Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19841106 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Planning and Zoning commission November 6. 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee (arrived at 5 : 10 p.m. ) , David White, Roger Hunt, and Mari Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt raised the issue of the Quillen lawsuit against the city. During Hunt' s interview today Council expressed it did not know what to do about the lawsuit. The Council reported that Paul Taddune, city attorney, has tenatively advised the city to appeal . Hunt talked with Taddune earlier this week . Taddune was very emphatic about the appeal. Hunt suggested the Commission give the Council some encouragement through a resolution that recommends Council proceeds with the appeal . Harvey directed Alan Richman, planning office, to draft a resolution addressing this issue. Motion: Roger Hunt moved that the planning office write a resolution to be signed by the chairman along the lines indicated; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried. Hunt reminded the Commission that a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 7th, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the council chambers with the Commission and Council . Pardee said the discussion will be the planning office. Harvey understood the discussion will. be goals. White noted that Council wants to discuss the planning office Wednesday night in anticipation of a scheduled meeting with Council and BOCC on Thursday night involving the planning office . Richman believed the Wednesday discussion will evolve around planning office restructuring. Richman mentioned that two commissioners requested copies of the work program for the council members. Council will argue that the Commission and planning office have not accomplished anything. Richman argued it would not be worthwhile to make copies of the work program. Many pages in the work program do not relate to the Commission. Instead, he suggested compiling a list of significant work accomplishments by the Commission. He would distribute that list to everyone or to Harvey. The work program deals with everything from the county to the administrative aspects and would not convince Council of the Commission ' s accomplishments. The planning office has not been informed about the content of the meeting. Nor has the planning office been asked to make a presentation at the meeting. White mentioned the meeting is a public work session. Blomquist has written an essay titled "The Future of Aspen City Planning. " He presented his copy to others. The Commission requested copies of this essay by Wednesday. White also noted there is a memorandum from Hal Schilling to the Mayor and Council recommending three solutions on the planning office r-?ctructuring. Vlhite reminded RECQRD__OF PRQEEDICS Rejular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission ._ November 6. 1984 the Commission about a meeting scheduled Thursday at 7: 00 p. m. be- tween Council and BOCC. (Lee Pardee arrives in the chambers. ) Harvey requested copies of Schilling ' s memo for the commis- sioners by tomorrow. Richman encouraged Hunt to postpone his departure and to be present at the Wednesday meeting. Harvey wished to have as many commissioners present as possible. Hunt raised the issue of splitting the planning and the admini- strative rezoning functions. He was asked for his opinion on this issue during his interview with Council today. Richman interjected that subject will be discussed at the Wednesday night meeting. Peyton questioned the trailer sitting next to the old Grainery establishment. Colette Penne , planning office, explained the trailer has been there forever . An old eccentric from Grand Junction owned the lot. He was killed last year. Harvey inter- jected the last time the city asked the trailer to be moved the owner threatened to fill the trailer with concrete. Richman noted since the owner ' s death the lot has been cleaned up for the first time in many years. Peyton asked if the Commission can initiate a clean up of the lot. Is the trailer an allowed use on the lot? Hunt suggested the community opt to create an ordinance for the upkeep of the property. Fallin noted the lot is for sale. Peyton asked if the reason for the allowance of the trailer is that the trailer has always been there. Richman said since the owner' s death proposals for the lot are forth coming. MINUTES Ogtober 16. 1984:. Harvey made the following corrections: 1. On page one , the final paragraph, the third line, delete "he" from the phrase "reconsider he its action. " 2. One page two, the last line, change "preset" to "present. " Motion: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of October 16 , 1984 , subject to the two minor corrections; seconded by Mari Peyton. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS ASPEN ART MUSEUM STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Barry Edwards, city attorney, asked if this is a continuation of a public hearing. Penne replied there is no public hearing . Edwards advised the Commission to open up the public hearings , for example the Nuggget scoring, and then to continue action until another meeting . It is election day. Harvey said the next agenda already includes the Aspen Mountain Lodge preliminary plat public hearing. If he were to back two more items on that agenda the agenda would be too lengthy. He assumed these two items were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 194 properly published. Edwards was concerned that someone would come forward and argue he was not present because it was election day. No other business is being handled today. Harvey understood city administrations are open in the state today. Harvey decided to go forward with today' s agenda as planned in light of the upcoming agenda. Penne apprised the Commission of the new information on this case. There is a letter included in the commissioners' packet dated October 23 , 1984 , from Chuck Roth, engineering department. She read portions of the letter : "This letter is written in response to your concern regarding the effects of our proposed channel widening at the Aspen Art Museum on the downstream neighbor , the Andrews McFarlin Condominiums. . . " Remember the Commission was concerned about the next constriction in the river and how that constriction would be affected. The engineering department did not originally provide conclusions. Engi- neering voluntarily delayed action on stream margin review until this issue was resolved. She continued with the letter : "The Engineering Department performed calculations which showed that the river flow would return to its natural state in a distance of from 150 feet to 250 feet downstream from the end of our work. . . (the condominiums are 400 feet down- stream) . " Roth also presented to Penne, yesterday, a third amendment to the City of Aspen application for permission to widen the channel of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Art Museum. She read into the record a letter, dated November 5 , 1984 , from Chuck Roth: "This letter constitutes the third amendment to the City of Aspen application of September 26, 1984, for