HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870120
~
.r-
.
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING AND ZONING
JANUARY 20. 1987
Meeting was called to order by chairman Welton
David White, Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist present.
Mari Peyton and Ramona Markalunas arrived shortly.
Anderson with
Jasmine Tygre,
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger Hunt said he just heard that Clark's Market got a building
permit to expand its space and he was wondering how they can do
that without a modification from SPA.
Alan Richman said this is the first he had heard of it and He
will certainly look into it.
There were no other comments from the commissioners.
There were no comments from the Planning staff.
PREVIOUS MINUTES
Roger Hunt made a motion that the minutes of November 18, 1986 be
adopted.
This was seconded Al Blomquist with all in favor.
MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION/REZONING
Douglas Allen requested that the zoning, subdivision and street
vacation procedures for this application be continued until after
the GMP scoring process is completed.
Alan Richman said there were a couple of points he wanted to
make. First of all there is a memorandum to be placed in the
record dated December 5, 1986. This memorandum was sent to all
four applicants including Doug Allen. It is a summary of the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission made during the
first week of December after we received the GMP applications.
We decided at that time that is was more appropriate to review
subdivision applications first and the GMP applications second.
We concluded that subdivision is a broader more conceptual
process and that members would be more informed and educated to
make intelligent decisions if we do the subdivision process
first.
We indicated to you at that time that that was the manner in
which the county had handled its GMP submissions for years and
1
that we found that in doing consolidated reviews, that is GMP and
subdivision at the same time, that it works much more efficiently
and effectively both for the public and for the Planning Commiss-
ion doing the subdivision applications first.
He said it was highly inappropriate to table this appl ication.
But the decision is up to the P&Z Commission. He told the
Commission that the Planning Office was very careful to treat all
four applicants equally by scheduling everyone of them in
advance of the GMP scoring. He felt that putting this one
application on a different process than the others was not being
fair to the others. But for the record this applicant was on
notice six weeks ago that this is the process we are going to
follow and we found out only today that this was a problem for
him.
Douglas Allen said they were willing to initiate the process
today. But they would like to have it continued to a date after
the GMP scoring.
Welton asked for comments from the other applicants.
Gideon Kaufman said he felt that it was unfair to the other
appl icants to change the procedure at this last minute. They
would like to see the process continue as had been laid out since
December 5th. If you table one, you have to table everybody.
You can't have a situation where you are more familiar with one
project than another. That would make it more difficult to score
fairly.
Sunny Vann, on behalf of 700 East Hyman, said they had gone to
considerable expense in preparation for being at this meeting.
Furthermore the Mountain View applicants had stated no reason for
tabling other than to have a fair and unbiased scoring of their
GMP application. It seemed that putting as much information on
the table surrounding the project in terms of its complexity
would enhance the scoring of the project in terms of giving
everyone fair treatment. It seems to me the Planning Office has
some serious problems with this project. And to shove those
under the rug while we score the GMP application puts the rest of
us at a disadvantage. He suggested it be heard tonight or all of
the applications have to be tabled. That is unfair since this
process has been laid out now for some 30 days.
Welton then asked for comments from the Commissioners.
Jasmine said in view of the work load she was very reluctant to
table the application.
Wel ton said that what they were asking for was only that the
Mountain View be tabled. And that we proceed with the others
this evening.
2
Mari Peyton agreed with Jasmine.
Roger Hunt agreed with Jasmine.
David White also agreed with Jasmine.
Welton suggested that the next time it would be kind of the
Planning Office to break this up into not so many monumental
feats in one evening. Going through conceptual subdivision on
four projects in one meeting is a lot.
Alan Richman said given the fact that the GMP rules require us to
do the scoring in January, we did not have a lot of choice. with
the applications coming in on the 1st of December, we are really
as stuck as the P&Z is.
Doug Allen, made the presentation of this application on behalf
of the Mountain View Project for which Hans Cantrup is the
developer and Sam Hyat of Skidmore, Owens and Merril, is the
project architect.
He wanted to make it clear that there is no agreement at the
present time with the Barbees. We have been negotiating with
them. He said he had received a letter from Mary Barbee the day
before the application was to be submitted breaking off negotiat-
ions with them on their land. Since that time I have started
negotiations with John Barbee. On page 67 of the booklet, we had
to insert a page at the last minute realigning the top part of
Garmisch Circle. The Barbees own a 20' strip of land just north
of the mine dumps parcel and we originally were in negotiations
with them to attempt to cross that to Garmisch Circle. As a
result of that failure to consummate those negotiations, we have
pulled Garmisch Circle totally back onto our property. We feel
that the original concept was a better traffic concept but at the
present time, we are not able to do that.
This proposal is for 58 I-bedroom units in 2 building components
to be built on 72,545 sq. ft. of land. Each I-bedroom unit will
be about 1,000 sq. ft. We are requesting an allocation to build a
total of 72,500 sq.ft. in the 2 buildings to relocate the
existing Juan Street and rename it Garmisch Circle. This
requires rezoning a portion of the parcel and the vacating of
Juan Street.
Regarding the rezoning of the parcel, Aspen is presently operat-
ing under a land use plan of June 1973. Pursuant to that land
use plan, most of our proposed development has been zoned for
lodge. The Planning Office states that we are in the recreation
accommodation transition area, but the land that we are seeking
to rezone is not in that area, it is in the recreation accommoda-
tions area. The purpose, as stated by the Planning Office in
3
1973 for that area, was to allow for the recreation and accommod-
,,~, ation means of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is especially
suited for this because it is in unity with and identity to the
proposed transportation system, the ski area and the central
area.
When you get into the transition area, there is less intensive
use contemplated. This would permit recreation and accommodation
development of limited height, bulk and scale to relate well
physically with the ski area.
Another thing that indicates that we are in an area that is
intended for the purpose for which we are seeking to rezone is
that portion of the code that relates to 8040 Greenline Review.
If you are within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline, that is
defined under Greenline Review as the area in which a transition
from urban uses to adjacent agriculture and forestry uses shall
occur.
The Ski Company hotel and the Aspen Mountain Lodge are both in
the same type of use area as we are. However, the small portion
of the land that we are seeking to use is zoned R15 (PUD) (L).
Our request is to rezone it to L-2.
The 1984 Aspen Base Neighborhood Planning Area of which the
boundaries are Durant Avenue on the north, Original on the east,
the City limits on the south and the City limits on the west,
according to the Planning Office is the neighborhood considered
to be the major lodging area within the City. Within that area
the Aspen Mountain Lodge does have permission to build their
hotel as does the Ski Company. The Planning Office commented
about the lodge and anticipated that if this project is approved
and built, not only would it improve the community's lodging
facilities but will open up an economic market which previously
did not exist for the City of Aspen.
We feel that this project will add to the balance of the lodging
area. This same land was the subject of a rezoning request in
1983. At that time the applicant requested a continuance. There
was a hearing. The Planning Office was opposed to the rezoning
at that time. The stated reason was that there was no develop-
ment plan for the property, nor was there any place to relocate
the Ski Company parking lot. The applicant's reason for the
rezoning application was that that was the only land fronting on
Aspen Street on either side of the street in that area which was
not zoned L-2. And it continues that way to this date. We have
an area there of R-15 surrounded L-2 which is essentially spot
zoning and which does conflict with the existing Aspen Land Use
Plan.
At that meeting Sonny Van was then working for the Planning
Office and he stated that the zoning line might not be approp-
4
riate. But the Planning Office was not saying this parcel should
not be rezoned and consideration for rezoning should be made
within a specific proposal for development. You now have that
specific proposal for development that we feel fits into the plan
and we also have a specific proposal to relocate the required 30
spaces of Aspen Skiing Company parking. This site is squarely
within the same plan being zoned as the already approved Ski
Company Hotel and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Both of these are
far bigger than our project in terms of number of units, unit
size and FAR.
