HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950404
.
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 4, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. NO- MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Fellman Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
B. Rothblum Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
C. Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning and GMQS Exemption for
Change in Use, Leslie Lamont
D. Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment,
Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review, Kim
Johnson (Tabled on March 21)
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Land Use Code Amendments, Kim Johnson (continued
from March 21) . ;! I
VI. ADJOURN
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 4, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . NO -MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Fellman Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
Be Rothblum Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
C. Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning and GMQS Exemption for
Change in Use, Leslie Lamont
D. Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment,
Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review, Kim
Johnson (Tabled on March 21)
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Land Use Code Amendments, Kim Johnson (continued
from March 21)
VI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: April 4, 1995
Joint Metro GMQS Tourist Accommodations - April 18, 4:30 PM, 2nd
Floor, City Hall
L'Auberge Lodge GMQS Scoring, Text Amendments & Conditional Use
Review (LL)
Regular Meeting - April 18
Pitkin County Jail Expansion SPA Amendment & GMQS Exemption (ML)
Regular Meeting - May 2
Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Amendment, Conditional
Use Review & GMQS Exemption (KJ)
Boogie's GMQS Exemption for Change in Use (KJ)
Regular Meeting - May 16
Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL)
a.nex
V
MEMORANDUM
/
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director k�/
RE: Fellman Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: April 4, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a below grade
accessory dwelling unit within a single family residence. Staff
recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory
dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Thomas Fellman represented by Gibson and Reno
LOCATION: 222 North Cleveland Street
ZONING: RM/F - REsidential Multi -Family
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an approximately 342 square foot
one bedroom, accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1
requirements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the
Housing Office, exhibit A.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is an attached,
below grade unit. The size is 342 square feet but the net liveable
must be verified by the Housing Office at the time of building
permit application. The net liveable square footage cannot be less
than 300 square feet. The unit must comply with the Housing
Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1 and shall be deed
restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of
Pitkin County.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: Construction of ADUs, off of the alley, in traditional
neighborhoods, is encouraged by Ordinance 1. The proposed location
of this ADU is within the primary residence. Access to the unit
and the amount of on -site parking are easily accommodated off of
the alley. The underlying zoning allows multi -family development
in this neighborhood.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: Although the ADU is below grade, windows are provided
in both the living room on the east side and the bedroom on the
west side of the home.
It is unclear from the submitted plans whether the roof overhang
is wide enough to protect, from shedding snow, the stairs that
access the ADU. However, access is on the east side of the home
and snow build-up may not be as problematic. The applicant shall
submit plans to P&Z to verify that shedding snow will not impact
either the stairwell on the east side or the light well on the west
side.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve
the conditional use including but not limited to roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: No new services are required for the ADU.
E. The applicant commits tosupply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for resident
occupancy. If the unit is rented a qualified working resident of
Pitkin County shall reside in the unit.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The conditional use is an attempt to comply with
Ordinance 1 requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
`J
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU;
b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office with proof of recordation to the Planning
Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory
unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the
definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be
rented for periods of six months or longer;
c . kitchen plans shall be verif ied by the Housing Of f ice to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs;
2. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval,.unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
6. The applicant shall revise the roof plans to prevent shedding
snow from impacting the access stairs to the dwelling unit and the
light well off of the bedroom.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for
222 North Cleveland Street with the conditions as outlined in the
Planning Office memo dated April 4, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Housing Referral Comments
B. Plans
3
We
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
-A
$Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office ��►,j <r ..;
March 22, 1995
RE: Fellman Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-04-002
The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the
Code:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable
floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall
be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall
be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal
residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in
the accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant states that the proposed accessory dwelling unit is
to consist of approximately 342 square feet of living area, and is
to be located on the lower level of a single family residence.
The plans show that the accessory dwelling unit will have a private
entrance, but there is some concern as to the natural light for
this unit as the entrance seems to have the only windows/door and
is located off the existing alley, adjacent to the garage.
The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications:
Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner
stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
This unit falls within the Code, but is not the best type of
accessory dwelling unit. Before the applicant can receive building
permit approval, the applicant must provide to the Housing Office
a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from
the Housing Of f ice. The Housing Of f ice must have the recorded book
and page number prior to building permit approval.
\word\referral\fellman.adu
'r
4,4 c-
LIP
VT
7, o
PA E c H.
of
."7 V, -1 1
iol 0
0
Ap.
uv
E-7
`7
11h
ATH
B EORMI
Ile
X
-T
ECT: SCALE: DATE:
F E L L M A N RESE DWN BY: DRAWING NO.
GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO.
210 EAST HYMM AVENUE, STE 202
ASPEN. COLORADO 111611
rb
TA�
00
oll
m
PRA
N I
PA E H'.
_1
♦ '
/� JI
CO
DtJ
5
7
7 /_ O
I. L
-
A�•
i
n
013
x
j �,
--
14'
,♦ �
is i
T
H
1
O
L
;I
B E D R
'f
!
:! J
;.
t ,
4. HT w E LL L
-
lq
n�' �:Pu� cs�•��'MvN-�
_F.$a
L-
--
MIA) 30„)4 3o„-
-
----
-- -
I
`n
�/
wz�xl/d/l
d
T
71
I
i4.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Rothblum Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: April 4, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a below grade
accessory dwelling unit within a single family residence. Staff
recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory
dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Marcia and Philip Rothblum represented by Lipkin Warner
LOCATION: 624 East Hopkins
ZONING: Commercial - 1
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an approximately 300 square foot
studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1
requirements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the
Housing Office, exhibit A.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-3b4 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is an attached,
below grade unit. The size is approximately 300 square feet but
the net liveable must be verified by the Housing Office at the time
of building permit application. The net liveable square footage
cannot be less than 300 square feet. The unit must comply with the
Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1 and shall
be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working
residents of Pitkin County.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
.mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: Construction of ADUs off of the alley are encouraged by
Ordinance 1. The proposed location of the ADU is within the
primary residence and is accessed off of the alley.
Because this parcel once contained an historic structure the
proposed single-family home has been reviewed and approved by the
HPC.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: Although the ADU is below grade, a small protected
outdoor patio is provided. The design of the residence indicates
a flat roof, therefore shedding snow should not be a problem for
the access to the ADU.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve
the conditional use including but not limited to roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: No new services are required for the ADU.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for resident
occupancy. If the unit is rented a qualified working resident of
Pitkin County shall reside in the unit. The applicants have stated
in pre -application conferences that the unit is intended for a
caretaker.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The conditional use is an -attempt to comply with
Ordinance 1 requirements and to provide a caretaker unit.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU;
2
ti
.b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office with proof of recordation to the Planning
Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory
unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the
definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be
rented for periods of six months or longer;
c. kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs;
2. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I.move to approve the conditional use for"
Pp k
624East Hopkins with tllte conditions as outlined in the Planning 1�R
Office memo dated April 4, 1995.11 l
ATTACHMENTS: �S
A. Housing Referral Comments
B . Plans
3
3
MAP. 29 '95 09:40AM ASFEN HOUSING OFG
W]
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM., Cindy Christensen, Housing office
DATE: March 29, 1995.
R� t ltothbl ► Conditional Vae keview for an Accessory Dwelling
unit
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-004
The Housing Office recommends approval for the requested accessory
dwelling unit if the square footage is within the following
condition:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable
floor'area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet & allowable floor area. The unit shall
be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall
be limited to rental periods of not less than sbc (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal
residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in
the accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant states that the proposed accessory dwelling unit i.s
at least 300 square feet, but actual floor plans of the unit
showing the net liveable needs to be submitted before a building
permit can be approved. This unit is proposed to be located within
the single family residence. The submitted plans of the accessory
dwelling unit show that it is a private unit with a porch in front.
The kitchen must also be built to the followixig specifications:
Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner
stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot Wrigerator plus freezer.
Again, before the applicant can receive building permit approval,
the applicant must provide to the Housing Office actual floor
plans, showing the net .liveable calculation of the accessory
dwelling unit as defined,by the*Housing Office, and a signed and
recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from the Housing
OE five. The Housing office must have the recorded book and page
number prior to building permit approval.
\word\referrnl�rotbblum.sdu
ALLEY
1 I I I 1
I I I I
I I I
f i I
i PARKING I
I 1 I i tei
1 f I I 1
i I I I 1
I I I
(E) 1 .
I 1 I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
IDRIVEWAY
i
EXISTING I
MWIL
EXISTING
KSNO ' MEDICAL
BLDG. ® BUILDING
1
a
Lo
• *.0 au
r...t aa•
wurle•Tw `:
ftLi H L
Fit
LI H L 1
1
C.
1
I
1
D
1
LOW --- O-W-J
MASONR AfONR
WALL NEW ALL
WALKWIP Y--�
—NEW
PLANTING
E. HOPKINS AVE.
o 6 to 16 to
wollr/l �
L IPI IN - WARNER ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE ansio5
DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
A.pox Cais $1910 w"o1 SITC PLAN
P►wm ON_- � - I/'s PLZ CONDITIONAL USC RGVICW *it*\hpo*It* V P
troy 303 - •to - 381E
y
ACCESSORY
°O DWELLING UNIT
„
o
LI H W L ILI H W L
y GARDEN LEVEL
O S 10 IS 20
L IPKIN o WARNER DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ROTHBLUM RESIDCNCE ins/os
boo ttwt Y.ln - swa too
Frpon Colordo glUI rLOOR PLANS
pp ;°='1e Pit CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW plona%r-plan• 6 `
s
OM
1.