permission to widen the channel of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Art Museum. At the City Council meeting of October 22, 1984 , the Engi- neering Department was directed to place the excavated materials on the city-owned Rio Grande property. A portion of the property to be filled is within 100 feet of the high water line of the river and therefore is also addressable under stream margin review criteria. We have also been directed to relocate the Rio Grande trail to alongside the river. We anticipate raising the entire level of the snow dump by one and a half feet as well as the Rio Grande property up to the Obermeyer and Welding Company buildings. Since our goal RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 is to widen the river, we are not of course going to be placing any of the excavated materials where it will affect the river ! But we do need permission for the portion of the fill that we will be creating within one hundred feet of the high water line. We request that you approve this new portion of the project. Thank you for your time and consideration. " The application is the same as last time except for the city' s request to deposit the fill on the Rio Grande property. Harvey said it appears the city wants to fill that portion of the property which is the snow dump. Is that correct? Penne said the fill will be deposited up to the Obermeyer building. Harvey asked for some explanation of the proposal. Chuck Roth, engineering department, said engineering at the suggestion of the streets department requested permission to deposit the excavated material on the Marolt property. It may not have been the best solution but it was the only apparent solution. City Council rejected that idea and requested the fill be deposited on the Rio Grande property. The intent is to create a berm to camouflage the impound lot from the soccer field and from Mill Street. The berm will provide some aesthetic improvements. The dirt will be distributed around the existing area. The original Council request included moving the impound lot to the southwest end of the Welding Company building . There is insufficient space. It is also not necessary to move the impound lot to distribute the dirt on the existing available property. There may be a few hills here and there. Pardee said a function of the stream margin review is a presen- tation of a rather detailed plan of the proposal. The plan for hills here and there is too arbitrary. The original application indicated the dirt would be moved, followed by a clean-up. This current proposal appears to be an easy way of spreading the dirt and exacerbating an already existing eyesore. Everyone is in a hurry to widen the stream during favorable weather. But the answer is not to aggravate an already unacceptable situation. He wants a better answer on the desposition of the fill. White remarked that it is unfair to quickly process this action for the city but not for a private citizen who wants to save his property. The individual upstream from the art museum had a difficult time getting any action approved. Penne interrupted. That statement is not particularly accurate. The individual that White is alluding to did not submit an application. The private citizen will be subjected to the same review schedule that the city is subjected to. White argued a person who wants to save his property does not have the same rights as the city. The Commission disagreed with this statement. Harvey explained the private citizen can do whatever he wants but the individual may not receive a stream margin review for any work implemented on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 the river prior to the stream margin review. The city is here trying to redo the emergency steps taken last year to save the art museum. The city is trying to rectify their work before the next run-off. The city wants to make corrections and the city has submitted an application for those corrections . Harvey argued there is nothing substantivally wrong with the city' s application, except the amendment presented today. Harvey understood- that the city could deposit the fill on city property, but could not deposit the fill within one hundred feet of the high water mark . The city ' s stream margin review only addresses action taken within one hundred feet of the high water line . The city could disperse the dirt around the Rio Grande parking lot since that action would not be within one hundred feet. He quoted from the letter dated November 5th: "a portion of the property to be filled is within one hundred feet of the high water line of the river . " The Commission in essence is reviewing under stream margin review whether or not the city should be allowed to deposit the dirt within one hundred feet of the high water line. Even if the Commission were to deny the city the ability to disperse the fill within one hundred feet, the city would still have the ability to disperse the dirt on the Rio Grande property. However, Harvey recommended language in the motion that opposed the dispersal of the dirt on the Rio Grande property. Bill Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, reminded the Commission that the engineering department wanted to move the soil to Marolt. Marolt was purchased for open space . The argument against transporting excess dirt to Marolt evolves around the question why destroy Marolt when the Rio Grande is already ruined; why not preserve Marolt and continue to add to the already existing damage , the impound lot and the snow dump, at the Rio Grande property. The city has announced this is the last year for snow dumping. Harvey recalled the city announced that last year and no action was taken. The city also made the same announcement with regards to the impound lot. The Commission has evaluated one year extensions, two or three years consecutively. Since then the city has not bothered to come back to the Commission . Dunaway said there is no better location. Harvey argued that nothing has been planned for that Rio Grande property. It appears the property will become a dumping ground for impounded cars and for snow and now for the fill excavated from the river. He does not think the Commission should give the city a nine month right to dump the fill there, even though, the city can put the fill where it sees fit as long as the fill is not deposited within one hundred feet of the river. The Commission can chose to deny the city the ability to deposit the fill within one hundred feet of the river. Harvey is upset. That property continues to deteriorate through man-made acts. Dunaway asked if it is not preferable to continue to destroy a property which is already deteriorating rather than destroy a property which is still pristine. Harvey did not know. A ten foot square pile of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1984 dirt on the Marolt property may be acceptable. Not every inch of the Marolt property is used. Marolt is simply open space. The number of people who will see that pile of dirt at Marolt may be only one percent of the number of people who will view the dirt at the Rio Grande. The Commission perhaps should not get involved with this issue and should address the issues under