The Pierce tract and the Aspen Ski tract were both recently
rezoned L-2. Both of these are even closer to the transition
area than we are. They are in a steeper area of the mountain and
definitely in the transition zone.
Al Blomquist said that the staff memo with respect to the
transition zone was incorrect and that the 1973 plan shows this
property to be predominantly within the accommodations zone.
Douglas Allen then said that the Planning Office based their
den ial of concept ual subdivision upon their denial of zoning.
The reason given for denial bear no reasonable relationship to
the applicable code provisions as cited in the Planning Office
memo. There were no adverse comments from any of the various
referral agencies regarding conceptual subdivision. A reading of
those letters would reveal there were positive comments in most
areas on the part of the referral agencies.
The existing topography of this site shoul d not be a probl em.
The elevation and topography of this site are very similar to all
of the land from there over to the gondola. If anything the
topography allows improvements on this piece of land in order to
reduce mass. The site is not on the edge of the community as
stated by the Planning Office. If you stand on Aspen Street and
look down and see the condominiums--Timberridge, Southpoint, and
above it are the Shadow Mountain Condominiums and south and up
the hill from our site are the mine dumps which can be reconst-
ructed and which in all likelihood will be reconstructed and they
are allowed L-2 zoning there. This is a logical location for
tourist accommodations to alleviate the congestion in the area of
the gondola. The congestion in the area of the gondola is only
going to be increased with the construction of the other two
hotels if they are built there. This will lend a balance to the
base of the ski mountain.
The Planning Office agrees that the items they mention in
paragraph 3 of their memo "appear" to work. In fact the traffic
circulation works much better than the existing situation.
Garmisch Circle is a vast improvement over the present access and
shouldn't be problematic to the Barbee property because it
provides better access and more access along the Barbee property
5
-'.""".
-
,_.
"-
.
lines than is presently provided. There will be no more shading
of the streets than presently exists in the area because the
proposed Garmisch Circle is just a few feet south of the existing
Juan Street.
The grade of the new Garmisch Circle as verified by the Engineer-
ing Department is lessened drastically by the re-routing of the
street. Not only does Garmisch Circle work conceptually but it
fits in totally with the plans of the Lodge Improvement District.
Regardless of the plans for the' rest of the mine dump site the
Planning Office commented that those plans should be furnished in
order to evaluate the Ski Company parking which will be moved to
the mine dump site. It is clearly indicated on the application
there will be 30 parking spaces provided for the Ski Company
parking on surface parking which places it several feet further
up the hill and closed to Lift lA.
Regarding paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 in the Planning Office comments,
we have no problem with furnishing such information as is
necessary to verify those.
On the street vacation, the only adverse comment from the
Planning Office on the street vacation other than the fact that
it should be denied because they want the zoning and subdivision
denied is that there may be snow removal and street maintenance
problems because of grades and shadow effects of Shadow Mountain.
These problems presently exist in the area with the existing
street and the shadow affect of Shadow Mountain is insignificant-
ly different by using a street a few feet south of where it is
now. The question of street maintenance could be appropriately
addressed in a subdivision agreement with the developer. The
proposed new street will be better surfaced and better construct-
ed so it will be more easily maintained.
In summary this development provides a much needed lodging
facility in an area which has seen much of its vitality removed
as a result of the Silver Queen Gondola. It is in the community
interest to revitalize this area in order to maintain an appropr-
iate balance of skiers at the base of Aspen Mountain.
Steve Burstein asked to clarify that the intent for the organiza-
tion of this presentation was to make an initial presentation to
present what this project consists of rather than for the
applicant to make this first rebuttal. This is what the
applicant chose to do so in my opinion, we are a little off keel
but I wanted to note that that was not what we had intended for
this presentation.
Welton said all the commissioners had read the material and are
familiar with the project as presented.
6
Steve said to give an overview. There were four reviews the
,"'.. commission was being asked to look at tonight. The rezoning
request for 30,000 sq. ft. which is presently used the Aspen Ski
Company parking and the tennis court. This is up for subdivision
approval. Street vacation and consideration of cash in lieu of
employee housing.
The applicant wants rezoned ten lots of the Eames Addition from
R-15 PUD (L) to L-2. Basically the R-15 PUD (L) is zoned for low
density lodge type of accommodations to be clustered in a certain
respect.
In summary we have a problem that there is compatibility with the
surrounding land use that this density and this size of a project
appears to be much greater than anything that directly within the
neighborhood. Even though its FAR is not in excess. The size of
the project alone would indeed be much greater than the projects
directly to the north which are the Timberridge and the Lift One.
Al Blomquist asked what the FAR for Lift One and FAR proposed for
this project.
Steve said the Lift One FAR is 1.0 The density overall
for this project is greater. The Timberridge FAR is 1.5 to 1. I
perceive this as a upzoning in terms of the allowed density FAR
in the area from R-15 zone to L-2. The zoning in the area was
not a mistake in 1983 when the P&Z reviewed it and they conceived
of this as a general transition area to a lower density. With
regard to the 1973 Land Use Plan he pointed that plans are
general in nature and this land does abut or is very close to
that area and it is not a specific zoning and not a suggestion
for specific zoning. It is indeed part of that transition
concept area which is to be a lower density. This application is
not consistent with this plan.
The concept of that transition area is that it go from a fairly
high density lodge development to the mountain site and that
there be a lower density (F-l) towards the mountain. We feel
that is a very important concept and this application is not
consistent with that. This is a major change in the neighborhood
and it would set a precedent for more changes in the
neighborhood.
Steve submitted letters from the Barbees that their property
which is west of Garmisch Street is zoned R-15 and this could set
a precedent for it to also be upzoned to L-2. There is a great
concern that why should we set this precedent and make such a
major change in the neighborhood.
We find that there is no compatible reason for the rezoning in
terms of the need for this type of a high end tourist accommodat-
ion project. The Hotel Jerome, Little Nell and the Aspen
7
Mountain LOdge are all approved and the Hotel Jerome addition is
under construction and it makes sense to evaluate the impacts of
those proj ect s pr i or to rez oning more prope rty to a higher
density at this time. So we have serious concerns about the
appropriateness of this project in that respect.
with regard to the subdivision: There are several conceptual
concerns that are appropriately addressed by the Planing Commiss-
ion in terms of the general suitability of the development for
growth patterns. And also with regard to the ability to service
the area appropriately. Our concern is that the size of this
project and the urbanized character that it would bring to this
area is not appropriate. For this reason we think it is
premature and possibly fully undesirable to subdivide this area
for a fairly large residential complex as is being proposed.
There are many specific aspects of this project which function
well. In the Planning Office's opinion this is a great improve-
ment over the 601 South Aspen application that was made last year
in terms of their siting, the services they are providing, the
road access and the architecture. But we are still concerned
that it is out of character and that some of the specifics don't
work. We do note that the shading on Garmisch Circle could
produce some real problems with regard to the ability to clean
that road with regard to the public maintenance of it because it
appears to be a private road. We note that there may be some
problems in those areas. In general if this project were built
as proposed with regard to fire, water, trails and landscaping,
it appears that it would work.
We think that it is not an appropriate size of a project, we are
recommending denial of the subdivision.
With regard to street vacation, our primary point is this: The
Engineering Department finds that this can indeed work but in the
absence of subdivision approval, if the P&Z agrees with that, we
think that the vacation is unnecessary and inappropriate. Juan
Street is a serviceable street and will continue to be so.