II Ijll i
u
jr�.e� axe
CQ1iTlRTOI'
---------------
ENTRY LEVEL
F —1
IL
U
O
1 '
— I
' F 1Lo
J
L--J
LIVING LEVEL
WNT" 0 5 10 15 20
L1PIaN o WARNER ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE 3n6i05
DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
400 1Iut Wia — Sulu 100
1►ewa COW"* alai$ rLOOR PLANS
P6ow 303 - 020 - 1142 P&Z CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW pions\r-plone F✓ (�-
hr 903 — M — 9ole
II
li
it
II
It
11
��j(��j
,
MSTR. BORM. LEVEL
ROOF TERRACE LEVEL
F--
0 5 10 15 20
NMTN
L IPIUN • WARNER DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ROTHBLUM RESIDENCEansios
soo w► rain - swim too
AmrA c4kw•+o unl FLOOR PLANS
Ph0 303 - ON - t1K P&Z CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW pltano"lons,
tax:M3 - 020 - ae1e d ( +-
raora:n uat
---------------
rj
N '
rA
'
rR
DL-- ----
O
Z $
z
f St
c
v
z
G�
N
C
0
�
�
i3
0
z
z
v
L 1PIGN o WARNER ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE 3AS/95
DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
soo t..t ram - swta ►00
Mpa Gioneu ��eu EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
P62 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW *xtol\pnz
Iar 3M - SM — 3016
N
re
n
D
—I l
O \
Z
i
C
O m �
Z �
n �
-i
N
Z
f
f
i
a
amvm imm.CA USA" �era�o
i�oiein'_._.�.�.�.�
I
L IPKIN o WARNER DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE ansios
Amw t main aseu� CXTCRIOR ELeVATIONS
pft. M3 : � _ M1, P&Z CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
7t
0
0
L
L maN • WARNER ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE ansioa
DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
400 fast Iht. — •Wte 100
Aspen. Colors" Mill EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
►how sg30 : i!0 _ aU4 P&Z CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW �en����M� of �, �—
11 1 r 1 1 1
11 1 1 1
11 ❑
I I 1 t 1
II t 1
tl
11 �
11 1 1 1 1
ILI
I I 1 I 1 I
II 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
II 1 I 1 I
1 1 1 1
O rl 1 ❑ 1 1 1
II 1 1 1
li 1 1 1
11 I 1 t
11 1 1
11 I I
11 1 I
11 1 1
11 1 1
it I 1
11 1
11 1 1 1
11 1 1 1
11 1 1 I
II 1 t
r It I 1
II 1 1 1
11 1 1 1
11 1 1 1
t l ❑ 1 1 t 1
11 1 1 1 1
11 1 ( r 1 1
11 1 I i l 1 1
1
tl 1 1 1 1
II 1 1 1
11 1 1
it I I 1
11 1 1 1 r
11 1 I 1
II 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 I
11 1 i 1 1 1 I
11 1 1 1 1 1 t
LIPIQN o WARNER ROTHBLUM RESIDENCE 5115/05
DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
400 wd rain - alto wo
ban cows" well EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Pbaroa 0 = uN _ ate P&Z CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW oxiei"i�+4 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: April 4, 1995
RE: Buckhorn - Map Amendment, Change in Use, and Special
Review for Parking and Trash/Utility Area
SUMMARY: The applicants propose to rezone their property, convert
nine lodge rooms to office space, and refurbish and deed restrict
an employee dwelling unit on -site.
Please review the attached application, exhibit A.
APPLICANT: Sy and Nora Kelly represented by Alan Richman
LOCATION: 730 Cooper Avenue, Lots R and S and 9.27 feet of Lot Q,
Block 105, Aspen
ZONING: CL - Commercial Lodge
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request to rezone their parcel
from CL to C-1 (Commercial), convert nine lodge rooms to office
space, and deed restrict an existing dwelling unit for affordable
housing.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
B.
PROCESS: Map amendments are a two step review process with the
Commission making recommendations to Council.
Special review and Change in Use are a one step review by the
Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - Currently the Buckhorn Lodge functions as a
lodge and commercial/office building. The property is zoned CL
which allows, commercial uses in the basement and first floor while
the upper floors must be lodge use.
An early 1960's zoning map indicates that the property was once C-
1. In 1974, as part of the effort to locate all lodge/tourist
housing at the base of the mountain, the property was rezoned to
Office and made non -conforming with respect to the lodge rooms.
Eventually, the LP zone district was created and many small lodges
were rezoned to LP. However, the Buckhorn did not participate in
that rezoning effort due to the commercial uses in the basement and
first floors which continue the non -conformities on the property.
Instead, the owners submitted a rezoning application to rezone the
property to CL. The property was zoned CL with the condition that
the allowable floor area was 1:1 rather than the typical floor area
for the CL which is 2:1. The intent of this restriction was to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding zone districts.
II. Site Description - The property is approximately 6,927
square feet with an existing structure and parking area. The lower
level contains a one bedroom apartment and commercial space that
functions as a professional office and a prep -area for a deli.
The main level contains commerical/office space and a lobby and
small guest area for the lodge. The second floor includes nine
lodge units.
There are seven parking spaces in front of the building and two
spaces on the side. There is a small open space on the corner and
three curb cuts that access the site.
The surrounding neighborhood is:
* the Kraut property to the north, zoned Affordable Housing;
* the Bell Mt. Lodge to the west, zoned LP;
* the City Market to the south, zoned NC; and
* the residential neighborhood to the east, zoned R/MF.
In addition, the neighborhood directly to the north, with the
exception of the Kraut housing project, is zoned Office.
III. Project Description - The applicants do not propose to
alter the exterior of the building. The surrounding parking area
will be upgraded to provide eight spaces with adequate turning
movements. Two of the three curb cuts will be closed and the small
open space area on the corner will be enlarged.
The one bedroom apartment in the basement will be refurbished and
deed restricted. The applicants propose to mitigate the impact of
3 employees with this dwelling unit.* The first floor area that was
devoted to the lodge will be converted to commercial net leasable
space. The nine lodge rooms on the second floor will all be
converted into nine office spaces.
2
OOV
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Map Amendment - The Kelly's propose to rezone their
property from CL (Commercial Lodge) to C-1 (Commercial). Pursuant
to Section 24-7-1102 the following standards of review for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Currently the property is non -conforming with respect
to on -site parking, open space, encroachments onto public property,
and the trash/utility area.
Although the building is not being replaced, as part of this
rezoning the applicants are going to upgrade and attempt to
eliminate as many of the non -conformities as possible.
The parking will be reconfigured to provide eight legal spaces on
site. Converting the lodge rooms to commercial space will reduce
the required parking on the site and enable the property to come
into conformance with the C-1 zone district. In addition, the
applicant is requesting a special review to waive the parking
required for the employee unit.
The property is non -conforming with respect to open space, 25% is
required in the CL and C-1 districts. Currently there is 9% open
space. The percentage will be increased, with the parking area
reconfiguration, to 18%. Two of the three curb cuts will also be
closed with the reconfiguration.
The applicant is working with the Engineering Department to secure
encroachment licenses for the numerous encroachments into the
public right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting a special
review for the undersized trash/utility area.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The AACP recommends rezoning the area commonly called
the "superblock" to neighborhood commercial. The Buckhorn has been
involved in the planning discussions for the superblock development
proposal for the past two years. In those discussions, the
Buckhorn Lodge was to be converted to office/commercial with some
employee housing.
The AACP also recommends a revision to the lodge preservation
program. The Planning Office has begun working with small lodge
owners to develop some relief valves for small lodges. One idea
is to allow the conversion to other uses for some lodges on an
annual basis. Although staff has just begun this dialogue, and
conversions of small lodges has not been supported in the past,
3
b
there may be some lodges and locations that could be appropriately
converted.
C. Whether the proposed amendment 'is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The surrounding zone districts and the land uses are
very mixed. Residential, lodge, and commercial uses surround the
Buckhorn. The superblock proposal has included employee housing,
lodge or free market condominiums, neighborhood commercial space,
and offices. The proposed amendment is compatible with the
surrounding uses or the proposed changes that are being discussed
within the neighborhood. The conversion and zoning change provide
the opportunity for the property to correct several non -
conformities.
In order to be consistent with the surrounding zone districts the
applicants agree to maintain the 1:1 f loor area ratio. The height
limit in the C-1 zone district is 40 feet compared to 32 feet in
the CL. The applicants also agree to maintain the height limit on
the property to 32 feet.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the application, traffic generated from
the nine lodge rooms is 37.5 trips a day. The trips anticipated
for the converted office space (1,916 sq. ft.) is 39.25.
The applicants intend to improve road safety by closing off the
curb cut onto Highway 82. However, if the underground garage is
developed on this block, the applicants would like to be able to
open the curb cut for access -during construction of the garage.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: There is adequate capacity to service this conversion.
However, the Fire Marshall has commented that a fire alarm system
will need to be installed. A sprinkler system may be necessary
especially in the basement. This will be determined before final
review at Council.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
4
VN
RESPONSE: The zone change will not adversely affect the natural
environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The provision of small, locally serving, commercial
space is a recommended goal of the AACP. The first floor of the
Buckhorn has provided needed office and commerical space for local
serving businesses. Although small, affordable,'lodge rooms are
rare in this community, small office spaces are also in short
supply.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: It has become increasingly complex for small lodge
operators to remain viable. Unless a lodge can offer a large
variety of guest amenities it is difficult to attract guests and
charge the rates to pay employees, etc.
According to the application, the Buckhorn Lodge rooms are 195 to
215 square feet and are too small for many visitors needs. The
location of the lodge is also problematic as the corner of Cooper
and Original is very busy.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The addition of office space on the edge of the
commercial core should help the increasing need for office space
within the downtown area.
II. Change in Use - Pursuant to Section 24-8-105 of the
Municipal Code, the Commission may grant a GMQS Exemption for a
change in use provided that it can be demonstrated that the change
in use will have minimal impact upon the city. A determination of
minimal impact shall require a demonstration that a minimal number
of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and
that employee housing will be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional parking space will
be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from
the change in use; and.that minimal demand will be placed on the
city's public facilities -from the change in use.
RESPONSE:
a. Housing - The employee generation for the conversion of 9 lodge
units plus the small lobby area to office space generates 2.95
5
6
additional employees. The applicants propose to refurbish and deed
restrict the existing one bedroom dwelling unit in the basement to
mitigate the employee housing requirement.
The dwelling unit in the basement is 540 square feet and the
applicants propose to convert the unit into a dormitory unit to
house three people, two people will share the bedroom and a
sleeping alcove will be added off of the living room. Insulation
will be installed in the ceiling and the window in the bedroom will
be enlarged.
The applicant has met with the Housing Office and revised the plans
for the dwelling unit, such as adding the sleeping alcove, based
upon recommendations from the Housing Office. Planning staff is
still concerned about the living conditions of the unit. Although
there is a large window well and adequate natural light, when the
Bell Mountain Lodge redevelops the large setback will be reduced
cutting off a significant amount of light to the Buckhorn. In
addition, the deli prep kitchen is directly across the hall from
the dwelling unit creating traffic and odor impacts. The building
generates alot of traffic and many uses have extended hours which,
combined with very small living quarters, does not create a quality
housing unit.