stream margin review. Harvey asked if the Commission ' s concern about the impacts downstream from widening the channel near the museum has been answered. The general consensus was yes. Harvey requested more details on what is to be done with the fill on the Rio Grande . Roth replied berming . Hunt asked where will the berms be. What is the improvement plan for the property? Roth explained the intent of the berms is to obstruct the visibility of the impound lot from Mill Street and the playing field. The road to the snow dump will be moved to the west to create room for the berms. Harvey said the plan appears to further abscond the impound lot. Penne apprised the Commission that the city is investigating alternatives for both the impound lot and the snow. One alter- native for the snow dump is a snow melting machine. There is also dialogue about storing the trolleys at the impound lot. This protects the trolleys from being vandalized. She has accompanied the police department on a site search for the impound lot . There is a lot which may be viable. The issues are not dead. Penne continued. Based on the information provided by Roth there will be a one to one and a half foot elevation increase. Perhaps the Commission is overreacting. Remember the Aspen One pro- perty. Roth said the amount of fill to be moved is equivalent to one thousand dumptruck loads. That is ten days of work . Hunt remarked that is not an insignificant amount. Harvey asked if there is a site plan which indicates the size and height of the berms given the amount of dirt to be moved. Is there a possibility of a ninety foot high berm along the west side of the impound lot? Penne asked how Roth arrived at the one to one and a half foot figure. Roth measured the area from the Obermeyer building to the river and assumed the uniform distribution of the dirt. Harvey asked if topsoil will be involved. Roth replied there will be miscellaneous topsoil, mason concrete, etc. Hunt asked why trees cannot be used for screening instead of dirt. Harvey asked if the city plans next spring to bring in eight inches of topsoil , to cover the berm, and to landscape the berm. Will this berm be an unusable rock pile? Will the fill be crushed? Roth did not know Council' s plans. He anticipated Council will seed the berm. Penne advised the Commission to allow the city to do the work but not allow the city to dump the dirt on the Rio Grande until the Commission sees more detailed plans. Remember the Commission tabled this issue at the last meeting for more information. The Commission has received that information. The information RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 indicates that widening the river will not adversely affect the next constriction. Harvey reasoned the city needs the trucks and a location for the dirt excavated from the river. Roth said that is engineering' s problem. The city may have to haul the dirt to the dumps. It is not easy to sell dirt in the area. Penne emphasized again that under the terms of stream margin review the city has satisfied the Commission. The Commission is not satisfied with the solution for the fill. If this were a private application the applicant would not receive approval. Treat the city the same way. Harvey suggested the motion recommends the approval of stream margin review for the city to complete phase one, with amendments one and two as reflected in the October 23rd letter. The third amendment reflected in the November 5th letter requests placement of the excavated material on the Rio Grande. Deny the ability to deposit within one hundred feet of the high water line. Include some statement that the Commission strongly recommends that the city not be allowed to deposit the dirt on the Rio Grande property at all . Pardee said the code allows the Commission to be concerned with the location of the soil excavated from the river. Edwards responded that the Commission is not licensed to review the landscape plan for a parcel. Address what the modification to the stream bank does to the river flow. Do not address the landscape plans for the adjoining properties. Harvey quoted item fcncr.. from the stream margin review criteria: "vegetation shall . -iovc J or any slope grade changes made: that may produce erasion ..):_ the stre i . :. " Pardee quo.- ' ��m three: if attempts should be made to implement the recommendations of the "Roaring Fork Greenway Plan" prepared by the Roaring Fork Greenway Committee. " This plan concerns itself with the park areas purchased by sixth and seventh penny money. The Rio Grande fits this category. Harvey argued any fill within the greenway does not constitute an improvement or implementation of any greenway plan. White suggested an addition to the proposed motion: require a plan from the city. Harvey suggested the motion say that the city not locate the excavated material within one hundred feet of the river and that the Commission not recommend any portion of the Rio Grande property as a dumping site since that is a con- tradiction to the "Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. " Penne recom- mended the following language : "The Planning and Zoning Commission approves stream margin review for completion of phase one of the work by the city on the Roaring Fork River at the Aspen Art Museum as proposed. The Commission denies the ability to deposit the fill within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line. The Commission also encourages an alternative site be investigated for depositing fill or a detailed plan be presented for its RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 placement on the Rio Grande property. " Harvey agreed with the language. Pardee encouraged landscaping of the visually abused area on the Rio Grande. A landscaping plan requires a commitment to locate topsoil on the berm, to grade the berm, etc. Dumping the soil is insufficient. State in the motion the area is an eyesore. State the land was purchased with sixth and seventh penny money. State the Commission questions the deposition on a park-recreation type use without a detailed landscaping plan. Hunt noted that improvements to a specially planned area (SPA) , like the Rio Grande property, will require the presentation of plans before the Commission. Peyton said if there is already no topsoil on the property and if the the property is already raw and ugly, then locating one to one and a half feet of fill on the property will not exacerbate the problem. She referred to the snow dump. Pardee noted that the snow dump area is flat, it is walkable. The city appears to want to dump a thousand truck loads of dirt randomly in the area. Peyton said the Commission is assuming too much. Harvey said the Commission is only acting on the information provided by the city. Hunt said the Commission has to assume the worst until the city provides more information. Harvey agreed the program would be acceptable if the city were to crush the rock, were to spread the soil, were to provide a topsoil plan, and were to provide a landscaping plan. Peyton argued if this program were implemented then the city should be allowed to deposit the fill on the property. Pardee encouraged the plan but the Commission cannot let the