Doug Allen said it was obvious to even a casual observer that we
have a spot over there in the middle of the L-2 that has been
zoned out of character. Contrary to what Steve says, the P&Z
Commission never had the opportunity to reach any conclusion in
1983. Pro and con was presented. The P&Z Commission talked
about it and then it was tabled and made mute. Regarding the
Barbee property and precedent, if you want to talk precedent, we
have a precedent with the Ski Company and the Pierce property
that should allow us an entry into this thing. Steve talks about
the projected impact of these other hotels that have yet to be
built. If you look at the statistics over the last few years
there has been a loss of lodging units in the lodge zone and
there has certainly been a loss of quality. What this town can
8
.-
....-
use more of is a nice quality of lodging. That is the biggest
complaint we hear from tourists--they can't find nice quality
lodging.
There has been a question by the Planning Office as to the
question of the maintenance of the road and the shadowing. We
thought it was a plus to the City to keep the road in private
ownership and have the developer maintain it. If the City wants
to maintain the road, we have no problem in giving the road to
the City.
PUBLIC HEARING
MOUNTAIN VIEW CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION REZONING S'rREE'l' VACATION
Gideon Kaufman said he had not seen any indication of ownership
of the property. It has always been up to all of us a key to
anybody's intent to participate that they in fact have to
establish that they own the property. I don't know that this has
been established. This is a threshold question and needs to be
resolved. In part it is true that part of the reason that that
did not go through was it did not have a whole plan. On the
other hand, the reason it was tabled is I read the writing on the
wall and knew it was going down to defeat. Another reason it was
going down to defeat was the fact that we did not feel that the
additional density all up that hill was appropriate. One of the
key conditions in a rezoning is considering the existing
neighborhoodhood characteristics. There is another building in
the area that is 1 to l. However that building is below this
property and services off Durant Street and as you go up the
hill, the availability and benefits of that kind of density may
well decrease.
One of the reasons that there is enough room on the site for the
project is because it is only 58 one bedrooms. We are talking
about one bedroom on a thousand square feet. It sounds to me
like the old door game allover again and I think that you should
take that into account.
Paul Taddune said he did not think the applicant has clearly
established ownership and I advise you that in the event you
grant approval that you condition your approval on the basis that
the applicant does establish ownership. I think everyone on the
Commission is aware of the fact that this property is tied up in
some very complicated litigation. There was a legitimate claim
to ownership based on an option that arose from the settlement in
the Cantrup bankruptcy. We know that since the transaction
borrowing the compensating the John Roberts property in
foreclosure and legitimacy of the option is only the exercise
must be evaluated in the context of that litigation. At present
the applicant has a claim to ownership and although we are
recommending that you consider the application to avoid any
9
prejudice or time problem with the applicant that any approval
definitely be conditioned on clear indication of ownership.
-
Doug Allen said he had no problem with that.
John Doremus said he had been through these processes a couple
times before and really had to object to that approach. I really
thought a prerequisite of an application being considered was
ownership not after the fact. I object to that interpretation.
Maybe I have been misinformed in the past. There were some
basic prerequisites to an application being accepted to be
processed and that was one of them. He then asked "Am I wrong on
that?".
Welton said he did not think so. The code does require ownership
in the subdivision regulations.
Steve Burstein said you are correct in that. Then he deferred to
Paul Taddune.
Paul Taddune said he could see why this is objectionable. There
is a question in my mind as to whether or not this applicant is
in good standing in pursuit of this application. The City is not
willing to concede that the applicant does have standing to
pursue this application. However, the status of the title is
mired in litigation that is so complicated, it would take me 3 or
4 hours to outline it for you. I don't know any other way to
proceed in this unique situation than to give the applicant the
benefit of the doubt with regard to at least having his applicat-
ion evaluated. I definitely don't want to have this case
establish a precedent where someone can make a claim to a piece
of property and apply for myriad of zoning regarding improve-
ments. The town and its members of Board are very familiar with
what has happened with this property and other properties that
were involved in the Cantrup bankruptcy.
Taddune quoted a seeton in the subdivision regulations as
"Requires a disclosure of ownership consisting of a certificate
from a reputable title insurance company or attorney practicing
in Colorado listing the names of all owners of the property
described including all mortgages judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agriements of the records affecting the property."
Taddune said he did not think that that condition
satisfied. Certainly the P&Z Commission should request
certificate of title be supplied.
Douglas Allen said "You have the certificate of title.
an option.
has been
that that
We hol d
Paul said what he was alluding to was the second sentence in this
section that says "the election of the planning commission, the
10
'-
holders or owners of such mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts or agrievements shall be required to join in and
approve the application for subdivision before the preliminary
plat shall be accepted for review."
4i<"".
Wel ton said since we are considering conceptual plat, we could
make this a condition of preliminary that there be a provision of
that information.
Mary Barbee representing the property owners to the west said she
was only going to speak on one aspect of this because three
letters have been submitted to you regarding our overall
concerns. I am going to speak on the closure of Juan Street. I
would like to ask that the private property owners not be
subjected to roads that are privately maintained. I am asking
that you not abrogate a public right. Juan Street serves the
area very well. You know it is physically possible to util ize
Juan Street. It's been that way for nearly 100 years and I
suggest that the public right of Juan Street deserves to be
maintained. We are not supporting this project.
David Ellis owner of two of the Timberridge Condominiums and
representing the Condominium Association as the President of the
Board of Managers. Regarding the Planning Department's memo on
the rezoning, I feel there was not an error in the zoning in 1973
as implicationed by the applicant that it was done on basis of
ownership. There were three separate ownerships of that parcel
at that time. All of the abutting land is not held to as has
been stated earlier and if, in fact, there is spot zoning now the
approval of rezoning as requested would, in fact, create a finger
of land of spot zoning in the other direction.
The apparent need for the requested upzoning at this point in
time is not clear in light of the fact that there are many
similar type units previously approved and yet unbuilt.
Regarding subdivision and vacation-- specifically regarding the
realignment of Garmisch Circle, the positive comments regarding
conceptual subdivision from the Engineering Department and the
Lodge Improvement District specifically pointed out there would
be improved intersection with Aspen and Gilbert. Secondly that
the tram stop could be providing direct access to the relocated
Aspen Skiing Company. And comments not from those two people
but from Craig Ward regarding the trail connection along Gilbert
onto Garmisch Circle. All four of those things would not take
place because the applicant does not have control of the Barbee
parcel. In fact the change of site plan as Garmisch Circle would
have to move downhill to the north. It is not indicated what the
proposed right of way or easement width for that circulation
corridor would be. They show the paving width of 24'. That
surely would be inadequate in terms of the easement but that has
not been specified.
II
-
, Finally in terms of the conceptual subdivision in the project as
a whole. I can't imagine the granting relocation of the Ski
Company parking spaces without knowing what the plans for the
mine dump property is. You can't put those 30 parking spaces up
there without substantially altering the site.
Gus Hallam said he has a small home in this area on Aspen Street.
He said the density is high and concerning its location on a
steep hill there would be a lot of problems with transportation,
traffic and snow removal. This has been evidenced on Monarch
Street. 1,000 sq. ft. 1 bedroom apartments seem very generous.
Sunny Vann, representing 700 East Hyman, said he did not believe
that the provision that allows the P&Z Commission to request that
holders of liens and other interests in property be required to
join the allocation of preliminary plat exempts the applicant
from the first part of this provision that requires demonstration
of ownership in order to compete. I think it is unreasonable to
allow them to compete in the process and to have the Ci ty
Attorney pass off that requirement until the time of the allocat-
ion quota. This puts the other applicants in this competition at
a disadvantage.