Staff would recommend the dwelling unit meet the mitigation
requirement for two employees and the applicant supplement with
cash in -lieu for .95 employees.
B. Parking - In the C-1 zone district 1.5 parking spaces/1,000
square feet of net leasable are required. The conversion of lodge
to office represents 1,916 square feet requiring 2.8 parking
spaces. For nine lodge rooms 6 parking spaces were required. The
total parking required for the entire net leasable square footage
for the parcel is 7.8 spaces. The applicant is providing 8 parking
spaces on -site thereby -complying with the zone district's parking
requirement.
C. Visual Impact - No exterior changes are proposed with this
change in use.
D. Minimal Demand on Public Facilities - A fire alarm system will
be required.
III. Special Review - The applicants are requesting special
review for the size of the trash/utility area and for the parking
requirement for the affordable dwelling unit.
A. Parking - Parking for affordable housing is established by
special review. The applicants request to waive the parking
requirement for an on -site parking space for the one -bedroom
dwelling. The proximity to transit service, the downtown core, and
jobs reduce the dependence on the automobile.
N.
L
B. Trash/Utility Area - In the C-1 zone district, the minimum
sized service area for up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable is:
20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, vertical
clearance of 19 feet and depth of 10 feet.
Currently, the Buckhorn trash service is in the alley. As part of
this application the service must be moved onto the property. The
relocated trash area measures approximately 131X171. BFI and the
applicant's engineer have indicated that this space is adequate to
service the needs of the building. Therefore the applicant
requests a reduction in the required service area via special
review.
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature ' of the potential
uses of the building and its total square footage, the
utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be
adequate.
RESPONSE: BFI has indicated that the change from lodge to office
will reduce the service requirements. Currently, a six yard
dumpster is picked up 2 to 3 times per week. BFI has indicated
that a 2 yard dumpster with pick up 5 times a week will be
sufficient for the uses in the building. The trash/utility space
identified on the site plan is adequate for a 2 yard dumpster and
is enough room for an additional dumpster if necessary. Staff
recommends that room for recycle containers also be provided.
2. Access to the trash/utility area is adequate.
RESPONSE: BFI has indicated that access would be sufficient if the
parking spaces were eliminated. The applicants propose to
eliminate the parking space. It is not one of the eight required
on -site spaces as proposed in the site plan.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them
easily movable by trash personnel.
RESPONSE: The location of the trash bins will be under a roof
overhang. The applicants do not plan to enclose the bins stating
that to construct .an enclosure is inappropriate because no
redevelopment is occurring on the site. Staff disagrees. The new
location for the trash bins are on Original Street (Hgh. 82) . This
building is located on the corner of Cooper and Original - one of
the primary entrances into Aspen. Although no redevelopment is
occurring on the property, the bins must be moved out of the public
right-of-way, onto the property, and the applicant is requesting
special review approval for a reduced service area. Several of the
land uses on this site are food oriented and many different uses
are located at this corner. To reduce visual pollution on this
prominent corner of Aspen staff recommends that the applicant
enclose the trash and recycling bins.
7
/t
4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided
by the proposed development and measure are taken to encourage
trash compaction by other development on the block.
RESPONSE: This parcel is too small to provide combined trash
service for the block. However, when the Bell Mt. Lodge redevelops
it may be possible to locate a compactor at half -block.
5. The area for utility placement and maintenance is adequate and
safe for the placement of utilities.
RESPONSE: The existing utility area is along the alley at the rear
of the building. No change to these utilities is proposed at this
time. The Engineering Department recommends that any new utility
needs must be installed on -site.
6. Adequate provision are incorporated to ensure the construction
of the access area.
RESPONSE: No additional construction is necessary for the access
area.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends the rezoning of the property from CL
(commerical lodge) to C-1 (commercial) with the following
conditions:
1. The site plan, as proposed in the application, shall be adhered
to including but not limited to the reconfiguration of on -site
parking to 8 spaces, the increased size of the open space,
sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements.
2. Allowable floor area shall remain at 1:1 and the height limit
shall be 32' unless otherwise changed through a planning review
process.
B. Staff recommends the change in use from nine lodge rooms and
guest lobby area to 1,916 square feet of net leasable commercial
space with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits or certificates
of occupancy:
a. The applicant shall request an encroachment license for any
encroachments into the public right-of-way.
b. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to
upgrade the sidewalk, curb and gutters based upon the approved
site plan.
8
U
C. Any new surface utilities shall be installed on the property.
d. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement district
which may be formed for the purpose of construction
improvements in the neighborhood public rights -of -way.
e. The applicant shall revise the affordable dwelling unit based
upon the Housing Office recommendations. However, the
applicant shall mitigate for 2 employees on -site and provide
for the .95 employees either off -site or cash -in -lieu.
f. A fire alarm system shall be installed in the building.
2. Upgrades to the site and reconfiguration of the parking must
comply with the storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.C4.f.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits or a
certificates of occupancy for the buildings the applicant
shall file the appropriate deed restriction with the Housing
Office deeding the basement dwelling unit as affordable
housing.
4. Prior to final review by Council the Fire Marshall shall
determine whether a sprinkler system should be installed.
5. All work in the alley and public right-of-way shall require
a permit from the streets department.
6. During any construction, noise cannot exceed maximum
permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be
done except between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
C. Staff recommends approval of the special review to reduce the
trash/utility service area to 131X17' with the following
conditions:
1. An enclosure shall be constructed for the trash bins and
recycling bins.
2. All debris shall be confined to within the enclosure. No
debris or containers may be stored outside of the trash
enclosure.
9
3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy staff
shall inspect the site to confirm compliance with the
conditions.
D. Staff recommends approval of the Special Review to waive the
parking required for the one bedroom affordable dwelling units.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend to Council the rezoning of the Buckhorn Lodge
parcel from commercial lodge to commercial-1."
"I move to approve the change in use from nine lodge rooms and
guest lobby space to 1,916 square feet of net leasable commercial
space with the conditions outlined in Planning Office memo dated
April 4, 1995."
"I move to approve the Special Review for parking for the
affordable dwelling unit and a reduction in the trash/utility
service area to 131X17' with the conditions outlined in Planning
Office memo dated April 4, 1995."
EXHIBITS:
A. Application
B. Referral Comments
C. Revised Affordable Dwelling Unit Plan
10
EXHIBIT B
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: March 23, 1995 a, f-
Re: Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning & Change in Use
(730 Cooper Avenue; Lots 9.27 Q, R, and S, Block 105, O.A.T.)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Encroachments - An encroachment application has been sent to the applicant's representative
2. Storm Runoff - It should be a condition of approval that redevelopment of the property meet
storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f. This would provide for only historic storm
runoff to be permitted to leave the site.
3. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - About 15 feet of curb and gutter on Cooper Avenue should be
required to be replaced. There is no sidewalk along the Original Street frontage. As„ discussed in
the application, this sidewalk link should be constructed. There should be a five foot buffer for
snow storage and to protect the pedestrian area from snow plowed from the streets.
4. Driveways and Access - The current development is non -conforming by having three
driveways. The application states that only one driveway will remain after redevelopment.
5. Site Plan - The current development contains a beneficial "pocket park" on the entry corner to
Aspen, from the east, which is a benefit to the public. It appears that the area will be preserved,
which is recommended.
6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an
easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. This should be stated in a
general note on the plat.
00
7. Improvement Districts - The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts
which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the neighborhood public
rights -of -way.
8. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
Alan Richman
M95.66
MAR 28 '95 09:35AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.i
MEMMANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planner
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: March 26, 1995
RE: Euckhom Lodge Rezoning & Change In Use
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-27-004
ISM !E ,B: The applicants are requesting that the property be returned to its former commercial status by
designating the property Commercial (C-1),
BACKGROUND: As shed in the application, this would allow the eommerciai uses on the first floor too
remain and would allow the second floor to be oonverted to offices. To accomplish the desired conversion,
the applicants are also requesting a GIVIQS changa in use from ledge to office.
The employee mitigation figure calculated by the applicant is agreeable to the Housing Office. Staff feels
that the lower numbers used for the calculation are appropriate since the room& that are to be converted
to office space are quite small, Therefore, the 2.95 employees generated for this proposal is acceptable.
The applicants are proposing to house the 2.95 erployees in an existing apartment in the lower level of
the building and converting it into a dormitory unit fbr occupancy by three (3) persons. The unit has 540
square feet of net liveable area, which exceeds the standard of 150 square feet per person stated in the
Housing Guidelines. The revised plans show two sleeping areas, a kitchen, living/dining area, and
bathroom.
RECOMMENDATION; I did a site visit of this unit with Leslie Lamont on Monday, March 20. The unit is
direoVy across from the preparation area for Johnny McGuire's and the bedroom is directly under Johnny
MoQuire's with no insulation between the telling 'and the floor above. The unit does contain a large
window well in the Idtchentliving area, but not much light comes through this window. The bedroom has
a small Window which fads the alley but, again, has very little natural light.
Gave Tolen and myself met with David Gibson and Alan Richman on March 23, 1895, At that time, some
concerns were raised as to mitigating for the 2.05 employees in this area. The modified plans dated
March 24, 1895 are acceptable to the Housing Office.
If this is approved and before building permit approval, thts unit must be deed restricted as a dormitory -
type employee dwelling unit, with the rent to coincide with the Guidelines. The occupants must be
qualified employees of Phkin County and qualified through the Housing Office.
VehrmlWAkhohmh
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department L
Through: Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer
Date: March 6, 1995
Re: Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning & Change in Use
Parcel ID # 2737-182-27-004
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Buckhorn Lodge
land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has
the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1 7 -d"i be uniawful for the owner or occupant
of any building used for residence or buslnass purposes within the city l o construct or reowwhxt an on -aft sewage disposal device.•
The application will not change the provision of wastewater disposal through the central
collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD). This meets the
requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District to handle the flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'All buildings, structures, facilities, parks,
or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.'
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with
Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen
Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The
City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health
for drinking water quality.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 'For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from
injury and pollution, the city shah exercise regulatory and supervisory Jurisdiction within the incorporated Nmlts of the City of Aspen and over all steams and sources
contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted.'
. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 'k rs fin purpose d (tin.lr gwlMy section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree
of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and educe air pollution throughout the city..' The Lind Los
Regulations seek to 'essen congestion' and 'avold transportation demands that cannot be met' as well as to 'provide Kean air by protecting the natural air sheds and
educing pollutants'.
1
l
130 South Onions Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/920-5070
e•Cycrdpv-
This application is not expected to significantly impact air quality. By using standard
trip generation rates, the number of trips generated by the proposed commercial space
to be added is no greater than the number of trips ' generated by the existing lodge
rooms.
FIREPLACEM ODSTOVE PERMITS: If fireplaces or woodstoves are planned, the
applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health
Department before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin
County which includes this site may have two *department certified devices and
unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may
NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of fireplace device.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 -niecitywinamdeand declares that Was is a significant source of environmental pollution e,at
ropreseft a present and Increasing throat to the public peace and to the heakh, safety and welfare of the residenta of the Oty d Aspen and It ks visitors. -...Accordingly,
R is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise low in various areas and manners and at various Urnes and to prohibk noise in excess of those levels'
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards,
and construction cannot occur except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
...LAND USE:273718227004.BUCKHORN
2
l`D
is 11DIA, MM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planner
CC:
From: Ed Van Walraven
Date: March 1, 1995
Subject: Buckhorn Lodge Parcel #2737-182-27-004
Leslie,
This project shall meet all applicable codes of the Aspen Fire Protection
District. This includes but not limited to the installation of an approved
fire alarm system and an approved fires rinkler system.
If you have any questions please do not of contact me.
Ed
IV
A �
4 SPEW
,b
EXHIBIT C
OD 00'7',
MEMORANDUM
TO: Plannin _ ��oning Commission
FROM: Johnson, Planner
DATE: A i 1 4, 199 5 ___---
_ __v.��_---
Re: Aspen Center for Physics - Final SPA Development Plan and
Amendment of the Aspen Meadows SPA, Growth Management
Exemption, and Special Review for Parking in the Academic
Zone
Summary: The Planning Office recommends denial of the proposed
Final SPA Development Plan because of the structure's
incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and the
unsatisfactory trail, ditch and building relationship as shown on
the site plan. Staff has no objections to the GMQS Exemption for
essential public facilities. Special review for parking is
supported by staff with two conditions.
If the Commission wishes to approve the SPA portion of the project
as proposed, recommended conditions have been included by Planning
staff .
Applicant: Aspen Center for Physics, represented by Brad Ziegel
and Harry Teague
Location / Zoning: Lot 3 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision is a 4.1
acre parcel located on the south edge of the "Meadows", having
frontage along North Street, Sixth Street and Gillespie Street.
The subject parcel has an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay and
is. zoned A (Academic), as are the Music Associates of Aspen parcel
to the east and the Aspen Institute parcel on the north and west.
To the south across North Street, an established residential
neighborhood exists and is zoned R-6. At the southwest corner of
the subject property are four vacant residential lots zoned R-15.
Request: The applicant wishes to replace Hilbert Hall with a new
building which will provide administrative offices (1,256 s.f.),
28 physicist's offices (7,361 s.f.) and meeting room (2,383 s.f.) .
Total FAR would be 11,000 square feet. A 2,494 s.f. basement is
also proposed. Please see the attached application booklet for
proposed site plan and building details.
Process: The Planning Commission shall make a determination on
the Special Review for parking in the Academic zone and shall
forward a recommendation to Council for the Final SPA Plan and GMQS
Exemption for essential public facilities.
Background: The 1991 Aspen Meadows SPA Plan approved specific
1
development elements on behalf of the MAA, Aspen Institute and
Savanah Limited Partnership. At that time, the Aspen Center for
Physics did not propose specific development, but acknowledged
within the Meadows Master Plan that they would have to be making
changes in the near future.
Most of the development associated with the 1991 approvals for the
MAA and the Institute has been completed. Except for utility and
roadway projects, the development associated with the residential
portions of the Aspen Meadows has not been undertaken.
Referral Comments: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"A". Summaries are as follows:
Engineering:
Any increase in storm run-off must be contained on the
property.
The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for construction of right-of-
way improvements.
The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way,
Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping,
within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall sign a curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement and provide
recording fees for the agreement.
Any new surface utility needs for pedestals of similar
equipment must be installed on an easement on the property,
not in the public right-of-way.
Trash/recycle areas must be shown on the final development
plan. These areas cannot block access to utility meters or
equipment.
The proposed on -street parking is not recommended, especially i as t would be dedicated for private use. Adding spaces in
the existing lot may not be supported by the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision review because of added traffic in the
neighborhood.
There is no mention of bike racks for the 200 bikes used by
Physics.
The proposed relocated trail results in a lessened trail
quality because it is so close to the building.
The revised SPA Plan must include a signature block for the
Sanitation District approving the sewer relocation.
Parking and Transportation:
The proposed expanded 20 space parking lot is acceptable in
light of the extensive bicycle program. This lot should be
paved for dust control. At least one handicap accessible
parking space should be provided in this lot.
The proposed 6 car parking area in the street right-of-way
E
2
conflicts with
Implementation Plan
traffic. Therefore
by this office.
the AACP and Aspen Transportation
and is disruptive to auto and pedestrian
this head -in parking area is not supported
Sanitation District:
The project will receive credit for the facilities to be
demolished. The project representative should contact the
District to review abandonment requirements for the Hilbert
Hall service lines.
Fees for reviews and construction observation must be
submitted to insure adequate review time and observation
scheduling.
Housing Authority: The applicant seeks exemption for housing
mitigation because of its non-profit status and limited expansion.
The Housing Office does not recommend housing mitigation
requirements for this proposal .
Parks:
The proposed trail and ditch alignments on the west side of
the proposed building are not acceptable. There is a conflict
with the 8' easement dimension for the trail and the 712"
setback of the building to the property line. The ditch needs
a separate minimum easement width of three feet. Optimally
there should be at least 15 feet between the building and the
property line to comfortably accommodate both a trail and
ditch.
The trail at Sixth Street needs to be extended northeast to
Gillespie Avenue for connection to the MAA area. NAC
recommends this for pedestrian improvements.
Any trees within the construction area must be protected with
barricades at the driplines. Any exposed roots must be
protected during construction per Parks staff direction.
The ditch along North Street is shown flowing through a bermed
area. It is unclear if the ditch will be culverted here or
otherwise treated to accommodate the berm.
The applicant must verify that the proposed pond is acceptable
per the District Water Commissioner.
The proposed spruce trees in the Gillespie right-of-way are
not acceptable because of future sight distance concerns.
Deciduous trees are recommended.
Historic Preservation Committee: Staff presented this project to
HPC who passed a motion that the building design was not compatible
with the neighborhood character guidelines because of its 247'
length, linearity, and repetition of building elements and windows.
It does not mitigate to the maximum extent feasible its impacts on
the overall community.
Planning Staff Comments: The 1991 Aspen Meadows SPA Plan did not
3
3
address specific development on the Physics parcel. This proposal
is considered a substantial SPA amendment. Substantial amendments
to an SPA are accomplished by a review of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their recommendation to City Council through the
Final SPA process.
The 1991 Aspen Meadows SPA review was conducted as an extension of
the Aspen Meadows Master Plan. The Master Plan evolved through
years of public/private discussions on appropriate development at
the Meadows to benefit and retain the non-profit users there. Four
Goals were formulated by the City Council and set forth in the
Master Plan:
1) Maintain the open space environment and campus setting of the
property.
2) Provide a permanent home on the Aspen Meadows for the
institutional uses.
3) Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the effects of the
development on neighboring properties.
4) Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the pro'ect's
impacts on the overall community.
Future needs as expressed by the Center for Physics in the Master
Plan were described as :
a. Maintain circle of serenity buffer zone surrounding
physics facilities.
b. Hold out possibility for development of NASA or other
scientific research facility.
C. Preserve campus with minimal change.
d. Obtain ownership of land (accomplished in 1991).
The design concepts stated by the architect for this site are to
keep the building low in height and as far back from the roadway
as possible. The proposed heights to the roof ridge vary from 17
to 19 feet. The setback from North Street right-of-way is a
minimum of 76 feet. These dimensions work to a degree to limit
impacts to the neighborhood. However, the effort to strengthen the
"circle of serenity" on the north side of the new structure by
creating a 247 foot long wall is detrimental to the street
frontage, as reflected by the HPC's motion. Staff believes that
the square footage requirements of this building could be broken
into smaller modules which could be alternated stacked or
otherwise rearranged in a much narrower facade as viewed from North
Street. The additional landscaping is commended by HPC and staff,
but the net result will still be a very visible, very long
4
u
institutional building in an established residential area.
The length of this building causes it to be butted up against the
west side of the lot in an uncomfortable manner, especially with
the proposed trail and ditch squeezed into the same space. The lot
adjacent to this portion of the Physics property (Lot 10) is zoned
for a single family residence with a minimum side yard setback of
zero feet per the Aspen Meadows SPA approval. The proximity of the
Physics building to this lot is not warranted given the 4.1 acre
size of the Physics site.
In addition to the Meadows Master Plan document, the Meadows Final
SPA Plan establishes various requirements for the Meadows users.
This includes an extensive traffic mitigation plan which was
developed to assist development at the Meadows to achieve goals 3
and 4 which were stated above. The Physics group was not included
in specifics of the traffic mitigation plan because they were not
proposing specific development at that time. But staff believes
that it is worthwhile considering traffic reduction elements
similar to those employed by other Meadows users when considering
the new Physics proposal.
Among other elements, the Institute has implemented a van shuttle
service for its guests at the lodge, and the MAA works closely with
RFTA to provide bus service for the music students and concert
attendees. Both non -profits incorporate information stressing auto
alternatives into their printed literature for guests and
conferees.
SPA REVIEW STANDARDS: The following review standards are set forth
in Section 24-7-804 B. of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: Staff believes that this project does not satisfy the
bulk and architectural compatibility requirements for the
neighborhood.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to
service the proposed development.
Response: Public facilities and roads are adequate in the
vicinity.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for development, considering the slope, ground
instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
5
s
Response: No hazards exist for the proposed building.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid
adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails
and similar amenities for the users of the project and the
public at large.