city act without a plan. The Commission needs to see a plan. The Rio Grande property was purchased as a park. Peyton asked how the property became a snow dump. Pardee replied that question has been asked for five years. Penne added language to the end of the proposed motion: "further landscaping of the site. " Pardee encouraged the city to treat the Rio Grande as the last developable park. The city must do a good job and must do something with the dirt. Penne noted the one problem with Pardee Is suggestion is that the landscaping proposal hides two uses which may be temporary uses within the master plan for the entire property. The Commission should encourage the master plan effort to go forward rather than view a detailed landscaping site plan. Al Blomquist, city council member, reported that Council rejected dumping the fill on the Marolt property, the original proposal . The Council instead recommended locating the excavated dirt on the hill ; it is already ugly there. Also Council recommend the hill because it screens the impound lot. There appears to be enough dirt to do a decent screening job and to fill some of the city land used by the private sector. Before Council is a proposal for $100,000 for landscaping the area next spring. This is in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1984 the capital budget discussion. The Council will settle this issue within the next three weeks . He agreed with the one hundred foot limitation from the river, it is marvelous. Keep the denial of the deposition of the dirt within one hundred feet of the river in the motion. Require the dirt be distributed properly to create land shapes. But, allow the job to commence tomorrow. The landscaping will be considered in due time by Council . The fill will be covered with topsoil next spring. Harvey said fine. But, the Commission has no information about this. The Commission wants to enable the city to remove the material from the river. But there is no indication that the soil will be properly crushed, properly spread, or properly land- scaped. In this meeting the Commission cannot project a landscape plan. The Commission does not want the material dumped within one hundred feet of the river and does want the city to seek alternative sites or to provide a detailed plan to the Commission as to what will happen to that fill on the Rio Grande. The present information indicates piles of dirt. No topsoil is coming from the river. It is encouraging there is some plan. But, this is only a budget discussion item at this time. Blomquist said this is a commitment. It is the same problem the Aspen Mountain lodge will face. He wants the city to set an example. It would be very desirable during this wet cycle to move the material from the river. One alternative is to spread the dirt where the snow will be dumped or to spread the dirt up on the hill and screen the impound lot. Harvey said the hill will be nothing but rubble rock and river boulders. There is no indication of planning, no indication of shaping, no indication of crushing, no indication of covering. The impound lot exists. That fact cannot be hidden. If the lot were to be hidden by a pile of boulders and rocks then something should be done with that pile. There needs to be a program and until there is a program the Commission will approve only stream margin review for the reconstruction in the river. The fill distribution is the city' s problem. But, the distribution of the fill on city park property contradicts the recommendations of the "Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. " Under stream margin review the Commission has an obligation to implement everything under the recommendations of that plan. Stream margin authorizes the removal of the dirt from the river and determines no deposition within one hundred feet of the high water line. Stream margin review does not preclude the city from dumping outside the one hundred foot limit. The Commission can only encourage the city to seek an alternative site for dumping the soil or to encourage a detailed landscaping plan for the use of the fill . Fallin encouraged a stronger motion which called for a detailed plan. Motion: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 Pat Fallin moved to approve stream margin review for the city to complete phase one of the work on the Roaring Fork River at the Aspen Art Museum as proposed. The Commission denies the ability to deposit the fill within one hundred feet of the high water line. The Commission encourages that an alternative site be investigated for depositing fill or a detailed plan be presented for its placement on the Rio Grande property and further encourages landscaping of the site. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. Hunt asked if the Commission is simply encouraging a detailed plan or requiring a detailed plan. Penne said the Commission cannot require a detailed plan under stream margin review. Hunt asked if a construction permit or an excavation permit is required to move dirt. The point is that the proposal is to move dirt on property which is designated SPA. If the city were to dump the dirt on the Rio Grande property then the city would have to come back before the Commission with a landscape plan. Harvey called for a vote: all in favor; motion carried. Edwards agreed Hunt' s point is well taken. He will investigate this. Harvey in response to a query by Dunaway explained that the city is proposing a stop gap measure for the art museum. The city wants to prevent flooding that occurred this year from occurring next year : this is phase one. Penne explained the city will work on the banks across from the museum in phase two. Phase two is a program for permanent repair and landscaping of the bank. PUBLIC HEARING FINS RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW (f/k/a Acguitaine. f/k/a Pisces) Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne briefed the Commission on the application. The name is "Fins. " The restaurant is located at the Fireside Lodge at the corner of First and Cooper in the L-3 zone. This is a conditional use review. There was much conversation about locating restaurants in L-3 lodges when the L-3 zone was established . There was discussion about allowing the restaurants to serve both guests and the public. A restaurant did operate in the Fireside for about twenty years. That restaurant has not been in operation for the past three years. If the restaurant were to serve more than the lodge guests then the Commission should be concerned about traffic and parking impacts, noise, lighting, elements that might affect some of the residential neighborhoods located in the L-3 lodge districts. The restaurant is fully equipped for operation. Based on her site visit there is substantial available parking. There is very RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 little neighborhood impact. There are four parking spaces in the front of the restaurant. There is a drive through, drop off area. There are six parking spaces in the rear. Behind the restaurant there is a large duplex structure. Mostly multi family units are located in the neighborhood. The entire block across from the restaurant is vacant. Cars could park