Wel ton said if he understands correctly one of the requirements
is a statement from a licensed attorney as to the ownership. And
he asked if that had been provided.
Douglas Allen said "from a title company and we have an option
and now we are in a lawsuit with the people along with several
other entities to get performance on the option. And the lawsuit
is still pending."
Terry Uhlfelder presented a letter for the record.
Welton then closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
MOUNTAIN-ViEW RESIDENTIALtoMP CONCEPTUAL SUMISSION/REZONING
Jasmine said what we are looking for here is a lodge project
rather than a residential project. And yet we are scoring it in
competition with other residential projects. Somehow it seems to
me that the project as described is not really a residential
project but really has much more of an affect on the quotas for
lodge uses. Therefore I wonder why this was put in the resident-
ial competition in the first place. I have a really hard time
with this because I don't really think you can even evaluate this
project assuming that it meets these other criteria and passes
these other prel iminary things. I don't think it is appropriate
to compare it to the other projects and submit it in this
12
-.-
category. I think the growth impact of this project are consid-
erably different from the kind of growth impact we would have to
consider for the other projects in this competition.
Roger Hunt said concerning the rezoning it appear s to me that
there is validity in this area being a portion of the transition
zone. It may not look very nice geographically but by the same
token the idea was to get a transition going into the mountain.
There is no reason to rezone this. The only reason for the
rezoning that I can see is to basically up the density. That is
exactly what we don't want to do as far as a transition into the
mountain. True some of it is in the lodge zone, some of it
happens to be the R-15 PUD L. I don't find any compatibility
there with any project that could be put on the total area. What
it does mean is that for the entire parcel you determine the
density on the basis on what it is zoned. That in effect gives
you the transition that we are trying to accomplish. If there is
any logic for rezoning any portion of that, I could only see a
logical argument for rezoning lots 8 through 12. Even that I
don't think is necessary. The applicant can do what they want to
do on that property. The only reason they want to rezone is so
that they can maximize the density in that property and that goes
exactly opposite of what we are trying to do as far as the
transition.
Wel ton said in one other case he was familiar with where there
were several different zonings on one parcel of property, the
density for FAR purposes is calculated on allowable for
Steve said if you did that in this case you would come up with
two units on this property and therefore 24 in total.
Welton said what he was saying is on lot 2 on this with the FAR
because with that plus allowing for the ______ property
.
Allen Richman said when the both zones then the
underlying density allowed and FAR allowed for those zones can be
used to add up. If use is allowed in the zone then that underly-
ing property isn't used to justify additional either FAR or
--- ---. In this case the L on the PUD allows the use.
Welton said you would end up with two houses on the
Allan said use is already allowed on the property. The only
thing that is going on is a potential upzoning in density where
you - - - - - - -
AI Blomquist said from the beginning of when we were appointed he
has screamed about lodging including or not including kitchens
and that we settle the definition. This is not lodging by the
13
zoning code because it has kitchens. It is residential and we
," have known about this ever since we have been appointed to Board.
And we have done nothing to correct the situation. So this is
residential and in the residential connotation in the present
definition that hopefully the consultants will finally change the
wording on.
I am terribly concerned about misrepresentations of the 1973 land
us plan. The theory of zoning and planning has always been that
the plan shows what the zoning might ultimately be. Then the
zoning comes along and doesn't necessarily catch up. Barbee's
property is clearly outside the accommodations area on the plan.
The Cantrup properties are clearly inside and they are clearly
not in the transition zones. So there are some floating facts
and misfacts going around and it is up to everybody to be clear
on what the facts are. I believe the rezoning is a reasonable
request. That doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that now
is the time to build it. But at least from a land use standpoint
and a zoning standpoint as opposed to a GMP standpoint I have to
say the zoning is reasonable. The vacation of the street is
reasonable if it is a public street. I would never accept as a
private street. I think we have to separate out the question of
what the right land use is.
We have a master plan that says that all the high density should
be at the base of the mountain and has clearly guided that. We
have taken action after action according to that plan. I can
remember at one time objecting to the plan. But the fact is it
is still officially the plan. So I feel that there is a case for
the rezoning, a case for the subdivision. But I have no statement
about the case of a rate of growth or the density at this time or
the other parts of the PUD.
Steve Burstein said the concept of the transition line is for
lower density. This project abuts that line and the area is
divided by the zoning.
Al said the idea is push it up the hill or downhill depending on
how you flip the overlay.
Doug Allen said this has obviously gotten a lot more complicated
than anybody thought it would and I think we need more time and
more discussion to deal with this.
Mari Peyton said she is still concerned about the ownership
thing. Is it up to the P&Z to decide whether to review this or
not.
Taddune said he did not know how we are going to get a clear
reading on ownership. He does not think the applicant has
clearly established ownership. We have a very serious dilemma
and a tremendously complicated legal problem. Giving the
14
applicant the benefit of the doubt, we have allowed the applicat-
ion to be submitted to the P&Z Commission but I don't know of any
way to sort out all of these ownership questions, liens and
judgments and so forth because it is so complicated and tied up
in so much litigation.
Mari said that if it can't be settled then it should not be the
burden of the City, it should be the burden of the applicant to
establish ownership.
Taddune said the only thing they can establish is that they have
a claim to the property based on an option that springs out of
the Cantrup bankruptcy which is now in foreclosure by virtue of
conveyances to- and John Robertson. I can show you a 5"
packet of complaints and allegations. Presumably they have met
the first requirement by having a certificate of title and again
I feel in order for you to approve anything they must clearly
demonstrate that they have clear ownership of the property. I
doubt that they have done that at this point.
David White said he does not know that the rezoning is not
reasonable. The density should be at the base of the mountain
when this is where the people ski and where they stay. If we do
go to the rezoning it should be a lodge and be used as a lodge
because it is obviously a lodge.
Taddune said in an effort to advise you to focus on the zoning I
am going to advise you not to try to be judges with regard to the
ownership question.
Roger Hunt said he has much more problem with the ownership
aspect at preliminary than at this conceptual level. At least at
this point we have time to let the applicant get their ownership
together. I don't think we have to delay it because of ownership
at this point because we do have the next point a preliminary at
which it has to be determined.
Jasmine said the primary purpose for the rezoning is to allow the
applicant to upzone significantly to allow a much greater density
on the parcel. This is certainly to the benefit of the applicant
but I do not see that it is necessarily a benefit to the
community and therefore I do not approve.
Mari said the intersection of Durant and Aspen has got to be one
of the most hazardous in all of Aspen with the present density
there. I feel that upzoning will only make that problem worse.
Being in the reservation and tour business, we keep hearing from
this applicant that we need to upgrade lodges to luxury 1 evel s
and I happen know from my experience every day that what we need
is economy lodging not luxury lodges or residential units. I
would be opposed to this rezoning.
15
._-
~.~
Ramona said she had nothing to add.
Welton said we can table which is the applicant's request. We
can table with suggestions to amend or suggestions as to what
might be conditions of subdivision conceptual apprcwal. We can
approve part of it or all of it. One scenario might be to,
because of the public comment and the general seeming reluctance
on the part of a number of commissioners, to rezone to add to
table to deny the rezoning until after the GMP scoring. The
scoring of course would have to be based on the information in
the application. To approve or table until later the conceptual
subdivision at which time the amended application affecting lower
density of the unrezoned property could be deal t with. And a
final conceptual approval given on a basis of lower density.
Al made a motion to approve the rezoning request.
Welton asked for a second two times.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Welton asked for an alternate motion.