Response: The trail and ditch proposal is not adequate for the
reasons discussed above by Parks and Planning staff. The project
provides adequate open space and landscaping provided along the
road frontage.
S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not make specific
recommendations regarding a project of this type. However, the
Plan emphasizes pedestrian access and preservation of trail
easements.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure
of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the
parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: No public expenditures are needed for this project other
than the City Parks Department's continued maintenance of the main
ditch along North Street. The Physics will be responsible for
continued maintenance of the other ditches on the property. Parks
sees the proposed location of the ditch close to the building as
a maintenance problem.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Sec. 7-903 (B) (2) (b) .
Response: This standard does not apply.
S . Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed
development.
Response: GMQS exemption is sought for this application. Staff
supports the exemption based on previous exemptions granted for
other Meadows non -profits.
Special Review for Parking in the Academic Zone:
Parking in the Academic zone shall be approved by special review,
only if the following conditions are met:
1. In zone districts where the off street parking requirements
are subject to establishment or reduction by special review,
C.
L
the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the
residents, guests and employees of the project have been met,
taking into account potential uses of the parcel, its
proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and
any special services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guests and employees.
Response: The Parking and Transportation Department supports the
enlarged 20 space parking lot with the condition that it is paved.
The Engineering Department is concerned that the lot expansion will
draw more traffic into the neighborhood. Planning supports the
expansion because it is fairly limited. However, Planning agrees
that the lot should be paved. The proposed 6 space gravel area
along the Sixth Street right-of-way is not supported by any City
staff and should be eliminated.
The Center for Physics should be required to develop a traff is
mitigation plan to be implemented when the new building is
completed. It is conceivable that the plan might involve shared
arrangements with the other Meadows non -prof its. The traf f is plan
must also address limiting the impacts of construction traffic on
the surrounding neighborhood. This plan must be developed and
approved by Planning, Engineering and Parking/Transportation prior
to the issuance of any demolition/building permits for the project.
Problem discussion: The major issues as seen by staff are recapped
as follows:
1) The proposed structure is incompatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood because of its length, linearity and
repetition of windows and materials. The proximity of the new
building to the adjacent single family lot and the future
home's zero side yard setback is incompatible.
2) The proposed trail and ditch location along the west side of
the building does not provide adequate width for a reasonable
trail experience or ditch function/maintenance.
3) The applicant must develop a traffic mitigation plan similar
to that implemented by the Institute and MAA. It shall
address construction traffic mitigation.
4) The proposed gravel parking area along Sixth Street is not
supported by any City staff.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends denial of the
proposed structure as an SPA amendment because it does not satisfy
the compatibility issues of the Meadows Master Plan and SPA review
criteria.
7
IN
Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for essential
public facilities and approval of Special Review for parking in the
Academic zone with the following conditions:
1. The six space parking area in the Sixth Street right-of-way
shall be eliminated.
2. The 20 space parking area shall be paved prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy. At least one handicap
accessible parking space should be provided in this lot.
If the Commission wishes to approve the project as proposed
the following conditions are recommended by Planning staff:
3. Any increase in storm run-off must be contained on the
property.
4. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for construction of right-of-
way improvements.
5. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way,
Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping,
within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall sign a curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement and provide
recording fees for the agreement.
7. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals of similar
equipment must be installed on an easement on the property,
not in the public right-of-way.
8. Trash/recycle areas must be shown on the final development
plan. These areas cannot block access to utility meters or
equipment.
9. Bike racks shall be shown on the final development plan.
10. The revised SPA Plan must include a signature block for the
Sanitation District approving the sewer relocation.
11. No digging shall occur within the driplines of the existing
trees. Barricades must be erected prior to any construction
activity on the site. The applicant must work closely with
Parks staff during construction to implement tree protection
measures.
12. The project representative shall contact the Sanitation
8
F�
District to review abandonment requirements for the Hilbert
Hall service lines.
13. Fees for Sanitation District reviews and construction
observation must be submitted well in advance of building
permit issuance to insure adequate review time and observation
scheduling.
14. The ditches need a separate minimum easement width of three
feet. There shall be at least 15 feet between the building
and the property line to comfortably accommodate both a trail
and ditch.
15. The trail at Sixth Street needs to be extended northeast to
Gillespie Avenue for connection to the MAA area.
16. Any trees within the construction area must be protected with
barricades at the driplines. Any exposed roots must be
protected during construction per Parks staff direction.
17. The ditch/berm conflict shown in the open space on the south
side of the building must be resolved.
18. The applicant must verify that the proposed pond is acceptable
per,the District Water Commissioner.
19. The proposed spruce trees in the Gillespie right-of-way must
be eliminated or replaced with deciduous species.
20. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
22. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on
the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA
Development Plan within a period of one hundred and eighty
(180) days following approval by the City Council shall render
the PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval
of both by the Commission and City Council will be required
before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or
waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause.
Attachments:
Project Application Booklet
"A" Complete Referral Comment Memos
Vol
MAR 01 195 02:56PM HARPY TERGUE
P. 2
Genera Ll I of o rm a tion
Location:
Project Description:
Occupancy
Construction Type:
NEU
A,3_ Colloquium Room
8-2 Offices
B-2 Administration
Total
Basement 100% below grade
Mttrcb 1, 1995
600 West Gillespie St.
Aspen, 00 81611
Demolition of Hilbert Hall, Replacement building
consisting of staff offices, 28 physicists' offices, lecture
hall and partial basement
Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Special Planned Area
(S.P,A.) 1990. Rotor to amendment application submitted
January 2791995,
A-3 Colloquium Ream: Capacity l= Fixed Seats.
B-2 Offices. 28 separate roams with double occupancy.
B-2 Staff Offices.
Type V Non -rated.
Poured ooncrete foundation. Slab on grade. Wood frame
walls and roof. In slab radiant heat, air system in lecture
hall. Fully sprinklered.
2,383 net SF
7,361 net SF
1.2E6 netSE
11,000 net SF
2,494 net SF Non. -FAR
File: ACP 9311.2
V
/0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Physics
DATE: March 29, 1995
HPC reviewed the proposal for a new facility at the Aspen Center
for Physics on March 8, 1995, as part of their initial involvement
in the approval of the Aspen Meadows SPA. Portions of the Meadows
campus are recognized as historic resources.
Staff did not request a representative of the applicant to attend
the meeting as the HPC comments are advisory in this case,
therefore no formal presentation was given to the HPC or any
explanation of the designer's philosophy beyond what was supplied
in written materials. In reviewing the proposed new building and
its relationship to the surrounding residential neighborhood, HPC
made the following motion:
"HPC finds that the replacement (building) for the Aspen Physics
Institute does not conform to (the Master Plan Goal) Goal #1,
Policy #4, architectural character and it is not compatible with
the neighborhood character guidelines and should be looked at in
that regard, i.e. length and linearity. Also it does not meet #4,
mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the project's impacts on
the overall community. Where this is only one story in height and
is set back from the road, nonetheless it is a 247 ft. plane with
a lot of repetition of the building elements and windows."
Passed 4-1.
HPC also commented that the landscape plan is well done and will
provide some buffer to the neighborhood.
MAR . 20 ' 95 4 : 15PM _ _ . --T . 1
T ' Kim Johnson, City Planner
THRU; Cvmge Robinson, Parks Directm
FROM: Rebecca Bakes, Parks Degamnnt
DAZE: March 13, 19'9S --- --
R& ftm Ccuter for Physics SPA Amendment, AGM
QS ExenTdoct & Spedal-Review
We have reviewed the applimlion subtnittx�d by Harry T :ArchiuO$ for the Aspen. CLenter for
Physics and of ex the followring +oom�rr�ents and con=)$. ' Posed trail s►lig== and ditch
mahpment along the west s� of the property is not aoc�ep The site plan.shows only about
five fe8t between the building and the property boundtuy, however, the situ plau shows the trail as
an tight foot trail easernentw The tram caset!20 t should bre mainWned at eight feet regardless of
whether the actual trail is constructed eight foot wide at this tune. AdditiorWly, the ditch should not
encroach upon the tail easement, and nuirr,,a a min mmum of d= feet for the ditch itself, If the
ditch were to flood, the greater amount Of would allow more water to puvol into the-- -_
ground and cause less problcrm for the ` 'o 'i'herefore, a n*d=m of 11-12 fiot # am
must be maiuta ed between the building and the propUty boundary. Evers this �r o spam is
fmginal and a preferred option of is fit is a ourdged. This'however, m 4to a problem of
whether to move the building east- w4rd or tc.rcduce the 1 the building (possibly increasing
the wrath) to aceomnwdate die trail and ditch. It does not ap + from the site plan, Umt there is
t than five feet on the east side of the building, so even tt n itinlwn space is decided
upon, the moving of the building may not accomnvdale the s required,
If the buildini is relocated it may cause tip loss of the tree on the east side of the building. A tree
Itmovai permit would be regtired if this were t+a occur. If the building is not n-x)vcd aW StM
designed to maintak the-t=, then *a P70tective barrier should be placed around the dripline of the
fto so no digging occurs near the base of the tale. If large- ots are cnoolmet d'Wry-
excavating, the roots should be coven and .kept moist until good clear] fill can be, r sratmd
the trams}. :,,
The ditch that is parallel to North St and win& between the aftmwoods and Crab apples, is
shown on the site plan and discussed in the application 4s go' and over the proposed henna. Tit
rtay be better to have the ditch go along the outer edge of die if the lu.ans is
to otdvert the ditch throw the prop°sn$
through we wows ret.orn=nd usmg a 12 PVC: pipe for ease of
n�axntenance.
For the Proposed storage pond, the Institute may wish to contact the District Wawr Conmiisdo' =
to see if there are amy regula ons with evaporative water loss ern the -new
We would like to,mqucst the extension of the trail where it begins on Sixth St, to eon#we the tail
into the right -of way along Sixth to Gillespie. The Neighborhood Advisory Conun itwe has Junked
at this canner before for nee&g pedestrian improvements.
The Final comment on the application is the proposed spruce in the: GiUk�spie Ave. ROW
(easteMcomer of the property). Spruce trees arc not acceptab for RC)Ws bm-auuse they out -gnaw
their space too quickly. Deciduous trots would be more appi Ypriate for this area, particularly► to
aiiow good site distnr for entening eW caciting their paring ate,
0
/ C?