along the block without disturbing anyone. The ice garden is at the northwest corner. There is also an expanded Victorian, may be a multi family resident, just south of the ice garden. There are no parking impacts on the neighborhood. There is no intent to have any new outside lighting or signage other than what currently exists. The noise level will have to be maintained at a reasonable level for the guests of the lodge. The only proposed music is a taped in sound system which already exists. There will not be live music. The operating hours will be apres ski from 3 : 30 p.m. to 6: 00 p.m. ; dinner from 6: 00 p.m. to 10: 00 p.m. ; and cocktails from 10: 00 p.m. to 2: 00 a. m. Breakfast will be served to the lodge guests. According to the conditional use criteria, whether the use complies with the requirements of zoning code, whether the use is consistent with the applicable zoning district, or whether the use is compatible with the surrounding land uses, the restaurant use is not a problem. The restaurant should be granted a condi- tional use permit. The environmental health office provided comments to planning office a few days prior to the distribution of the memo. The memo directed the applicant to provide new bathroom facilities. The applicant, Rob Cozen, was distressed by this requirement. Cozen was not aware that he would have to add the new restroom facili- ties. Penne approached environmental health. Environmental health informed her that those are state health requirements for restaurant use. There is no way to deviate from those require- ments. Harvey noted the application does not indicate that the restaurant will serve breakfast. Penne clarified that the restaurant will not serve breakfast. The kitchen will be used by the lodge to serve breakfast to the guests. Harvey questioned whether a restaurant as a conditional use within a lodge operation may serve guests and the public. This restaurant appears to be designed to serve the public more than the lodge guests. Penne reiterated the kitchen will be used by the lodge to serve breakfast and the restaurant operation will begin at 3: 30 p.m. Fallin asked how the original restaurant was allowed to operate with bathroom facilities that did not meet state requirements. white noted this is new legislation. Penne understood that if this restaurant had not been closed for three years and had been continually operating then the restaurant could have operated with the existing facilities. Because the restaurant has been closed it is subject to current regulations. The current regula- l l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tions require the additional facilities as described in the memo. Cozen asked if the fact that the lodge has never discontinued food service to its guests would negate the requirement. Harvey did not know. Planning and environmental health should have determined whether this was necessary. Penne suggested Cozen investigate the possibility of a conditional CO to finish the work. Harvey stated this is not the Commission' s concern. Edwards noted that the approval of the conditional use does not involve the environmental health concerns at all. That requirement will have to be met before the restaurant can operate. This requirement is outside the purview of the Commission. The motion to approve the conditional use should not include a statement about the environmental health requirement. Harvey however suggested citing in the approval that the applicant has to fulfill the conditions of the environmental health office prior to opening. The conditional use is close to the certificate of occupancy. Hunt supported the comments on the neighborhood impacts only if the vacant land is not developed. Just remember in the future that if that property were to be developed then there might be impacts. Basically, he has no problem with the location of the restaurant. Pardee argued against Harvey ' s suggestion to the motion. The Commission should just approve a conditional use permit for the restaurant. The applicant can fight with environmental health. They can close him down. Do not make it harder on the applicant. Harvey suggested more language to the motion: "for the operation of the restaurant at the Fireside Lodge to serve guests and others. " Motion: Lee Pardee moved to approve for the application of the Fins Restaurant a conditional use permit to operate within the confines of the Fireside Lodge for use by guests and the public at large. Seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried. Harvey closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING NUGGET L-3 GNP GENERAL SUBMISSION/SPECIAL REVIEW/SCORING Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne explained the applicant is requesting an allotment of fourteen ( 14) lodge units for the Nugget and special review approval to increase the floor area ratio from .74: 1 to . 92: 1. The Commission recently raised the floor area ratio from .68: 1 to . 74: 1 . The original proposal for employee housing required a change in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1984 use exemption and parking exemption. The solution used a unit at the Cortina which was to be converted to a dormitory. The applicant has now agreed to deed restrict one of the fourteen units at the Nugget. The applicant only will compete for thirteen free market units and provide one employee unit if the parking exemption is carried over from the Cortina to the Nugget. There were three units carried over from last year. There are ten units available in the L-3 in 1984 . The total available units are thirteen. The applicant concedes to deed restrict one unit. He will only compete for thirteen units assuming the parking exemption is granted. Harvey asked if the Commission were to require a parking space for the employee unit would that decision affect the ability to score. Is there a formula for employee housing? Harvey agreed the Commission commonly exempts parking. But, the reality is the employee will have a more severe parking problem than any lodge guest. Penne explained there were substantial problems with the Cortina. First, there is no proof that the owner of the Nugget owns the Cortina. Penne has no proof of that long term status of the Cortina. She understood that the Cortina would go through a change in use for a residential use . Since the Cortina is not condominiumized there is not the ability to take one unit from the Cortina and sell it for the purpose of employee housing. These issues are not substantiated or documented in the appli- cation. The planning office consequently does not agree to the Cortina solution for the employee housing. The planning office' s maximum score in the recommended scoring is based on a statement in the application that if the Cortina solution were not found to be acceptable for some reason then the applicant would deed restrict one of the Nugget units. Gideon Kaufman, counsel for the applicant, explained the reason for the Cortina solution. There is one unit in the Cortina that does have a history of more than six month rental. There is also a kitchen in the unit. The unit can be a very convenient employee unit and the unit is in close proximity to the Nugget. The applicant