Mari moved to deny the rezoning.
This was seconded by Jasmine.
Welton asked for discussion.
Roll call vote was as follows:
Welton Anderson abstain, Jasmine Tygre, yes, David White, no,
Roger Hunt, yes, Mari Peyton, yes, Ramona Markalunas, no, Al
Blomquist, no.
This made the vote 3 to 3.
Welton thanked everyone.
vote is 3 to 3. Welton
rezoning.
Then said the motion dies because the
then entertained a motion to table the
Roger Hunt moved to table the rezoning.
Ramona seconded the motion.
Welton asked for discussion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine.
The point was then brought up that if Welton did not have a
conflict of interest, he had to vote.
16
Welton said he would have the record read that he would have
voted to defeat the motion.
Roger Hunt then made the motion to continue the public hearing to
date certain of February 10.
Welton asked for a second.
Taddune suggested that since members were at a deadlock that the
public be reopened and continued to February 10.
Welton then reopened the public hearing and continued until
February 10.
Welton then asked for a motion to table the subdivision.
Roger Hunt made a motion to table all remaining considerations of
this application until February 10.
This was seconded by Ramona with all in favor except Jasmine.
lOOl.-tJ'l'EAVENUERESIDENTIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Joe Wells said the site is an old mining claim that is roughly
300 ft. wide by 1,000 ft up the hillside. The proposal is a 4
lot subdivision comprised of 3 duplexes and 1 single family. The
location of the duplexes and the single family is presently
undetermined because of the need to study the grade and site in
more detail. The second unit in the duplex in each of the
duplexes will be a restricted low income housing unit 550 to 600
sq.ft. each. It will undoubtedly serve as a caretaker unit for
the free market units.
The sizes of the lots presently range from 14,500 sq.ft. to
19,500 sq.ft. which is below the minimum lot size in the zone
district. However, that is an arbitrary decision that came out
of what we thought was a reasonable decision to retain this lower
portion of the site in common ownership for the purpose of
maintenance of the landscaping and roadway.
The present plan is for the applicant to complete the site
improvements, install the landscaping in the common areas the
roadway, relocate the .eastern most tennis court approximately 50'
to the west in order to have an access on the eastern property
line into the site to the cul-de-sac. The proposed parking
solution is to provide adequate parking, 1 space per bedroom
requirement on each lot as well as to provide 8 additional spaces
for guests.
One of the iss ues to be resolved tonight is the matter of the
lease agreement with the Gant for the three tennis courts. We
have been negotiating with them and the Gant has submitted a
17
letter joining this application so the matter hopefully is now
resolved.
He pointed out that the portion of the site within the City
limits is included in the application, however, the portion which
is in the County is committed to open space so that the whole
parcel is dealt with in the submittal.
The tennis courts: the plan is to regrade bringing some of the
tailings down into a lower portion of the site, hauling tailings
off where necessary and revegetating the site thereby restoring
to a more natural appearance at the completion of the project.
In answer to three areas of concern listed in Glen's memo: The
first having to do with the open space issue. There is no open
space requirement in the R-lS zone district. Because of that
fact, we did not adequately portray the total open space for the
site. Our application includes some language about open space in
the common areas. But makes no reference to the open space on
the lot. The total open space for the site is in excess of
60,000 sq. ft. or in excess of 50% of the land wi thin the City.
This is in excess of any of the open space requirements for the
zone districts that have open space requirements of which this is
not one.
In response to Glen's concern that there is a limitation on the
number of our residents which will have access to the tennis
courts. There is a limitation in the lease agreement that
prohibits more than 10 residents the use of the tennis court s.
Our total population is 17. 5 of those residents are residents
of low income employee units. We had not felt that it was
necessary to provide access to the tennis facilities for those 5
low income units. The remainder of the population is 12 and it
is unlikely that 85% of that number would want to play tennis.
The fact that not all of the residents of the project will have
access to the tennis courts negates the value of the open space
program. The commitment to a fairly crucial trailing that will be
able to be used by all of the residents makes the open space
program worthwhile. There is benefit to have committed the upper
portion of the site to open space simply to avoid a future
controversy.
Regarding concerns about the variations requested under the PUD
provisions. PUD permits variations from the year end bulk
requirements in order to achieve the objectives of PUD. We can
comply with all of the year end bulk requirements if the City
prefers that solution. The way we have structured the lots was
for the maintenance of the landscaping features. It was wiser to
hold those in common ownership, managed by a homeowner's associa-
tion. However, if you want 15,000 sq.ft. for the single family
site and 20,000 sq. ft. lots for the duplex sites, that is very
easy to achieve and we can structure lots in that way. We
18
-
suggested a possible variation in the front yard setback require-
ment. Again, we can comply with that. The only reason we
suggested a variation was because of the steepness of the grading
on the uphill side. We thought we would end up with a better
design solution if we could keep the footprints of the buildings
as close as possible to the road. In any case we would not be
closer than 20 ft. The front yard setback is 25 ft. so if that is
an issue, we can comply.
Regarding the matter of calculating height: I thought the City
would see our proposal as a benefit. What we are proposing to do
is to simply make a more natural grade. Traditionally you
measure heights from undisturbed grade which would be the current
grade. If that were the case, we would be able to build 40 feet
from the final grades simply because the final grades are going
to be lower than these grades. So I was suggesting that we use
the restored contours as the basis for calculating the height.
We will comply with the height limit in the zone district. The
debate is simply how to measure that and it seems more reasonable
to me to measure that from the final grades.
Another issue of concern is the density of the project
particularly in regard to the fact that the land use plan refers
to this area as a transition zone, lowering density from the
core area. We believe our plan is reasonably consistent with
that goal. It is difficult to come up with a way to compare
apples and apples in the neighborhood. Some have employee
housing units, others do not that are generally small--much
smaller and therefore less of a contribution to the perceived
density than these 4,000 sq.ft. homes that are being built in the
area. I am suggesting to you that we look at the density in the
surrounding area based on the free market units on our side and
the free market units in the neighborhood to determine what the
density is in terms of land square footage per dwelling unit.
Obviously the most intensively used site in the area is the Gant
which is the last high density project in the area. It is
obviously multifamily as opposed to single family but none-the-
less it is one premarket unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of land.
The Chance is one premarket unit per 20,000 sq. ft of land and
that is after slope production calculations are performed. I
have taken slope production calculations into account where they
have been performed and other cases they have not. This is 1
unit to 20,000 sq.ft. of land. Our site is 1 unit per 18,800
sq.ft. of land after slope production. There are 3 single family
sites at a density of 1 unit per 4,800 sq.ft. of land. Three
lots in the Hoag Subdivision along Ute Avenue are 1 unit per
14,000 sq.ft. of land. The 1010 Ute Avenue proposal is 1 unit
per 16,000 sq.ft. of land after slope production is performed.
When you look at that, if that is a fai r way of doing it, our
site is slightly more intense than the Aspen Chance but generally
19
-
less intense than all of the surrounding projects.
The benefits of this PUD: To tie up the trail link which runs
along the old right-of-way is of significant benefit to the
overall trail system. This is a commitment to a perpetual lease
for that trail easement. We are also proposing a 30 ft. drainage
easement in the same general area as the trail. This is to help
the City deal with a long-standing issue of drainage off of Aspen
Mountain which was raised back in the early'70s. You secured a
similar easement through the Chance. The plan is to carry major
amounts of runoff off the mountain over to the river in a
somewhat more satisfactory way than having it pour through town.
Committing the upper portion of the site to open space is a
benefit to the City. The regrade and the revegetation of a major
eyesore is also a major benefit to the community.
