avoid filing amendments. He clarified the statement on energy. Specifically, in order to get a quality operator it may be necessary to air condition the rooms. The operator may not accept those three or four days in summer without air condi- tioning. The other aspects delineated under energy will be retained. There will still be a computer system which monitors the systems. J . Wells continued. Under site design Penne has recommended the maximum points. She has stated that the applicant is offering more than 25% open space for the entire PUD and the lodge. The overall PUD open space is still 50%. But, the hotel open space is now 25.3% . There is a reason for the change. The ice rink has been relocated from a space which was not counted in open space because it was more than ten feet below grade to a space which was counted in the open space figures. That space to which the ice rink has been relocated will now not be counted in open space because of the definition of the ice rink as a recreational use in L-3 . The open space in the internal courtyards also has been reduced. Land which is ten feet below grade is not counted in open space. Why does the applicant not receive maximum points for stow,, drainage? J. Wells did not know. The proposal deals with on site problems and handles the problems identified by Wright-McGloughlin many years ago. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to address that problem . He quoted from the previously submitted storm drainage report : "The construction of a pond or ponds to retain and store the historic unpolluted runoff from the area of Aspen Mountain. south of the proposed development, will reduce the chance 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 of flooding of the project and areas downstream of the project . The construction of this retention pond was recommended in the Wright-McGloughlin report. And although some effort to provide the storage has been made by private individuals the completed construction has never been accomplished . The construction in conjunction with this project will fulfill a need required to protect the core business area of Aspen. It should be kept in mind that this storage is for upstream historic storm water from Aspen Mountain and not for storm water generated by or on the project site. " Bunt asked if there is a conceptual system under the energy section. Will a hot water, chill water loop run through the hotel? Will air conditioning work off that? Or will there be a forced air system? J. Wells said the idea of solving the swamp coolers has been abandoned. Hunt asked if the main system is pre-cooled with swamp coolers. J. Wells could not answer the questions. Penne explained the recommended scoring provision for employee housing is based on a formula. That item is not a discretionary item. The same holds true for the conversion of existing units. Planning office does not grant bonus points but the Commission can. The Commission grades the GMP application. Peyton asked if part of the entire PUD were not to receive an allocation then what would happen to the entire PUD project. Harvey replied that portion which did not receive a growth management allocation could not be built. The portions of the PUD which satisfy two concerns, receive PUD approval and receive a growth management allocation, could be built. Peyton asked if there is a condition attached to the resolution on conceptual approval that states that the separate parts have to be approved before the entire PUD or any part of the PUD can be built. J. Wells replied yes . Peyton said theoretically if one part were not to meet threshold the entire project could be killed. Gideon Kaufman commented he has a client that is planning to compete next year in the cc district. Fie suggested in years where there are no competitors, instead of eliminating the allocation for that year create the ability to preserve some of the allocation so the city does not have to borrow from future year allocations. This ability also allows someone to build an average size building without having to phase construction over a two year period. Harvey said Council in 1983 eliminated the 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 backlog of allocations. Kaufman said no one is competing this year in the cc zone. If someone were to come in the next year with a submission for a 12 , 000 square foot building then the applicant could ask for an allocation from the previous year and not for an allocation from the future year. Preserve the ability to borrow an allocation from the year which had no competitors. Harvev asked if Kaufman is requesting in the recommendation concerning commercial GTIP a statement that the cc quota, which received no application for the 1984 allocation, be maintained and carried forward. Kaufman stated at least provide the ability to carry forward the 1984 allocation. Harvey said the Commission could recommend to carry the quota forward. Kaufman explained if the allocation were not used the allocation would be eliminated. With his proposal the city would be in a position in the following year not to borrow from the future year allocation if a submission were to request more than the allocation for that year. Hunt asked if Council can regenerate the allocation it eliminated. Harvey pointed out if the Commission were not to recommend to carry forward the unused allocation from this year to next year, then the allocation would be eliminated. Specific action is necessary