is amenable to a condition that the applicant not commence construction on the fourteen units until the applicant has established ownership of that unit. The ability to restrict the unit has nothing to do with the fact that the Cortina is not condominiumized. Any lodge in town owned by an individual can have restrictions. The city made a mistake with Cantrup. The city failed to get the mortgagees to agree to the deed restriction. During the bankruptcy proceedings the mortgagees eliminated the deed restriction. The better alternative may be to deed restrict the Cortina unit. The applicant agrees with the planning office ' s concerns. There would be a substantial amount of money lost to the applicant if he were to convert one of the fourteen units to an employee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 unit. Since the applicant will not be able to sell that extra unit the applicant wants to change the access. The proposal is a less expensive stairway in the back, replacing one parking space . The applicant is willing to trade the profit f rom one unit for the stairs and a parking exemption. Harvey questioned the stairway. Kaufman explained it is very expensive to comply with certain code requirements for access to the back of the unit. Because of the economics - and because of the loss of one unit the applicant prefers a straight stairway at the rear. The rear stairway will be located at the fourteenth parking space. The exit will be over the fourteenth parking space . A reason for locating the employee unit at the Cortina is the absence of a parking requirement in the office zone. His client would agree to deed restrict the fourteenth unit if he were able to receive a parking exemption. That makes economic sense. Pardee said the solution is a nonsequitor . He prefers the original proposal : house the employee at the Cortina and do not start construction until the applicant proves ownership. Tie down the mortgagees. There is a parking space for the employee. The applicant makes more money. Everyone benefits by locating the employee unit in the Cortina. Penne interjected parking is not provided at the Cortina. The second disadvantage is that the Cortina is off site. Remember twenty-one existing parking spaces at the Nugget on city property will remain. The fourteen parking spaces are an addition to the twenty-one on site parking spaces. Harvey commented that an employee would probably be given a parking space if parking were to become a hassle. Kaufman said his goal was to resolve the planning office ' s concerns. He preferred not to argue that legally the applicant can do what he originally proposed. He favored a resolution of the concerns. The only problem is the extra parking space and the cost . The Commission has frequently exempted the parking requirement for employees. Adhere to that precedent. Harvey again asked why the stairway cannot be located toward the east? Kaufman replied there is no room. He is trying to be conciliatory. It is not fair to his client to lose the extra unit, to come up with a parking space, and to come up with the extra cost. He is not asking for anything that has not been asked for routinely from this board. Tygre said the original proposal was fourteen free market units. But there are still fourteen units, one employee unit and thirteen guest units. Why not leave the original proposal as is? Cost is not a factor. The applicant will have to buy the Cortina unit. Harvey argued the applicant can rent the Cortina unit and the cost can be passed on to the condominium association. Tygre said if the applicant were to go forward in the scoring with this revised plan, then the Commission would not be reviewing and scoring the plan in front of it. The changed stairway would not be scored, for example. Kaufman reminded the Commission that the applicant 1 A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 is trying to accommodate a goal identified by the city. The applicant is spending substantial money to upgrade the lodge. The applicant is trying to come up with a solution that is agreeable to all . Economics are involved. The applicant has come up with the best possible solution given the city' s limitations. The new proposal will not change the GMP scoring. The proposed changes may only affect the scoring in the parking area. Everything else remains the same in terms of the vision. Tygre asked the commissioners if they are concerned that they will be scoring something that differs from what will be built. Harvey emphasized the only difference is one parking space. Penne agreed the only difference is the one parking space and only if the Commission exempts the parking. Peyton asked where in the scoring does the Commission take action on the parking exemption. Harvey said the parking exemption is part of the application. The motion itself will include the Commission' s position on the parking exemption. Harvey asked Kaufman if the floor area is increased with the stairway. Kaufman answered no. Harvey explained the employee unit at the Cortina would have required a change in use, GMP exemption, and a parking exemption. The Nugget solution only requires a parking exemption. There is no need for a decision on a change in use. Penne pointed out that many times with GMP applications there are subsequent reviews. That is usually a hassle for the applicant, the planning office, and the Commission. Usually the subsequent reviews involve elements already reviewed as an inherent part of the project, for example, FAR increase or a parking exemption. The applicant has to pay added costs for these reviews, sometimes those costs are excessive. The county a year ago encouraged these reviews be tracked simultaneously. That is a better approach. The Commission tonight is being asked to score the GMP and concurrently to decide about the FAR increase. If the Commission were to score this project to meet or exceed threshold, then the Commission would have agreed that the buildout is acceptable and is not detrimental. The conclusion would be that the FAR increase is acceptable. To require the applicant to return a month from now for the approval of the FAR increase and for approval of the parking exemption is unnecessary. GMP scoring, FAR increase , and parking exemption can be tracked concurrently. Penne continued a review of the memo. The maximum FAR in the L-3 zone is 1:1 . On October 2, 1984, the Commission did approve the special review request to increase the FAR from . 69: 1 to .74:1. At that time the applicant increased the lobby area and enclosed the decks with solariums and covered additional access walkways. The Commission did not find any adverse impacts associated with the request. The Commission did determine that the original Nugget Lodge was improved considerably as a result. She did not anticipate any adverse impacts with the FAR increase , . 74: 1 , r, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS $e9ular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 to . 