-
Glen Horn said in regard to the tennis courts with respect to the
ownership question in the lease: There currently is a 99 year
joint lease between the owner of this property and the Gant.
According to our subdivision regulations that constitutes a
subdivision of land and Paul Taddune suggested that for this
application to proceed through the process we should seek a
letter from the Gant consenting to the application with respect
to the ownership and the tennis courts. That agreement has not
been finalized yet but we do have an agreement in concept which
is attested to by this letter from Nick McGrath who represents
the Gant. It looks like by the time this project proceeds to
preliminary plan stages there will be a formal agreement which
consents to the use of the tennis courts in this application.
The general idea behind the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan and the
1973 Land Use Plan and the Master Plan is that as you move away
from the core of the City and approach the fringe, the density
will decrease. This is going to be one of our primary problems
with this application.
The maj or problems we have with the proposal center around the
density and the question of density on this site is a rather
subtle issue because it is more a perception of what the density
is than the actual density on the site that we are concerned
with. The majority of the site is steep hillside and is going to
be protected. The portion of the site that will be developed is
difficult to envision what it is going to look like because of
the mine dump which is there now. It is our opinion that as the
site develops it is just going to be too dense in terms of what
that site can handle partially because of the impervious surfaces
that are at present on the site which are the road and the tennis
courts.
with respect to the tennis courts, there is a provision in the
code that says common open space areas must be for the mutual
benefit of the entire subdivision. That is one of our principle
20
-
objections in counting the tennis court area as part of the
common open space on site. Another problem we have with the
tennis courts is that the code says that recreation areas do not
count in the calculation of open space. That is another reason
we are objecting to the density on the project.
The actual open space within the City portion of the site may be
as high as 50%. We are concerned about the common open space and
how that will affect the perception of density.
In comparing the approach we used to develope the Aspen Chance as
opposed the 1001: With the Aspen Chance most of the lots were
greater than the minimum lot size in the zone district. Single
families are lots that are greater than 15,000 sq. ft. and the
duplexes are lots that are greater than 20,000 sq.ft and there is
very little common open space on that site. Looking at the Aspen
Chance it is too dense and we made some mistakes in approving
that subdivision and we should learn from those mistakes. There
is more common open space on this site but the lots are smaller
than the ones in the Aspen Chance.
There are several things in this application that are benefits to
the community and should be taken into consideration. The
dedication of the hillside, the land in the County, and the land
above the 8040 line in the City to open space is a significant
benefit for the community. Additionally the application suggests
that an easement will be dedicated to the City for the purposes
of dealing with the drainage problem. AIso right now there is a
tentative agreement to use the trail between the Nordic Council
and the property owners. We would get a permanent easement if
this application goes through.
The caretaker units which are proposed for this subdivision will
be employee units that will be required to be marketed through
the hous ing author i ty. They will not be caretaker units
exclusively to serve the units in this subdivision.
~
'~~.
I have a problem about distinguishing between the two different
classes of people that would live in a subdivision as to who can
use the tennis courts and who can't. An amenity in a subdivision
should be open to the free market units and the employee units
and there should be no distinguishing between which different
types of people can use the amenities in the subdivision.
Basically our review boils down to the provisions in the code and
the intent of the code with respect to the planned unit
development requirements. The code says that an area that is
designated mandatory PUD the allowable number of dwelling units
shall be reviewed and may be reduced but not increased from the
number allowed in the applicable zoning district. Our
recommendation is that this site is too dense. We feel that the
project can be approved if the applicant is willing to remove one
21
of the structures from the site to reduce the density. It is our
recommendation that if the applicants are not willing to remove
one of the structures on the site that you turn down or recommend
that the Council turn down the request for conceptual subdivision
approval.
We have listed numerous conditions which we would recommend be
part of your approval in the event that you recommend approval of
the application.
Joe said he wanted to clarify that 50% open space calculation
does not include the tennis courts.
Welton then opened the public hearing.
PUBIiIC HEARING
l-6Ol--RESfDEN'l'IAIi GMF-- CONCBPl'OAL SUBMISSION
Chuck Brandt, representing two property owners in the Aspen
Chance, asked if the square footage of the tennis courts had been
used to compute FAR.
Joe answered yes.
Chuck said he did not know if that was proper or not.
Glen said you can calculate FAR based upon the tennis courts as
part of the subdivision if the owners of the Gant give consent of
their use in this application. The key to whether or not you can
use the tennis courts in calculating FAR would deal with whether
or not they are under an overhang of a building.
Chuck said the concern of the adjacent property owners relates to
density. We endorse the Planning Office recommendation that one
of the structures be eliminated. The 1001 lots are quite smaller
than the Aspen Chance subdivision lots and the Aspen Chance, with
its larger lot components, is viewed as a mistake of approval by
the City.
Ed Zasaki, . behalf Aspen Chance, said
after having reviewed the plans he was strongly discouraged from
using any variations to lot size, height or setbacks whatsoever
and did not do so on the Chance property. He asked that 1001 be
given equal treatment.
Welton then closed the public hearing.
Joe then said they were relying on the provlslon in the PUD which
states that a tract or parcel of land proposed for PUD develop-
ment must be in one ownership or subject to an application filed
jointly by the owners of all property included. That was the
22
reason for soliciting the co-operation of the Gant. We do
believe that we are now in a position to commit that site to open
space.
COMMISSIONER '-S-COMMENTS
1-001- eTB--AVBNU-B - RESIDENTIAL GMP -cONCBP'lUAL - SOBMI-S-SION
Welton Anderson said he found that the amount of vacated open
space, namely the area above the 8040 Greenl ine, to be a very
worthwhile public benefit.
Who can or cannot use the tennis court is really not a concern of
this Board. The PUD has accomplished what a PUD is designed to
accomplish--that is to cluster structures and preserve open
space. The trail is another positive amenity and I do not find
the density of the 40 units as being out of character with the
neighborhood.
He then asked for comments from the other commissioners.
Jasmine said the dedication of the upper portion of the site is a
very good benefit. Also she said she is not concerned about who
uses the tennis courts but that this is something which came up
when we were going through the time share regulations about
ownership of "common elements". That these must be fully
apportioned to owners of the units. There may be some problems
with that down the road but that is not our concern.
She said she had to agree somewhat with the Planning Office's
evaluation with the apparent density on the site. Even though
the land above it could technically be developed, the perception
of most people would be that the developable area is where the
envelopes are and therefore the structures seem "mushed in
together and appear to be more of them or bigger than need be for
a PUD. She said she was not sure whether the answer would be to
remove one of the dwellings or make each of the dwellings smaller
so that they don't seem so squashed together. She would like to
see some reduction of size or number of dwellings.
Mari Peyton said she was curious about the dedicated slope. What
is the actual slope and whether it is actually developable or
not. If it is not practically developable she did not see that
this is such a great benefit.
Joe said you have been through some controversies with very
similar parcels. It is a benefit to the city to eliminate that
ever happening on this piece. It is the possible spector of
having this piece with no commitments on it. We thought that
would be perceived as a benefit to the community.
Glen agreed with Joe.
23
Roger Hunt said he agreed with Jasmine regarding the bulk of
these structures. He would not have a problem if these were 4
smaller dwellings. If 4 smaller dwellings cannot be done then he
would tend towards eliminating one structure.
David White said he did not think density is a big problem. The
Gant right across the street is a lot more dense. The tennis
courts is a problem for the developer, not the P&Z.
Ramona Markalunas asked if the Aspen Developer Company actually
owned the 1001. The answer was yes.