to carry the allocation forward. Pardee questioned that statement. He believed the allocation is carried forward automa- tically. Penne said she thought if there were to be an elimination of carry over then specific action would be necessary; she was not sure. Kaufman said traditionally when the Commission does not recommend the allocation be carried over that the allocation is eliminated. Penne stated the application passed the scoring. Motion; Roger Hunt moved to forward the results of the growth management plan to the City Council, to recommend approval, and to recommend that the City Council allocate a future half year allocation to this project so that the project can be completed in a timely fashion. The motion is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. J. Wells requested that the request to carry forward cc allocation be incorporated in a separate motion. Discussion. Pardee recommended change "growth management plan" to "growth management plan scoring . " Roger Hunt amended his motion to read: to forward the results of the growth management plan 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 scoring to the City Council . . . " The amendment is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Welton Anderson moved to recommend to City Council that Council carry forward the cc commercial square footage from the 1954 competition since there were no competitors . He recommended that the allocation be added in the potential for future years in the cc zone. He also recommended to carry over other commercial quotas, for example the o and the cl. The reason for this recom- mendation is there will be an inventory of allocation so that the city will not have to borrow from future years to approve any project. Seconded by David White . Discussion. Pardee would oppose the motion. The Commission should not recommend that allocation be made available. Recommend instead that Council not eliminate the allocations. The Commission should not be perceived as a body which encourages growth. The Commission should encourage the options. He preferred the phrasing "the Commission recommend that Council oft eliminate this year ' s quota from future allocation. " White supported the language of the current motion, the motion as it stands is positive. The amended motion is negative. Pardee argued the existing language could be interpreted as a pro growth position. i�arvey interrupted. There is a difference of opinion as to how the system works : Kaufman is saying that the Commission should take this action or the allocation is eliminated. Kaufman stated he does not want the allocation eliminated. If the Commission wants to change the motion, let the motion state that the Commission requests that the allocation not be eliminated and be made available for future use. Pardee questioned the statement that the allocation disappears. The only time the allocations disappeared was when Council took affirmative action. Hunt suggested amending the motion to direct the planning office to draft a resolution with the appropriate language depending on what the circumstances are. It is unclear at this time whether eliminating the allocation requires Council action or whether to carry over the allocation requires Council action. Penne stated the Commission is not even required to make a recommendation on quota. Kaufman said the dispute is over semantics. The basic concept is the Commission does not want -the quota eliminated. Welton Anderson amended the motion to read: "The Commission recommends to Council not to eliminate the 17 RECORD OF PROC :EDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 1984 1984 commercial quotas. " The amended motion is seconded by David tGriiite. Discussion. Fallin asked if one were to vote in the affirmative would the unused allocation be added every year. Harvey explained the motion addresses only the 1984 quota. Hunt recalled that in prior years the city has used previous years unallocated quotas. Did it take Council action to eliminate the unallocated quotas? Hunt asked if Council does not take action what happens to the unal- located quota. Penne replied if Council were not to take action then the unallocated quota would be carried over. Harvey said that issue is not clear. Hunt preferred a resolution. Harvey called for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor : Pardee nay White nay Hunt nay Fallin nay Anderson aye Harvey aye Tygre nay The motion is not carried: two in favor, five in opposition. Harvey directed the planning office to prepare a resolution which outlines the Commission' s position . Find out if the Commission were not to do anything would the allocation be dropped or carried forward. If the allocation were to be dropped then the Commission would favor a resolution which recommends the allocation be carried forward. If Council were not to act on the allocation carry over and if the allocation were not dropped by the Council ' s inaction then there would be no action by this Commission. J. Wells asked given Council ' s bias does the Commission want to take no position. Kaufman said there is a difference between what happened in previous years and what happened last year. At the same time the Council eliminated the quota Council eliminated a large amount of available quota. The quota in the o (office) zone is 4,500 square feet. That makes it virtually impossible to complete a 6 ,000 square foot building. He would like to see that 1984 allocation carried forward. It