92: 1. If there were significant impacts then they would show up in the GMP scoring. The negative scores from the planning office related to the proportional increase in common space. The applicant did not show that to be very substantial . She has spoken with Dave Gibson about this. Gibson will detail tonight the common spaces. There are three paragraphs in the application which address the increase in amenities and common areas. The application was not detailed enough to really evaluate the amenities in the scoring. Harvey noted in the previous review there was an increase in the lobby area. Can the Commission consider that increase in this scoring? That increase appeared to anticipate this GMP scoring. Penne answered yes. She just wanted to alert the Commission to the fact that the amenities and common areas are scored low. She did not have certain facts to score otherwise. Penne articulated the positive elements of the design. The bulk is located toward center of the site, away from Main Street. From Main Street one will be aware of a two-story facade. Along Garmisch the top level steps back twenty feet from the parapet and recesses within a roof structure which slopes away from the street. Along Bleeker Street there are bay windows and sloping roofs which both interface with the Victorian which sits back on Bleeker. The structure at its closest point is thirty-two feet from Bleeker . There is an alley vacation request. This application anticipates that the applicant may or may not receive approval. No improvements have been considered in either alley area. The applicant has to score 30% in each category. The applicant has to score 60% of the overall available points. Threshold is 63 points. The planning office' s recommended score is 68 points . The available quota is thirteen units. There will not be any borrowing from subsequent years. She recommended that the Commission concur with the point assignments. The new information which will be presented tonight will technically clarify previously submitted material . Planning office further recommends the Commission approves the special review to increase the floor area ratio to . 92 : 1 and denies the use of the unit at the Cortina for the employee unit. Harvey requested clarification of Jim Adamski ' s memo which claims that the applicant is only housing 35% of the 100% of employees generated. Adamski ' s calculation is 1 .08 employees. Penne explained the applicant will house one employee. The converted unit is effectively housing two people. - That satisfies the employee housing generation. Kaufman explained the unit will be a dorm at 300 to 350 square feet. Three hundred square feet is required to meet the code. Harvey defined a dormitory as accom- modating two people, with a bathroom, and with a kitchen facility downstairs. Kaufman explained the square footage qualifies for two people. One hundred fifty square feet is required for one person. The dormitory is one room in excess of three hundred square feet. That meets two employees. Harvey asked if two I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 parking exemptions are required. Penne recommended deed restricting one Nugget unit and recommended granting the parking solution. A person on site is favored over a person off site at the Cortina. The Cortina could sell to someone else, like the Woodstone or the Alpina Haus did. The fact is there are twenty-one parking spaces existing at the Nugget. The Applejack is the only lodge which comes close to the same number of parking spaces ; it provides twenty spaces . Most lodges provide considerably less parking. Remember the Nugget is adding fourteen more spaces to the existing twenty-one. The Nugget is also close to Lift lA and the bus routes. It is unlikely the parking spaces will ever be full. Kaufman noted that Garmisch Street is double the width of a normal street. The chance that the right-of-way will be utilized is nill . The chance that the existing twenty spaces will be removed on Garmisch is nill. In reality there will be thirty some parking spaces for the lodge; a number substantially greater than what most lodges provide. Penne referred to page four of the scoring. Under number three, amenities provided for guests, only one score judges the amenities to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. The other two scores indicate that services are deficient in terms of quality and spaciousness. Dave Gibson will address these scores. Hunt asked if the Commission agrees it is scoring thirteen units with the fourteenth unit designated as an on site employee unit. Harvey answered yes. Harvey opened the public hearing. Dave Gibson, architect for the applicant, made a presentation. He referred to a set of architectural drawings on the wall. The new fourteen units will be located on the north half of the property. Three units will be located in the smaller building. Eleven units will be located on the second story of the existing one-story building. The third story will be setback twenty feet from the street. Major existing plantings will remain : large spruces, honeysuckles, crabapples, some aspens, and some pines. From the eye level view from the center of the intersection the top levels are invisible. One reads the cornice line on the second -story.- -That detail is repeated and carried straight- across. On Bleeker Street, the small residential vocabulary is adhered to. Instead of one building there will be two small buildings that will pick up the rhythm of the individual houses. The lobby will be increased from 240 square feet to 420 square feet, a 75% increase . The lounge will be increased from 950 square feet to 1220 square feet, a 28% increase. The lounge will accommodate conferences . There will be a sliding partition that will section the space off so that the lobby will function as a lobby. The space will accommodate slide shows and other RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 presentations without disturbing the lobby. In conjunction with this there will be a screen, a video cassette recorder , slide projector, available for conference use. There will be stackable chairs for classroom seating. The owners are working on an agreement with surrounding lodges to use this room for their conferences. This facility will be used by the Aspen Lodge and Christmas Inn. There will be a new larger capacity freezer and a microwave oven and the ability to cater buffet lunches. In the past, breakfast was served. There will also be two hot tubs, one will be built 50% bigger than the present hot tub. In the engineering report on parking, the trash area was judged to be a major flaw in the design. Gibson talked with Roth this evening. Roth somehow scaled the trash area at three feet wide. That is incorrect. The trash area is five and a half feet wide, and seven feet long. The dumpster fits into the trash bin end wise . The screened trash area is usable. Reconsider the trash and amenities score. Harvey asked for the location of the employee unit. Kaufman responded in one of the fourteen units. A unit has not been specifically selected. Gibson said he will confer with the owners; the noisiest, busiest unit will be selected. All the units will be three hundre:J sc uare L`.eet or larger. The choice is good. Par.