A
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: Randy L. Rea , Director of Transportation & Parking
DATE: . March 30, 1995
RE: Referral Comments --Aspen Center for Physics Building Replacement
Project 1995: Special Planned Area Amendment
Per your request, I have reviewed the above -referenced project application and offer the
following comments:
1. I applaud the ACP's commitment to alternative transportation and its tradition of
providing bicycles for the use of all participants. I would strongly encourage
continuation of that practice. ACP is a model for other organizations in regard to being
part of the solution in reducing the impacts of automobile congestion and pollution.
2. Off -Street Parking: Expansion of the off-street parking lot from 14 to 20 spaces is
consistent with City efforts to reduce auto impacts on City streets. The proposed
landscaping should help buffer the lot from the surrounding area. I would recommend
that the lot be upgraded to a paved surface to reduce dust and avoid tracking dirt and
mud onto the City street system. While the parking requirement for this project is to be
determined by special review, I would note that the 20 off-street spaces is somewhat
below the absolute minimum of 27 spaces that would be required for a similar -sized
project in an Office zone district. I believe that the 20 spaces are appropriate in light of
the convenient availability of bicycles and summer bus service for ACP participants.
Finally, I would encourage the ACP to make sure that it is complying with ADA parking
requirements in the final design and space designation of the parking lot by creating at
least one fully -accessible space.
3. On -Street Parking: The proposed development of six new perpendicular parking spaces
in a gravel area within the City ROW along 6th Street is not consistent with provisions
of the AACP and the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan which call for reducing
auto storage on neighborhood streets and improving pedestrian friendliness throughout
town. Head -in parking spaces are particularly disruptive on the streetscape. While the
current West -End Residential Permit Parking Zone ends about three blocks from the
project area, the intent of the RPP program is to reduce parking and traffic impacts in
residential neighborhoods. The provision of on -street head -in parking does not help to
accomplish that goal. I would recommend against creation of the new gravel parking
area along 6th Street.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please let me know if I can answer
any questions or be of further assistance on this project.
!3
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department P`�
Date: February 28, 1995
Re: Aspen Center for Physics SPA Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review
(700 West Gillespie, Lot 3, Aspen Meadows Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. 'Site Drainage - The building permit plans must provide on site for storm runoff so that no
runoff greater than historic amounts leaves the site.
1 2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The property abuts public rights -of -way on North, Sixth and
JJ Gillespie Streets. The Code requires construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. For this project and location, the applicant should be required to sign and
notarize a sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement agreement, and provide recording fees, prior to
issuance of a building permit. The agreement will require the applicant to construct such
improvements if and when directed by the City.
3. tilities - The increased number of plumbing fixtures will require that tap fees be paid to the
City Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an
easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Trash & Utili , Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
5. Parldn - The amount of vehicular traffic by users of all lots of the Aspen Meadows i
Subdivision was a source of concern during the original approval process and remains a source of
concern today for staff and West End residents. It may not be appropriate to approve a parking lot
expansion. The suggested, or requested, six angle spaces in the Sixth Street right-of-way are also
questionable. The right -of --way width for Sixth Street is generally compatible with parking
parallel P P g
&I
uses, not angle parking. Parking spaces in the public right-of-way have until recently not been able
to be restricted to private uses. We suggest that the Parking and Transportation Office' be
consulted. Pending their recommendation to the contrary, the Engineering Department
recommends against providing for increased parking, both on private property and in the public
right-of-way.
6. Bicycles - The application makes reference to "200 bicycles," however no mention is made of
providing bike racks for that number of bicycles.
7. Trail Easement - City experience with trail easements is that development should not be
permitted too close to a trail. The west end of the proposed replacement building is located too
close to the proposed, re -aligned trail easement.
The proposed trail easement relocation is a reduction in quality of trail location. The
proposed realignment is so close to Gillespie Street as to be shifting from being a trail to being a
sidewalk. Sidewalks are pedestrian spaces adjacent to streets. Trails are pedestrian facilities that
are removed from association with streets. The trail sidewalk pedestrian area should be
constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and that it be a minimum of five feet
wide with a hard surface usable by wheel chairs and strollers.
8. '$ite Design - In addition to crowding the trail easement, the proposed replacement building
presents a significant alteration to the site by proposing development much closer to the streets than
is currently the case. Perhaps more subgrade space should be constructed to reduce above grade
visual density and impacts.
9. Existing Vegetation - Any existing vegetation that is intended to be preserved should be
protected by -construction fencing, at least from the drip line, and so indicated on the building
permit application drawings.
10. Sanitary Sewer Easement Relocation - The plat amendment must contain an approval
certificate for the Sanitation District to sign for approving the sewer easement relocation.
11. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
Harry Teague, Harry Teague Architects
Thomas Applequist, Aspen Center for Physics
M95.61
41�
FEB 27 195 04:34PM ASPEN HOUSING OFF:
r
KIII 1-4 Us- W,71
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
MOMS Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: February 27, 1995
RE: Aspen Center for Physics SPA Amendment, OMQS Exemption
and special Review
Parcel ID No. 2735-121-29-003
The Housing Office comes to the conclusion that the applicant is
not required to do mitigation because the Aspen Municipal Land Use
Code gives the opportunity to exempt all institute facilities from
mitigating for affordable housing impacts.
According to Section B -104, C, 1, b, COnstrruction of essential
facilities;
(� Except for housing, development shall be considered on essential public facility If It serves an
essential puble purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands of growth, is not itself a
growth gsnerator, is availsWe for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the city. it
shall also be taken into consideration whether the develepnient is a not -for -profit venture. 'This
exemption shall not be applied to commercial or lodge development
(iii) Not withstanding the criteria, as set forth in paragraph (i) and Qi) above, the city council may
determine upon application that development associated with a nonprofd entity qualities a,s an
essential public facility and may exempt such development from the GW1QS and from some or all
such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and warranted.
The applicant has stated that the Aspen Center for Physics is a
not -for -profit venture, and the cu-rent summer enrollment of 90
physicists will be maintained, as in years past, and not exceeded.
The applicant will also be providing the potential for the
colloquium room to be borrowed by other public institutions for
gatherings up to 90 people.
�rafcrra��aa�yr,m4t
/ z
' WsPen Consol o(afeof &nifafion �1•sfricf
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX #(303) 925-2537
-,y Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly
Albert Bishop - Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
t)arch 1. 1995 •
Kim Johnson
Planning Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
- Re: Aspen Center for Physics
SPA amendment
Lear Kim: `
The Aspen Center for Physics building complex is served by the
District wastewater collection system. This part'of our system is
in good condition and I am not aware of any downstream
constraints at this time.
The District will charge additional total connection charges for
the incremental increase in use associated with the improvements
proposed. If Hilbert Hall is removed and replaced with a new
building the District will allow total connection charges
credits, in the amount previously paid. toward our current
charges. The applicant should have his representative contact our
office to review- our requirements for the abandonment of the
service line associated with Hilbert Hall. Service, as usual, is
contingent upon compliance with the District's Rules and
Regulations -which are on file at the District office.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherl�
District Manager
31995
+E'EN IPA
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
T
�_
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
} SS.
State of Colorado }
I,
`"
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
the day of� 199 57- (which is S days
prior to the public hearing date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from the a day of '"'`A��� , 199�
to the y day of 199 y. (Must be
posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto. pw%'
Signature
(Attach photograph here) Si ned before me this �_.J% 1'1 day of
C , 19 9,� . by
U 4 -' y-2 , ) .
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My ommissio� ffe fires:
o t a Public
r
1
`��t A qh�q, �. P-4
Y
DAV I D
GIBSON,
AIA
AUGUST
RENO,
AIA
SCOTT
SMITH,
March 20, 1995 AIA
This sworn affidavit shall attest that a public notice was posted
at 222 N. Cleveland Street for the Fellman Conditional Use GIBSON ,,RENO
Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit on March 20, 1995, by A R C H I T E C T S
Steve Buettow. III
The sign was in plain sight from the street and was notification
210 E. HYMAN
for the Public Planning and Zoning Meeting, Tuesday, April 4,
1995. No 202
ASPEN
COLORADO
81611
303.925.5968
FACSIMILE
` 303.925.5993
P.O. BOX 278
117 N. WILLOW
NO 2
TELLURIDE
COLORADO
MY COMMISSION EXIPIRES: 81435
June 24, 1998
303.728.6607
FACSIMILE
303.728.6658
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
April 4, 1995
Mr. Bruce Kerr
Chairman Aspen Planning Commission
c/o The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. John Bennett
Mayor, City of Aspen
c/o The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Kerr and Mayor Bennett:
I represent Charles Marqusee, owner of Lots A through F, Block 7 City and
Townsite of Aspen. Mr. Marqusee recently received notice regarding the
proposed SPA Amendment request filed by the Aspen Center for Physics.
Mr. Marqusee has requested that I forward a letter to you expressing his full
support for approval of the Center's proposal. The structure which is now
being proposed for replacement was originally placed on the site as a
temporary facility in the 1960's. Replacement is long overdue, in Mr.
Marqusee's opinion. Mr. Marqusee has reviewed the plans for the new
building and feels that the low -scale structure is a suitable addition to the
Aspen Meadows academic campus. The new building will create a sheltered
area within the Physics Center parcel to enhance the Center's "Circle of
Serenity", long a matter of concern to the Center. Mr. Marqusee urges the
Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council to grant approval to the
proposal
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
cc: Charles Marqusee
George Stranahan, Aspen Center for Physics
JW/su
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-8080
Facsimile (303) 925-8275
624 NORTH STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
April 3, 1995
Mr. William Frazer
Building Committee Chairman.
Aspen Center for Physics
700 W, Gillespie Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Bill,
We have enjoyed the Physics Institute as neighbors for over thirty years. Your.
participants, programs, and lectures `have- become .an important part of summer in
Aspen. Your.buildings have always been. -in scale with the neighborhood and
the architecture compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
However, we are deeply concerned with the new development plan for your
property. -When we met with you-in.December.we had no idea of the size of
this structure. As shown on your Conceptual Site Plan, the structure is
247 feet long., virtually from your easterly boundary (6th St.) to your westerly
boundary near the residential lots,on.7th Street.