is important for the Commission to make a positive statement on this as opposed to no statement at all. Hunt said the issue is how to word the statement. That is why he 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 wants the planning office to research and write the resolution. Harvey directed Penne to determine if the Commission were not to do anything then would the allocation automatically go forward. Bring back a resolution. NEW BUSINESS NUGGET LODGE, SPECIAL REVIEW Penne said the Nugget went through condominiumization on August 7 , 1984. It was not understood at that time that the FAR was to be increased. The plans presented did not detail that informa- tion. H PC reviewed and approved the elevations of the design . But , the FAR is increasing from 18 ,300 square feet to 19,900 square feet and from a ratio of .68:1 to .72:1. There will be a large lobby area . The existing decks and solariums will be enclosed. There will be some covered access walkways. Height will not be increased. The renderings are included in the Commission' s packet. The design is an improvement. There are no adverse impacts on the neighborhood by this slight increase in FAR. The possible maximum FAR in L-3 zone is 1 : 1 . But any increase in FAR has to be approved by the Commission. That is why the applicant is before the board. The Commission takes final action on this request. Harvey asked if there is any increase in the footprint. Anderson answered yes. Harvey said the expansion is toward Main Street for entrance area . What is the old setback? What is the new setback on Main Street? Anderson measured the expansion at sip: feet. Augie Reno, applicant, said the setback will be eight feet after the expansion. Anderson said the required setback is ter. feet . Harvey asked if this action requires a variance. Reno replied no; the expansion is eight feet from the building. Harvey asked if the only location for increase in the footprint is the lobby area. Reno answered yes. Kaufman, counsel for the applicant, said it was his fault for not mentioning the increase during the condominiumization process . The FAR increase was one of many things his client was committing to when his client received his condominiumization approval. Kaufman did not know at the time of condominiumization that the closing of the walkways and decks increased the FAR. The increased FAR should have been reviewed and addressed concurrently with the condominiumization discussion. Any increase in FAR in the L-3 zone requires special review approval. It was spelled out in the condominiumization that his client intended to do the enclosures. The enclosures were part of the $350 , 000 figure for remodeling. He apologized. 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Harvey asked if the Commission has any problem with the request. He asked if the plans can be part of the approval . Kaufman suggested the language in the motion "as spelled out on the added FAR floor plans attached that show specifically what his client is asking for. " Penne noted the Commission is setting the FAR and is setting what the FAR is being used for. These plans will be sent to the building department so they can check this particular remodeling. Harvey said the approval should cite that the increased FAR will be in the form described in the second paragraph of the planning office memo dated October 2 , 1984 . Reno presented the floor plans for the proposed expansion and enclosures . He delineated the open space to be covered, the proposed two foot projection, the lobby area, etc. Kaufman continued. If his client were to later discover that he needed to increase the approved 1 , 500 square feet for a three foot overhang which was not even considered, then Drueding might say that the three foot overhang is not allowed because the 1 ,500 square feet only includes the lobby, the solarium, and the covered walkway. Kaufman does not want to have to return again for special review approval for a three foot overhang projection. Harvey suggested language : "increased lobby area, enclosing the existing decks with solariums, and adding additional covered access walkways. . . " Harvey did not want to see the applicant construct an eight foot tower . He wanted to pin down the approval. Does that language accommodate the applicant? Penne explained the problem with an open ended approval. It is required in the L-3 zone when FAR is increased to define the increase. Randy Gold, applicant, stated he could live with Harvey' s wording. How- ever, he does not want Drueding to deny something which is included in the plans but not included in the language of approval. He would accept Harvey' s wording with the drawing. Harvev replied as long as Gold works within the set FAR then Drueding will not do that. Harvey cannot approve an open ended increase in the floor area ratio. Motion: Welton Anderson moved to approve the special review for the increase in exterior floor area ratio for the Hotel Aspen, also known as the nugget, from its present 18,297 square feet to 19, 915 square feet, increasing its FAR from .68:1 to .72:1. The increased FAR will be in the form of increased lobby area , enclosed existing decks with solariums, and added additional covered access walkways. There will not be any increase in the height. The motion is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 2. 1984 Perry Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 00 p.m. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 21