-'...,. --j.ed if Penn-, c.as refer- -,. Lc the size and s?,A .iuusness of rooms or the lounge. Gibson answered the common space. There will be a two story lobby. The square footage of the lobby does not enter into the square footage calculations. Penne explained the existing lodge is thirty-three units. The proposed lodge is half as much with the fourteen units. The Commission has to evaluate the amenities on that proportion. Hunt is concerned about the access to the alley. Is that adjacent to the property line? Gibson answered yes. The alley makes an L- shaped turn. He demonstrated on the site plan the traffic pattern. That pattern is being formalized. Hunt questioned that pattern. It appears the alley is not usable for a semi that is going to Arthur ' s Restaurant, which is located next door. The reason Arthur' s uses the dock is that the alley is unusable. There needs to be steering radii on corners for vehicles. How will vehicles negotiate that corner? Gibson reminded him that engineering did comment that the turning radius for the trucks is adequate. Hunt asked if a fenceline exists. Gibson answered yes . Kaufman commented the applicant has no control over the fenceline. Gibson noted the applicant has dedicated an alley 22 ' -6" wide. That is two and a half times wider than normal . Kaufman remarked the alley could be widened more. Harvey questioned the amenities section in the scoring. Is the same space being used for a conference area and a dining facility? Penne prefaced her comments with there were only a few sentences in the application on this issue. Above the lobby area is a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 common meeting area that includes a small kitchen facility. That is the only facility available for dining. There is not a dining facility per se. Harvey said there is no indication that there will be a dining facility. Penne asked the applicant how many people will be seated. Harvey did not see anything wrong with doubling the use of the space for a dining room for the guests and for a meeting facility. Penne said the planning office is not going to be difficult. The revamping of the lodge is an overall positive result. Fallin asked about the overhead wires. Kaufman explained the city has an easement to locate the wires underground. The placement of the wires underground is not the responsibility of the appli- cant. The city has retained the capability to underground the utilities. Fallin asked if the city has asked the applicant to commit to an improvement district. Kaufman explained that is part of the subdivision agreement. The only way an applicant can argue himself out of a commitment to an improvement district is if the applicant is not benefiting from the improvement. The applicant will be hardpressed to argue that he is not benefitting from underground the wires. Peyton questioned the proposed lodge name, "The Hotel Aspen. " Harvey said that Council determined with the city attorney that the city had no right to control the naming of the lodge. Penne assured the Commission that others noticed that the board made an uproar of the usage of names. People are tired of the too many similar names in this town. There is nothing the Commission can do on this particular application. The Commission scored the application. Hunt asked if the adjacent property facing Main Street is owned by the Arthur' s complex up to the property line. Someone answered yes. Harvey said in the interest of speeding up the process he will take a vote on the scoring on the assumption the applicant meets threshold. The Commission will recommend that Council allocate the thirteen units available. The Commission will approve the special review to increase the floor area ratio to . 92 : 1. The Commission will also recommend a parking exemption for the employee parking space. Kaufman understood the parking exemption to be a special review item. Penne clarified that the parking exemption is a two step process. Harvey asked where in the record is the applicant' s statement about deed restricting one Nugget unit as an employee unit. Kaufman assured the Commission that the statement is in the application. Harvey asked for the commissioners' comments on the three parts of the motion. Fallin expressed problems with the parking exemption. Kaufman reiterated the scoring is based on the allocation of thirteen units and thirteen parking spaces. It seems unfair to score one way and to vote on the motion another way. Harvey argued that is the way the applicant proposed the ^ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1984 handling of this application. The applicant requested thirteen units and thirteen spaces. The Commission scored the application that way. The applicant separately requested an exemption for the employee parking space. Kaufman reasoned the applicant could have argued for the Cortina solution. The Commission could have scored the application based on the Cortina. White argued that the Commission could have deducted points in the scoring for the applicant ' s inability to provide parking for the employees . Fallin remarked if the application were presented with the Cortina as the solution for the employee housing she might have scored the application differently. White and Harvey agreed. Harvey asked if the commissioners agree with the recommendation that Council allocate the thirteen units. The Commission expressed general support. Harvey asked if the commissioners agree to special review to increase the floor area. The Commission again expressed general support. Harvey asked if the commissioners agree to recommend the parking exemption. Fallin, Peyton, and White did not agree with the exemption; Hunt and Pardee agreed with the exemption. Peyton argued that the argument that the Commission has always allowed employee parking to be waived in the past is not a good argument to continue with. Pardee reasoned the appli- cant ' s other choice, which is to house the employee at the Cortina, does not require parking and the employee is housed off site. Peyton asked what the applicant intends to do with the fourteenth parking space. Penne reminded the Commission that the applicant is adding thirteen spaces to an already existing twenty- one spaces. There is ample parking at the Nugget. Tygre agreed with Pardee. Housing an employee on site is worthwhile. As a practical matter there probably will not be a serious parking problem on that site. Harvey concurred. Notion: Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend to Council the allocation of thirteen units for the Nugget Lodge application assuming the application meets threshold and moved to approve the special review to increase the floor area ratio to . 92: 1; seconded by Lee Pardee. All in favor ; motion carried. Motion: Jasmine Tygre moved to recommend exemption for the parking requirement for the on site employee unit to be deed restricted within commencement of the project; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried with Peyton, White, and Fallin opposed. (Pat Fallin leaves the chambers. ) Harvey closed the public hearing. Penne read the final scores: Category Points Required Points Received RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 6. 1984 One 3 .0 5 .93 Two 11 .7 21 . 86 Three 6 .3 11 .21 Four 10.5 30.00 TOTAL 69.22 Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 00 p.m. Barbara Norri2r, Deputy City Clerk