In addition, it has a 90-seat auditorium,.which..you indicate may be used by
the public and another addition_:for your administration offices.. This will
impact parking in the neighborhood as your programs run concurrently with the
MAA programs. The SPA-.P.lan approved for -your property provided for a trail
beginning.at 7th and North and meandering along the irrigation ditch on your
westerly boundary to Gillespie St. extended. "What happens to the trail?
Our suggestions are: To break up the mass of the building.
To move the building a.long.the westerly boundary of
the property to.the north of Hilbert Hall or
across the northerly portion of your property.
To use the auditorium only for your participants.
To mitigate parking needed for your programs.
We must also mention the architect -Is statement "the building will have a
rusty metal -roof." This, too,. is"out of character with the West End neighbor-
hood. We.hope you.will.re-think this possibility.
Iney,
Ramona Ma ka.1 as
George Stranahan
Mr. David N. Schramm, Chairman
Nr. Thomas Appelquist( President
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr.
APRIL 4, 1995
Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt,
Timothy Mooney, and Jasmine Tygre. Robert Blaich and Marta
Chaikovska were excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
Leslie Lamont and the commissioners discussed upcoming meetings.
A date for a special meeting of the City Planning & Zoning and the
County Planning & Zoning was requested, for a Growth Management
Review,a work session, and a meeting regarding Aspen small lodges.
Commission members' schedules were unclear for the month of May for
the requested meetings, but it was suggested by Chairman Kerr to
go ahead and set up a Growth Management Commission Review for the
regularly scheduled meeting on May 16th and hope for a quorum. The
meeting is to be held early at 4:00 and then move into the
regularly scheduled meeting agenda.
There were no definite decisions on the other requested meetings.
Leslie Lamont: If it is alright with everyone, I would like to move
the Buckhorn Lodge first.
MOTION
Hunt moved to change the order of the agenda and put the Buckhorn
Lodge first. Seconded by Garton. All were in favor. Motion
carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments.
WX"r*TTTmM10
There were no minutes.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
BUCKHORN LODGE REZONING AND GMQS EXEMPTION
FOR CHANGE IN USE
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Leslie presented an
Affidavit; affidavit attached in record.
Alan Richman, representing Sy and Nora Kelly, and Dave Gibson,
architect on the project, made the presentation. Sy and Nora have
owned the Buckhorn Lodge for about 20 years and in that time they
have seen quite a few changes. They bought the property back in the
sixties, and it was zoned C-1. The property was downzoned in the
seventies along with a lot of the other properties in downtown and
in residential neighborhoods. It was zoned office at that time
which was something that was very contrary to what Sy was looking
to do with the property. He has been dealing with the consequences
of that action now for about 20 years. It wasn't until the early
eighties that Sy was able to begin to do something about the zoning
problem; that's when the City initiated the then L-3 rezoning
action where about 25 lodges were rezoned, and the Buckhorn was one
of the properties in the list. The Kelly's submitted their own
application, and got a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning
Commission and approval from the Council to zone the property CL.
Basically, the property has been operating under that CL zoning for
the last decade. We are requesting the C-1 zoning in an effort to
create some office uses on the second floor. The staff has
recommended approval of that rezoning. (Alan presented many
examples of changes being made for the C-1 zoning at the Buckhorn
Lodge to the commissioners upon closing).
Hunt stated he doesn't have so much of a problem as to what you do
with the property, but he has a real problem with the zoning to C-
1, and goes back to how this was zoned Commercial Lodge. Hunt
said, I don't recall that being recommended out of P&Z to City
Council. Neighborhood Commercial is a much more appropriate zoning
for that piece of property. It is not "hop -scotching" zoning; it
allows such uses as conditional uses of unrestricted restaurants
where right now on site we have more food service facilities
which are a neighborhood commercial type of activity, as far as I'm
concerned. It also allows things like Pierre-Famille Jewelry Shop,
which I don't think is appropriate in the area. I just don't think
C-1 uses are appropriate for that site. That's my major problem
there, and really, I cans support what you want to do, it's just not
with that zoning. So, I'll just throw that out.
2
LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 4, 1995
Richman responded: There were a few.problems with the NC zone.
The primary one is parking. Parking in that zone district is four
spaces per thousand and we are not even close to that. Assuming,
as part of the re -zoning, one has to bring an existing situation
up to conformity for parking; which has become City policy to do.
That would be in the range of 20 to 22 spaces and that's well more
than we have land for. That's the primary problem. The other
problems, I think, are lesser. What we are trying to do here is
create offices.
Hunt said offices can be done in NC, also.
Richman: Although it's conditional use of NC.
Hunt: That's right. Well, I'm just throwing it out, as I say. I
cannot support C-1 zoning. I can support what you are doing.
Garton asked if sidewalks, Chuck, go along the Kraut property on
the east side on Original?
Chuck: I believe so.
Garton asked if the one-to-one ratio, the 32 ft . height limit, will
it go in perpetuity with that building until it's raised? For any
changes in that, they'd have to come in.
Leslie Lamont: I believe I even stated that in the Condition of
Approval that unless otherwise changed for ,a Planning Review
process.
Garton: And then on the apartment; whoever is in there will have
to be approved by the Housing Authority. But will it be Sy and
Nora's choice who goes in there?
Richmand: Yes.
Garton: You know, I don't have a lot of trouble with three people
in there, and I know there's problems with it, but the kind of
Housing that goes with that kind of a building, it's possible.
Garton: I think the kind of people that live there will be working
in the offices. It isn't ,the most desirable unit that we try to
get, especially an ADU, but with housing within a building like
that, I'm so happy to see that, that I could accept that
configuration.
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
Leslie Lamont: Well, I think Roger is right, and I think from a
Planning perspective with resulting areas of the community, I think
it is more appropriately zoned NC, in looking at the uses allowed
in the NC zone district and the uses that are currently in the
building, because businesses and offices are conditional, we would
not be creating any non -conforming uses. Remember, we have amended
NC to further define "food store", and we define it as "a take-
out food deli". Both Johnny McGuire's and Dominos get that
definition. Alan is correct, the biggest problem in the NC, is
four parking spaces per thousand square fQet . As part of the bigger
planning picture of that whole area, for Independence Place, we
early on, flagged that four spaces per thousand square feet as
pretty overbearing. It is a disincentive to people. I tend to
agree with Roger.
Hunt: A non -conforming structure isn't a major deal. Non-
conforming use is a lot more major a deal, as far as I'm concerned.
Leslie Lamont: If the Commission wants to go this way, we can work
something out here. Lamont suggested that the Board table this
application so that staff can advertise a conditional use review
and a text amendment for the NC zone district, and at the same time
come back and do everything at once. That would be the process.
Garton: And I think that's desirable, because we really should be
reducing parking spaces in that NC district. It is really
important for the whole transportation planning, and I would also
like to see the NC zone on it.
Chairman Kerr: I had another thought of possible approach.
Couldn't the zoning stay the same and just change the use in effect
on the floor. In effect, commerical.
Leslie Lamont: No, because the CL doesn't allow commercial on the
second floor, it only allows commercial on the first and basement.
Chairman Kerr: Alan and Sy, obviously we would like to proceed
based on the proposed proposal here, but have you respond to
staff's recommendations and perhaps take home and kind of rework
the NC zone district or something along those lines.
Richman: Well, obviously I'm concerned about a solution required
that we have no control over and that is unacceptable to the City
Council, for whatever reason, then we spend a lot of time and money
in the process and we die along the war. So, that has me terribly
concerned. There are a number of solutions that you could think
about, one of which would be simply accept the C-1 zoning, but to
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
limit the uses allowed on this property to something resembling,
or in fact, the use list of the C-1 zone district. It's a bit more
contrived than your solution which is really giving it some broad
community planning questions.
Hunt: The question is, can we accept the this proposal with the
parking as is, with the circumstances that it is, in effect, a
down -zoning from Commercial Lodge to NC. So, do we get a balance
of all these issues to where we can accept these eight spaces for
this property in being tagged NC?
Leslie Lamont: That would be my preference, versus coming up with
a contrived use list just for this building.
Garton: Are we allowed to waive parking in NC?
Leslie Lamont: No. That's why I'm requesting a special review.
Tygre was concerned regarding the legality issue and Leslie
recommended that the commission table until May 2nd and readvertise
for special review for parking. and re -zoning to NC and conditional
use review for the offices on the second floor.
Leslie Lamont: My recommendation is, approval for the special
review for the parking and trash, and approval of the changing use,
and I would recommend as far as the re -zoning application goes,
that we table to readvertise that we are re -zoning to NC,
conditional use for offices in the text amendment for the special
review for parking.
Chairman Kerr asked if this is just NC or for all commercial use?
Leslie Lamont: Just NC. The rest of our commercial zone districts
have special review cash -in -lieu. I believe NC is the only one.
that does not provide for that option.
Chairman Kerr asked.for public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Yvonne Voiced concern on the zoning, particularly the offices
and clarification of NC. Leslie stated she would have a copy of
the NC section xeroxed for Yvonne for her use, as well as
Conditional Uses.
There were no other public comments.
Chairman Kerr: My recommendation would be to deal with the
5
PLANNING & ZONING_ COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
application all at one time. I do think we need to give some
guidance to the applicant as to the employee housing issue, two
people that kind of thing. Do we have any comments?
Richman: I like this NC re -zoning, and I'm going to change and
accept the parking, but I do prefer a different configuration for
the employee housing. I think that the option to have two and one,
makes privacy, a better quality of life. Two in the existing unit,
and one separate in another 215 square foot in one of the upstairs
units. Otherwise, I don't see any problems with this, I'm very
happy. Mr. Kelly is trying to preserve thds corner and upgrade the
uses so that economically it is more sound.
Leslie Lamont: I agree with Tim. I think that the use of the
upstairs office as a small studio is really the ideal solution;
even though it is really small, I think that more people would
rather have a little bit of extra privacy, and the location of it,
being so close to the offices, and being so close to downtown,
makes it much more valuable as a unit, even a small one, than
trying to make the applicant pay cash -in -lieu.
Hunt: I agree with Tim and Jasmine. I can accept the existing
unit as proposed for three people. In other words, if it goes that
way, great, but I can even accept the three in the basement unit.
Chairman Kerr: I suppose I am somewhere close to Roger on this one.
I would prefer two separate employee units, but I can probably live
with the dorm situation in preference with the two units. Actually
my preference would be for the basement unit, and you can get the
Housing Office to buy into the Category 4, cash -in -lieu, that . would
actually be my preference.
