Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860304 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:47 P.M. with Commissioners Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist, David White, Jasmine Tygre (arrived late), Ramona Markalunas (arrived late). COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS White said he would like to serve on the Roaring Fork Transit Agency Transportation Study Advisory Committee, as a representative of this Commission. NEW BUSINESS BRAND BUILDING USE DE'lERllINATIOR Anderson stepped down for conflict of interest. Steve Burstein, planner, explained the applicant's request to convert the second floor and loft space of the building to entirely residential use. The applicant is asking that a use determination be made as to whether those are accessory uses. Burstein said in the past, prior to the renovation, there had been 3 apartments, several offices, and a number of commercial spaces. Now there is a request to make 7 dwelling units on the site. Burstein read the definition of "accessory uses" from the code. Blomquist asked if a residential use was not an allowed principal use in the downtown area, is employee housing not allowed? Burstein replied employee housing was an allowed use. Alan Richman, Planning Director added that by definition employee housing is an "accessory use". Blomquist then asked if the employee had to work at the principal use. Richman replied not necessar ily. Burstein also noted that the City Attorney had brought to his attention 2 specific cases where accessory uses were brought to trial. It appears that a clear determination can be made, if the definition of accessory uses is clear, that something is not an accessory use. Burstein said the Planning Office feels if this buildings units used a similar type of restriction as the one for the Whale of A Wash building it would constitute an accessory use. The Planning Office is recommending approval of this request if such a restriction is placed on the 7 units being proposed. As free market units the Planning Office feels they 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 do not meet the definition of accessory units. If it is determined that free market residential uses are an accessory use then the Planning Office notes there may be conflicts within the commercial core zone between permitted commercial uses and residential uses. Burstein said this request may also have the consequence of reducing the amount of commercial space available forcing those uses to go in to other zone districts. Mr. Richman said he had talked to the City Attorney, Paul Taddune, regarding this case and Mr. Taddune said for residential use to be accessory in the CC zone district there had to be a relationship between that use and the commercial use. If there is not a relationship then there is no way in Mr. Taddune's opinion that a finding could be made for accessory status. Andy Hecht, representing applicant, said there was a section in the code that says "any non-conforming use may be extended throughout any parts of the building which were manifested, arranged, or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of the code". Mr. Hecht said at the time of adoption of the code all but 2 of the spaces that are being proposed for residential purposes were used for free market residential purposes. Mr. Hecht said if their interpretation was correct then only 2 units are being dealt with here. with regard to those 2 units it still has to be discussed what the meaning of "accessory use" is. Mr. Hecht said he did not understand how Mr. Burstein extended the argument that residential use is not only acceptable for employees but the GMP in fact encourages or mandates it in the commercial core, but it is not acceptable to free market uses. Mr. Hecht said he thought from a planning perspective it was absolutely compatible. The building is mixed with residential and commercial uses. To argue that additional residential is not accessory to an existing building that has residential and commercial uses is further unacceptable. If forced to go to the extreme, saying we will adopt a definition that the City Attorney has conveyed through the Planning Office that someone who works in the building must live there, then we will give that employee the first right to do so continuously. However, we don't think if that employee moves out and there is no one else working in the building who wants to rent the unit that we must leave it vacant. Then it would not be accessory. The unit must then be reconverted to commercial until another commercial use comes to them asking 2 REGULAR MEE'l'ING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 to rent the space, then reconverted again. Mr. Hecht thought this was confiscatory, a waste, and certainly not what public policy dictates in requiring an accessory use. Mr. Hecht said they would covenant that the right of first refusal would run with the land as long as there were residential uses there. Blomquist asked if this was in a historic zone district. Burstein replied yes and that it was individually designated as a historic structure. Blomquist then asked if there wasn't an exemption on historic designations. Burstein said the units were exempt from growth management because of the historic designation. Blomquist then asked if the historic designation said anything about converting to a use that supports the historic preservation idea. Burstein said the change in use question was exempt from a change in use review by the Planning Commission. The appropriate sections of the code were read and discussed. Hunt asked if the Planning Office had looked at the argument "that a non-conforming use may be extended through the portion of the building where it previously existed" and questioned if it was a correct argument. Burstein replied it had just been brought to the Planning Office's attention and further research needed to be done. Adding that it would not require this Commiss- ion's determination of whether it was an acceptable accessory use. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said additional information was needed from Bill Drueding, the Building Inspector, to clarify some of this. Mr. Richman said if the Commission wanted interpr- etation of this he recommended tabling this matter until it was obtained. White commented that it was the feeling of several of the Commission members that having residences downtown was a good thing for the downtown area. He saw no reason why second or third floor residences were not a good idea. Richman said downtown was a poor location for short term housing, and what the code is trying to avoid. White agreed. Richman added that it was difficult to enforce the short term versus long term nature of the zone. However, there may be places appropriate for residential units in the downtown area. If the Commission thinks there is a place for them then the code should be amended. Tygre said she thought housing downtown would be a good thing for the vitality of downtown, especially at night. This applicant had pointed out the difficulty of trying to get units in under 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 the category of accessory housing because it creates problems for a lot of people. Tygre said she would be in favor of initiating a code amendment to deal with this. Blomquist said evidence was needed that there is too much commercial use. Blomquist said he would like to see some numbers on this. Richman said Tom Baker, planner, was working on this with the Downtown Land Use Plan. Blomquist asked how many of the 7 units being proposed, how many were non-conforming. Mr. Hecht said when the code was adopted there were 5 existing units. Hunt asked if that was by floor area or number of units. Mr. Hecht said they had more numbers of units but taking this literally you can only put back in the exact physical spaces that existed. Blomquist asked if the applicant would accept a compromise, going ahead on the 5 units as non-conforming and the other 2 units restricted as accessory units. Mr. Hecht replied yes. Motion: Blomquist moved that the Commission would interpret, from the information presented, that 5 of the units are non-conforming and the decision as to how the applicant may proceed on those is the responsibility of the Building Inspector and that the 2 units that are apparently not non-conforming would be acceptable to this Commission as an accessory use provided those units conform to the conditions of an accessory use. Discussion: Richman said Section 24-3.7(0) of the code talks about multi family units in the RMF, 0, and C-l districts having 6 month minimum lease restrictions. The reason the CC zone was not included was because the district was never conceived to have multi-family use. Richman said it seemed to achieve the intents and purposes of CC zone district but these units should not be leased for less than 6 months. Blomquist said he would amend his motion to include this restriction on the 2 conforming units. White seconded the motion. Tygre apply short said she would like to all of the units. term housing. Hunt to see the 6 month rental restr iction The idea is to allow residential not asked if that would not be determined 4 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 by the nature of the non-conformity at the time the code came in to effect. Richman said he was unsure at this time. Markalunas abstained, all others in favor; motion carried. Motion: Blomquist moved that the Commission request the staff study and report on how fast to include long term residential use as a use by right in the CC and C-l zones, above the first floor level, also providing a suggested GMP quota formula system; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS LITTLE RRI.T. BASE REDEVELOPMENT COR'l'IRUED PUBLIC HEARING Alan Richman explained what would be discussed at this meeting. CONDITION 113 Peter Forsch, representing applicant, explained the new lifts being installed on the mountain. Fred Smith, representing applicant, said the type of lift being put in has never been constructed before and will constitute the worlds largest single stage gondola. The length of the lift is over 13,000 feet, and vertical rise in excess of 3200 feet. Because of the massiveness of the system itself it begins to cause situations which relate to new parameters that have to be designed in to it. Mr. Smith said the alignment works out to be an area about 90 feet off of the end of the North of Nell building, being the back of the lift building. The azimuth then running due north and south about 96 feet, paralleling Lift 45. In balancing their alignment they wanted to keep the profile as low as possible and use as many towers as possible without injury to skiing. Mr. Smith reviewed the gondola alignment they had come up with after weighing all of the variables. Mr. Smith said in order to reduce the amount of grading on the slope they have troughed the area immediately in front of the terminal, allowing a flat ski slope on both sides of the exit. Mr. Smith also discussed the other lift system (4A) that will be in that location to be used in conjunction with the gondola. This will be a triple chair lift about 35 feet off of 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNIRG AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 the Tippler deck. The reason for not using the present lift system is that it would cause the gondola to be very high in the air. Mr. Smith said they had started on the profile of the mountain for the gondola and Lift 4A, which will take approximately 3 weeks to complete. They hope at that time to have the approvals necessary to proceed and be able to begin immediately to cut a lift line. Mr. Smith said the earlier they can get the lift line approval the earlier progress can begin. Mr. Smith said the Forest Service was in the process of reviewing technical Master Plan modifications to allow for the operation of Lift f4A. The County Commissioners will be doing a similar process in the near future. Mr. Smith said, if everything went as planned, they intend to start construction on the top lift terminal the day after ski season closes. Motion: Blomquist moved that the terms of Condition #13 had been met; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CONDITION 112 Fred Smith said they wanted to create as minimal an impact as was possible at the bottom of the mountain. The Master Plan language states that all of the gondola cabins will be stored at the top of the mountain. The bear minimum machinery will be at the bottom of the lift. The lift building is approximately 55 feet long, not counting the accelerator wheel cover which extends another 75 to 80 feet. The width of the lift building will be approximately 40 feet, the height approximately 20 to 25 feet. Larry Yaw, applicant's architect, reviewed plans for the proposed lift building and the equipment housed within. Mr. Yaw said visually they hope to do 2 things; give it a transparency and a relationship to the general architecture of the development. Hunt asked to see the circulation patterns of how people will be going in to the lift building. Mr. Smith said the form of the building would follow the function of the necessity. The applicant is still in the process of designing the lift. Changes are made continually, in terms of the function and Mr. Yaw responds to each change. Options are still being looked at and it has not 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986. yet been determined whether people should enter from the side or the rear of the building. In either case there will be a 6 inch elevational change from the plaza level. Mr. Smith outlined the appropriate area on the plans. Hunt then asked where the passengers would exit from the lift. Mr. Smith outlined the area on the plans. Motion: Blomquist moved to defer the judgement as to the visual compatib- ility of the lift/gondola building to City Council review in as much as it has only been possible for the applicant to prepare functional detail which the Commission finds meets the intent of Condition 412; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CONDITIONS 410.22.5.&11 Mr. Kane said condition 45 required the applicant to submi t a detail grading plan for earth work proposed to occur at the base area. Mr. Kane reviewed 2 plans on their proposal. Mr. Kane said the regrading of the Little Nell slope was necessitated by the construction of the gondola, to enlarge the building circulation space, to provide a smoother transition for skiing at the base of the mountain, and to address some of the transi tions in grade that exist on the Little Nell slope making them work better from a skiing standpoint. The regrading plan was prepared in response to a number of design determinants. The first determinant was the location of the toe of the slope. Circulation for skiers also requires a larger flat space at the bottom of the slope. Mr. Kane said they wanted to avoid excessive cutting, and have avoided any cuts greater than 25 feet on any of the schemes presented. Additionally, they have avoided any fill section in excess of 15 feet of fill. Mr. Kane said the proposal was to take the fill material and deposit it in basically 2 locations on the mountain; one above the Aspen Mountain road in a large flat area, and at the base of the Lift 44 unloading area. From a geologic hazard standpoint the considerations are not the cut but rather the fill and how it is deposited. Dave Ellis, representing applicant, said they request the Commission approve the precise plan, subject to continuing work and specific review of the technical plans by the City Engineer. The issues being ground water, slope stability, and debris flow. Mr. Ellis said Chin and Associates had completed a Phase 2 interim report. It is an interim report because it can not be completed during 7 REGULAR MEE'l'ING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 the spring high water period. Three test holes capable of being monitored are in place now. Immediately after the ski season another series of test holes will be put in place, which will be monitored during the spring. Mr. Ellis said Chin and Associates were confident that the grading plan as proposed, both in terms of cut and fill, will comply. However, it does not totally comply at this point and the they can not absOlutely state what the precise criteria will be until the ground water analysis and slope stability analysis are completed. These tests are contingent upon the additional test holes. The tests should be completed in May. Mr. Ellis said the bottom line was that if the slope were found to be