Joe said they calculated the maximum allowable square footage for
the entire PUD which is approximately 18,000 square feet. There
is a provision in the lease agreement that allows the Gant to
construct a small pro shop facility which would be in the area
below the tennis courts. We are committing to the Gant 1,000
square feet of that 18,000 sq.ft. of density. What we suggest
doing is committing to not exceeding the 18,000 sq.ft. permitted
after slope production is performed.
Al Blomquist said if a developer includes a park in his develop-
ment, his density is going to be very low. The perceived density
in this development is very low. And, therefore, is a very good
project but the county land should be dedicated to the City. Then
the City would be justified in providing driveway space on the
second park to allow them to get a better arrangement and getting
rid of those little parking spots on Ute Avenue and making that
all landscaping making that a nice foreground to the tennis
courts.
There was then discussion as to the number of members who where
concerned with density and bulk of the project.
Joe said he was concerned about the provision that had to do with
getting consent of all the mortgagees and lien holders. It seems
to be something that is not normally enforced and is something
fairly difficult to achieve.
Glen Horn explained that that recommendation was made at the
advise of the attorney's office because he was concerned based
upon the title policy that was in the plans. It is at the
discretion of the P&Z Commission to require mortgagees to co-sign
the application.
Nick McGrath on behalf of the Gant said he was not aware of that
recommendation. He said he was familiar with the requirement
that generally the owner and the mortgagee who is the applicant
to sign the application. In this case the Gant is joined as a
fairly technical party and we have 162 owners. There is probably
between 150 and 200 mortgagees. He said the Gant is a corporat-
24
ion and the board of directors of the corporation bind the
corporation. If Aspen Development Company is a corporation you
don't require each shareholder to sign an application. He did
not think that the paperwork is at all necessary from the
standpoint of the City and could see no purpose at all in
requiring that.
Welton then asked for a motion to approve the 1001 Residential
Conceptual Subdivision Submission with the conditions listed in
the Planning Department memo of January 20, 1987 with the
exclusion of the condition heretofore mentioned. But on the
condition that it be a subject of discussion at preliminary. And
that the concerns and conditions of the commissioners concerning
bulk and density also be addressed at preliminary.
Jasmine so moved. This was seconded by Roger Hunt.
AI Blomquist asked if there was a provision for park dedication.
He asked for a condition that the land outside the City be
dedicated as City park.
Joe said they were committing it to open space to be maintained
by the homeowner's association but were not objecting to this
change.
Jasmine said she would not amend her motion as she was not sure
we want it to be a park. That is something we could consider but
did not want it to be a part of this motion.
Welton said we can make it a part
there was any further discussion.
favor of the motion.
of preliminary.
There was none.
He asked if
All voted in
nO-BAST HYMAN
REBIDENTIAL-GMP-coNCB-PTUAL'SUBMISSION
Sonny Vann said this is site consists of 4 lots, 3,000 sq.ft.
each and is located on the corner of Spring and Hyman Streets.
It is now being submitted as a residential for two duplexes each
to be located on a 6,000 sq.ft. parcel. A building permit has
been issued for the first duplex and a GMP application is pending
for the second duplex. In order to construct two duplexes under
our requirements to meet the minimum lot requirements, we would
have to subdivide the property. The applicant is requesting
subdivision exception to divide the property along the existing
lot line between lot L and lot M creating two 6,000 sq. ft. legal
parcels.
Steve Burstein said beside the subdivision there is also employee
housing. With respect to the subdivision aspects of this
project, the referral agencies and the Planning Office both do
25
not have any particular problems with this application. The
Engineering Department pointed out that the drainage situation
should be addressed by further study of the historical runoff.
Sidewalks on Spring Street and Hyman Street are required.
Sanitation and water can be provided with no problem.
Environmental Health noted the need for a contaminated soil study
and they also observe that there would be 4 clean burning and 4
dirty burning stoves which is the maximum allowed. The Planning
Office felt that there are no special topographic environmental
features that restrain this property and that the site of the
structures is compatible with the neighborhood.
Our recommendation is that it does be treated as a expedited
review with subdivision exception and there be no preliminary
subdivision stage in front of this commission. It would
basically go to a conceptual presentation in front of Council
with the GMP and then final plat to the Council.
We are recommending approval subject to the 8 conditions listed
in the memorandum. Those are primarily following up on the
specific site improvements that have been represented and the
comments that were made by the referral agencies.
With regard to employee housing: They are proposing to provide
two 2 bedroom units at the Park Place Condos and $8,000.00 cash
in lieu for .4 equivalent employees and the Housing Authority
recommends approval of this as does the Planning Office and has
prepared a recommended condition of approval.
Sonny Vann said in regard to the conditions being suggested by
the Planing Office. It appears that the Engineering Department's
current position is that you not increase the historic runoff and
in addition to that you not increase the rate we charge to the
aquifer. This is a new position to us. It was not revealed at
the time of the pre-application conference although it appears to
have been in effect for some time. As a result we represented in
our GMP application that we would not increase the historic
runoff which has been the historic position.
In an attempt to improve our score we also represented that we
would attempt to try and reduce the historic runoff. I would
hate to see the project penalized because of a failure to
identify the current policy that is being interpreted by the
Planning Office. We will comply with the Engineering
Department's requirements that the historic runoff not be
increased. As long as that condition #2 is interpreted that
way, that is acceptable to us.
With respect to condition #4:
exception plat shall be recorded
building permit. I assume as a
That is that a subdivision
prior to the issuance of a
matter of clarification that
26
refers to the second duplex which we may obtain approval for
under GMP. We already have a permit for the first duplex and if
we are unsuccessful in obtaining the second one no subdivision of
the property will be required in order to build the first one.
PUBLICHBARING
RESIDBNTIALGMP--e6NeEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Welton opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Welton then closed the public hearing.
Al Blomquist moved for approval with conditions of the Planning
Office and to include conditions of employee housing.
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Welton asked for discussion from the Board.
There was none. All voted in favor.
1010 OTEAVENUB--e -6NCBPrUAL--SUBDIVISIQN PUD REVIEW
Gideon Kaufman said the development of land in Aspen requires
balancing and community goals, private property goals and
developer goals. Each one of these goals can sometimes by served
in the extreme. Some developers are guilty of that and their
only concern is their project not impact on community goals. The
City can also be guilty of extremes when it requires concessions
from the developer. Adjoining property owners often look at
neighboring property as their own private park and resist any new
project and its impacts even though their development has
impacted others.
The needs of these three entities has to be balanced and the
community's inability in the past to balance these properly is
one of the reasons why we have only had two residential units
built since of the inception of the GMP in 1977. With this in
mind, we planned our project.
As the Planning Office memo points out "The development team for
this subdivision has spent more time than most applicants. They
have worked with the City staff, neighbors and community groups,
developing a plan for a parcel that seeks to respect the unique
features of the land that is consistent with community planning
concepts". We did our balancing before submitting this
application. We bent over backwards to make this a good project
for everyone.
27
Our project provides a new bike trail along the river and a new
Nordic and downhill ski trail. We are dedicating land to create
a new city park. We are improving that park and irrigating it.
We are providing public parking in an area that desperately needs
public parking. We are looping the City water system. We ar
utilizing City well water for irrigation which will unburden City
treatment and help City water rights which are they are in
jeopardy of losing.
We are upgrading Ute Avenue with additional rights and realign-
ment. We are constructing a new Ute Avenue Trail and landscap-
ing that trail. We are providing new fire hydrants. We are
improving the Ute Cemetery. These are not paper promises. These
are improvements for the City and for the neighborhood which are
going to exceed 1/2 million dollars. We will spend money to
create real community benefits, not just GMP point benefits. We
have a plan that works and had its concessions made before we
submitted this plan.