Mooney: I should say then, that basically, I appreciate the
housing being divided on site.
Chairman Kerr: O.K., do you have a feel for where we are on the
housing unit?
Richman: I definitely understand the housing situation and as far
as the zoning goes.
Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing.
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
MOTION
Hunt moved to table this item and all attendant issues for further
recommendations to Council to May 2nd, 1995. Vice -Chairperson
Tygre seconded. All were in favor. Motion carried.
FELLMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing.
There was no staff presentation. An Affidavit of Public Notice was
presented by Gibson, representing the applicant, as attached in
record.
Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Hunt: I move to approve the conditional use of the accessory unit,
222 North Cleveland, with the conditions, 1 through 6 as outlined
in the Planning memo dated 4 April 1995.
Vice -Chairperson Tygre seconded. All were in favor. Motion
carried.
ROTHBLUM CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
Kim Johnson, Planner: Made presentation, as attached in record.
Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing.
r� (i 00to) k'ki�
Chairman Kerr: I move to approve the conditional use of
approximately 300 to 371 square foot accessory dwelling unit, at
624 East Hopkins with conditions, 1 through 5 as outlined in the
Planning Office memo dated 4 April 1995.
Garton seconded. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Kerr closed the public comments.
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
MOTION
Garton: I make a motion to direct staff not to add any more ADU's
to our agenda until we get an update on ADU Survey from the Housing
Office.
Hunt seconded. All were in favor. Motion carried.
ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS
Kim Johnson, Planner, made presentation as attached in record.
Applicant presenters were Mr. Brad Ziegel and Mr. Harry Teague.
Mr. Ziegel explained reasons for needing new building.
Mr. Harry Teague, architect for the Physics Center, introduced Mr.
Robert Harth, who spoke in support o.f the Aspen Center for Physics.
Mr. Gideon Kaufman explained reasons Institute presented the
application at this time. The Institute wishes to commense building
in the autumn after the summer season.
Mr. Teague presented a model of the proposed site and a slide
presentation was made of the site.
Chairman Kerr presented to the Clerk, for record, a letter f rom Mr.
Joseph Wells in full support of the Aspen Center for Physics
proposal, representing Mr. Charles Marqusee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Chairman Kerr opened the Public Comment and said this is probably
going to be round one, so if you don't get to say everything you
want to say tonight, I'm sure you'll have other opportunities in
the future.
Jim Markalunas: Questioned landscaping and building site and
voiced concerns.
Nick DeWolf: Spoke in support of the Physics Center, in regard
to its intellectual aura.
Ferdinand ( ? ): Spoke of his concern of the Physics Center being
within 10 ft. of a single family dwelling.
Maggie DeWolf: Spoke in support of the Physics Center.
L-01
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
Ramona Markalunas: Spoke about her concerns and presented a letter
supporting her position as attached in record.
Chick Collins: Stated his concerns regarding the project.
Jim Markalunas: Again spoke of -hi.s concerns regarding the
racetracks, ditches, trash problems and traffic problems.,
He also was concerned about the cottonwood trees in the area.
Mac Cunningham gave. a strong supportive presentation for the
Physics Center.
Chick Collins: Voiced again his concern on the impact to the
surrounding area.
Chairman Kerr closed Public Comment subject to being reopenedat
a later time.
Chairman Kerr: I guess my number one recommendation would be to you
and Chuck, and whoever you can get together with, and find out
about the easements. It appears to me that the location of the
structure, is in large part, based upon the locations of those
easements. Those things are not operative, they can be moved, it
seems to me that it would clear up a lot of problems that we may
be encountering. So, that seems to be step number one, for someone
to really investigate the easements.
Garton: I have some comments about the conditions. First of all,
I'm sure it's a cost constraint to stay within one building.
Harry Teague: It's primarily, programmatic. We like to bring
people together, and I can assure you that the noise is not going
to get out of hand.
Garton: Did you ever think of designing the building in a
boomerang shape?
Harry Teague: Yes. What that had the effect of doing, was
bringing certain parts of the building closer and interrupting that
space.
Buettow: Can't you bring the boomerang closer to the other
structures?
Garton: What if you rotated the west end at an angle, and made a
V?
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
Harry Teague: That certainly could happen. What we are doing
then, is presenting more building in a place, it seemed to us, was
the most visible of all. There's very little vegetation along the
top of this hillside, it's elevated compared to the surrounding
terrain.The base of the building is actually five feet below North
Street in elevation, so we gain the fact that the building is not
only 17 feet high, but it's higher than that in some places.
Concern was voiced in regarding the 7 foot, 2 inch space/trail
increment between the proposed building and Lot 10.
Hunt: Well, there's this point about the southern easement. It
is crucial, because it looks to me that it is three wings, and you
sort of arked this building with say, 30 to 40 degrees, between
two of the three wings. You could get that building, more or less,
circled in here, with a focus toward the north and relieve a lot
of that western setback and also, possibly visually break up the
building a little more from the neighbors on the south.
Mooney: There are a lot of different opinions here, and some of
them focus on consistent things through different meetings. Mooney
said the intentions of applicant are grand. But, also, the
intentions of the neighborhood are grand. So, I'm not trying to
add up square footage or find out where the trees are, I'm looking
at what the neighborhood is intending to do with lifestyle of the
residents and the lifestyle of the physicists. And, it seems to
me that this is stuck. I really think that the neighborhood has
some good points. I really think that Harry Teague has presented
a great building. I think the applicants have to try and
configure this building with as many of the amenities in tact as
possible, in a different viewpoint. I do think it is key to
analyze these sewage easements, to find out if the building can be
moved in tact, or rotated, somehow, so that the neighborhood -
their intentions of their lifestyle when they moved in there are
enhanced, and the intentions of what the physicists need when they
are here, are enhanced. To me, I think the staff has picked a
couple of things -the trail and the ditch -it seems like a small
point, but it's not going to work. The style of the building, I'm
sure it's admirable, but the way it lays across the lot and way
it's presented to the street, have impacts. I think if the
building was moved or shifted that these impacts could be lessened.
So, I think the staff makes a good .point; it's a toss-up. I hope
you can analyze it and figure it out so it works better for
everybody involved. I do think that there are some things that
come out of what we do, that we can't really understand by looking
at these drawings, or looking at these, models, and one of them
basically is -that we were told there was going to be a rehearsal
facility in Harris Hall, and I think it is a concert hall. When
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
are we going to really understand what kind of impacts we are
placing on the residents and what kind of limitations we are
placing on the non -prof its? We are never going to know until years
after we make these decisions, so to analyze it a little bit more,
would make me very happy. To see some other options as to how that
building can be moved or hinged on that site would make me very
happy.
Vice -Chairperson Tygre: Tim marked a lot of my concerns, and I've
been trying very hard not to look at this with the jaundiced
attitude that has been brought about by things like the rehearsal
hall, because it is a different element. I think we also have to
remember that for all the years that we spent on the SPA, the main
concern was to preserve and enhance the ability of the non-profit
organizations to continue to function, and there was a realization
that they would have to continue and they were going to expand.
There were going to be more people, more physicists, there were
going to be more musicians, just as there is more everything. We
can't really redesign the project. , My main concerns with the
project are the access to the perceived open space. I think that
is more important than anything else. I think a lower building,
perhaps linear, is appropriate in this particular location.
Because you are near relatively flat, and I think your building
should be horizontally orientated. Now that we've learned how many
ways we can pick apart a project, we can really give them a hard
time. I really feel this is not fair. They are the ones who
originally said, "We're not asking for anything now; we want the
right to come in later with our plans for expansion". And now you
are paying the price. I really feel bad about that.
A letter from Jim and Ramona Markalunas was submitted to Chairman
Kerr and passed onto the Clerk for record. It noted their concerns
regarding the Physics Center.
Chairman Kerr said, this is going to take some work. I don't think
there's anybody at this table that's ready to sign off on this
project at this point. I think there are some real concerns;
concerns that we have and concerns that have been raised by the
neighborhood. We are certainly recognizing the attempt that the
applicant, and the architect are trying to make this work, but
there are still some concerns. I just need some guidance as to how
you think we should proceed, whether we want to table to May 18th?
Leslie Lamont asked how much time the applicant needs to go back
ane work on this?
Harry Teague: We do have a schedule, and we would like to have the
possibility of building this September, after the summer season is
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4 1995
over. We would like to keep that open, if possible.
There was discussion regarding a set date. The Commission reviewed
their schedules and a quorum was reached. Leslie requested
applicant get proposal to her by April 12th.
MOTION
Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table until a special
meeting on April 25th, 1995; seconded by Garton. All were in
favor, motion carried.
Chairman Kerr continued the meeting.
CODE AMENDMENTS
Kim Johnson: There are a few remaining Code Amendments. Number one
is Definition of Building Envelope. Staff has had difficulty in
the past informing people that they have exceeded a Building
Envelope, that was either real or imagined. So, we put it in
writing, having researched other codes, definitions of Building
Envelope, looking at our own allowances and setbacks.
MOTION
Chairman Kerr: I move to adopt the change of language of 3 -101,
for Building Envelope as amended, including heights; seconded by
Garton. All were in favor, motion carried.
Kim Johnson, Planning: Number 2, within the Subdivision, Purpose -
Section, adding a new H, which reads: Provide procedures so that
development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic
features.
Kim Johnson, Planning: Then further on in Subdivision, Subsection
C, which is all the review standards for roads and street lights
and whatever; a new H.
MOTION
Hunt moved to recommend to Council the adoption of new language
for 7-1001 H, and that language is to provide procedures so that
development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic
features; and the redesignation of the previous H to I. And for
Section 7-1004, Paragraph C, Sub. 4-H, the design and location of
any proposed structure, Building Envelope, road, driveway, trail,
or similar development is compatible with significant or natural
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995
or scenic features of the site.
Garton seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.
Kim Johnson, Planner: Number 3 has to do with Affordable Housing
Units and acquisition thereof. Ms. Johnson recommended no action
at this time.
No action"was taken.
Kim Johnson, Planner: The last is Vested Rights.
Discussion commenced regarding Vested Rights.
MOTION
Chairman Kerr: I move to add to Section 3-101 Definition the
Planning Off ice' s site specific development plan as stated in memo;
seconded by Garton. All were in favor, motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kerr at 8:45 P.M.
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
13