unstable the applicant would have to take the fill off. The cut is not considered as the destabilizing occurrence but rather the placement of the fill, which will be analyzed in the slope stability analysis. Mr. Ellis said in terms of drainage, the 3 issues were to maintain historical basins and discharge, detention, and debris flow. Revisions in the grading plan conform more closely to the historic drainage basins. Therefore, the routing and historic discharges are going to approximate the historic flows more closely than they did on the earlier submission drawings. The final drainage study depends on getting more precise topographic mapping in the area at the base of Lift 45 to determine the precise routing of the discharge coming out of Valejo, Copper, and Spar gulches. As soon as the snow is off of the ground the topographic mapping will be completed. Mr. Ellis said the beginning modifications that should occur as a result of regrading, in terms of change in discharge, would be handled in the detention facilities at the base. The applicant is quite confident that in the worst case 33,000+ cubic feet can be accommodated in the base area between the Toad slope and the west wing. The plan has been reviewed by Cassins and Associates and they feel comfortable that this is headed in the right direction and concur that there are no situations that can not be mitigated or resolved through acceptable engineering design. Regarding the debris flow, Mr. Ellis said the detention volume of 33,000 cubic feet includes a 50% allowance to accommodate suspended solids and debris. That is the worst case condition, where 100% of Valejo Gulch discharges directly down Little Nell. A.J. Zabbia 8 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 of Chin and Associates had submitted a letter addressing concerns associated with the relocation of the pump house. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, said the concerns identified by Chin and Associates were subject to additional information such as the ground water to be monitored through the spring and detail on the topographic information as to where the gulches discharge. Hammond thought the applicant was clearly on track to obtain this information and suggested the Commission look at a condi tional approval that would require a final report, prior to construction, that would in effect sign off the final plan for grading. Hunt asked how the applicant was planning on draining the swale for the gondola. Ellis replied that it may be deepened and serve as the detention facility. If it were 8 to 10+ feet deep it could drain by gravity in to the storm drain around the south wing of the building then on in to the Spring St. storm system. Jerry Hewey, Aspen Alps Manager, said he assumed that the Aspen Mountain road would be changed when the mountain was regraded. He said historically it had channelled or caught some of the Aspen Mountain water, routing it in to the Ajax condominiums. Mr. Hewey asked if that could be mitigated during the regrading process. Mr. Forsch responded that they were doing their best to respond to the historical drainage patterns, and not to change those patterns. Kevin O'Connel, Ray Cassins and Associates, said the assumptions made when the drainage study was done was that all water on that road would be transmitted past the road to culverts, then on down to the base area. Therefore, no water would be transmitted on the road. John Doremus, Aspen Mountain Lodge, asked if someone could explain what the historic drainage patterns were. Secondly he asked what quantity of the 33,000 cubic feet of detention water and debris was involved with a 100 year storm event. Mr. O'Connel said the assumption was that Spar and Copper Gulch would continue their historic pattern, to the east of the Little Nell ski slope and all of the water from Valejo Gulch would flow directly down the Little Nell ski slope. Mr. Ellis added that they did not believe that would be entirely true and that was the reason they had not completed the final drainage report, pending more accurate topography in that area. Mr. Ellis reviewed the plans of the area. Mr. Doremus then asked if the numbers being used for the required detention facility were taking all of the Valejo 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4. 1986 Gulch water and none of the Spar or Copper water in the calculat- ions. Mr. Ellis replied that was correct, for the 100 year storm event. Mr. Ellis added that the 33,000 cubic feet was not all water run off but included 22,000 cubic feet of water and 11,000 cubic feet of suspended solids. Mr. Doremus then asked what kind of structure would be used to detain that because the plans indicate the gondola swale could be over the subgrade area with detention. Mr. Ellis responded that the swale was about 90 feet in length, 24 feet in width, and if made 12 feet deep it would total 27,000 cubic feet of detention, which does not count what would be between the rim of that depressed detention basin and the overflow elevation. All of which would be below the elevation of the roof plaza. Mr. Ellis explained this referring to the plans. Motion: Hunt moved to approve that the applicant had met Conditions 410, 422, 45, and 411 subject to memorandums from the City Engineering Department dated January 20, 1986 and March 3, 1986 and referencing to memorandums from A.J. Zabbia of Cassins and Associates dated February 20, 1986; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 6:55 P.M. C1\~Jd-'Lyi Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 10