In addition to all of these community benefits, we have
vOluntarily reduced the FAR and we have developed a site that is
35% below its allowable density. We have not only been sensitive
to density but to the history of previous development on this
property. This was the base of Little Annie's Ski Area. It had
67 employee housing units, a large parking lot, ski area base
facilities as well as free market duplexes. In contrast to this,
we are providing just single family homes even though we are next
to the Gant. Calderwood has single family, duplexes and four-
plexes, lower lot sizes and higher FAR ratios than we are
proposing. I believe that all of this confirms that we have
meticulously tried to accommodate and do a plan that works for
everyone.
The Planning Office agrees that this is an excellent project and
a fine attempt to comply with the code. Unfortunately they have
made a few recommendations which go to the very heart of our
project. These recommendations would change the concept of our
project and hurt its economic viability. We have offered
extensive community projects, substantial lower density and lower
FAR. To take the most valuable part of this private property--
the lots which are the cornerstone of our project, its economic
heart and, as such, the key generator of funds--is unfair.
The ridge with its view, is central to us. But despite its
importance we have already made concessions on that ridge. We
have volunteered to preserve view plains by limiting houses on
the ridge to one level. The highest portion of the ridge has
already been dedicated to open space. Less than 30% of the ridge
will be developed, thereby complying with the requirement in
working with the natural features of the terrain. We are willing
to work with you on design techniques and styles to lesson the
impact. The intent of the PUD is to allow usable amenities for
28
people. By developing along the ridge, we are able to have
usable open space in the project that is beneficial for us and
beneficial for adjacent property owners in Calderwood. Just
what Glen thought was missing in the 1001 Plan, we had. We have
achieved a beneficial land use in relationship with surrounding
areas. We are willing to reduce height impacts. We have
intentionally sought to make our proj ect compatible with the
terrain and we fear that the placement and cluster in the
structures and reduction of building height and scale and
increase in open space preserve the usable nature of the site.
The PUD section has differed sometimes in compatible
requirements. We have complied to the best of our ability with
the ones that we felt were the most important. Our secondary
concern deals with the lots in the meadow. We have met with the
Planning Office as part of our design process. As a result
adjusted our site plan locations to address their concerns. We
have come up with a dual cl uster technique in the meadow. We
have also put houses on the edges of the property so as to
preserve as much of the meadow as possible. To preserve the view
from Ute Avenue, to leave an open feeling and to allow for a
really nice decorative ponds that also help the City's water
system. We feel our meadow design is low density and has been
responsive to Planning Office concerns. It is innovative in a
way to preserve the meadow.
The third area of concern is the trail. We have come up with new
innovative trail ideas that were not envisioned by the adopted
Aspen Area Comprehensive Trail Plan. The Aspen Mountain trail
through the park and the relocation of Ute Avenue and added trail
length issues are all good ideas not previously contemplated.
This demonstrates the trail plan needs to be an evolutionary
plan, one that is flexible. The comprehensive plan shows the
trail through our property. Our proposed trail is an expensive
alternative for us since we feel the City funds may not be
available for this expensive yet key river linkage, a link that
is beautiful and necessary. If you feel that an alternative plan
is needed, we will work with you on trail option B.
The Planning Office is concerned about a burm proposed for the
north end of the parcel adjacent to the end and talks about
removal. This burm was placed in this location after discussions
with the Gant who support the design as presented and who we are
continuing to work with.
Dick Vallet said we broke the site down into 3 or 4 major
concerns which their solution was based on, internally and
externally. From the external situation we were faced with
problems with the Gant and Calderwood and traditional feeling
along Ute Avenue toward Independence Pass. As you come down the
street, there is a natural view corridor that hits the mountain
at a distance. There were also some concerns about the open
29
feeling toward Aspen Mountain. Those external conditions really
helped us in applying this solution to the site.
Internally the site has some significant characteristics. We
felt that traditionally this as an open area it is fairly flat or
rolling and has no real significant contouring or vegetation. We
felt that it is a major open space area on the property. It is
bounded by a height density project on one side and the site
slopes up to Ute Cemetery which presents a natural mounding
background to that edge of the site with large Fir trees which
are in excess of 50 ft. high.
We broke the site down then internally into 3 basic areas. The
open unvegetated area, the central meadow, wooded hill slopes
around it on 3 sides and then the river slope. We are not going
to build on top of the ridge. Our concept for all areas is to
build into the sides of the slope so that we have mass behind our
structures and not silhouetting entire buildings on any ridge
line.
This is not a true meadow in the sense of a meadow so we wanted
to reinforce the idea of openness by keeping paired clusters in
the perimeter of those to create a backdrop not to have an
awkward relationship between the Gant parking areas and massive
heights of their buildings--to create a knoll to help ease the
transition from a height density to a single family area. We are
creating in this meadow our private road that gives us a narrow
paved area so we don't have a perception of a large parking and
driving surfaces. Create pond areas and not to plant the area in
the meadow but concentrate planting around the houses themselves.
We have thereby been sensitive to the view line from Independence
Pass across the property, really being defined by the edge of
tree line.
We feel we have created our three zones. We want to maintain the
perception and reinforce the feeling of openness along Ute
Avenue, maintain and reinforce no encroachments on the view line
to Independence Pass, and create an open meadow area with houses
along the edge built into the hillside and not on top with the
view being compatible with terrain and the vegetation.
We have two ways of approaching the trail system. There are two
separate types of trails. One is the Nordic extension through
the park area. This will be a ski home feature with trail head
parking for public use on these areas. The other consideration
is for the bike path. The looping idea would be maintained and
has the unique situation along the river which is the route we
have been proposing. We felt to have that type of experience and
a rural atmosphere this close to town and maintain this looping
idea, was better than trying to bring something, perhaps
needlessly, into the subdivision.
30
Glen Horn said the development team had worked with the Planning
Office more than most people do in developing this application.
They thought this through very well and are sensitive in many
ways to the site. The dedication of the public park is an
excellent benefit to the community as is the idea to extend the
trail system through the park down to ute Avenue. The
application is very consistent with the ideas expressed in the
Aspen Area General Plan of 1973 Land Use Plan and that the
density is 35% below the maximum density.
I think that you should realize that for the City of Aspen we
consider this site to be very unique with respect to the
topography that exists and the general lay of the land. There
are not many sites that have the physical attributes that this
site has with the river and the two ridges.
An important point of contention between the applicant and the
Planning Office is the trails plan. Gideon brought up an
important point when he said that trails plans are supposed to
flexible and should evolve over time with subdivision
applications as submitted. What we need to do at this point is
work out the details of what is the best particular trail
alignment for this parcel based upon the trail's master plan.
One of the things Glen wanted to point out is that when the
trails master plan was developed, we had two different types of
trail users in mind. The recreational users who may be out on
the trail system just for pleasure time. The other type was the
person who might be commuting on the trail system. We are
concerned that the trail system serve both purposes.
One of the trials in the vicinity of the site that doesn't come
out very well is the auto dissincentive aspect of the trail
system which we think should be met as well as the recreational
needs which we are striving to accommodate through the trail
system. We concur with some of the letters we have received.
(submitted letters at this time) One letter is from Mrs. Henry
Hoyt, another from Mr. Henry Hoyt, a one from John and Georgeann
Hayes. Both comment on the alignment of trail option B which
would run along the proposed subdivision, the existing Calderwood
subdivision and the Gant. We don't think the trail option B as
designed by the applicant works. The trail has been forced to
the ---------side of the site and has severe negative impacts on
the adjoining properties.
Our recommendation with respect to the trail is to internalize it
with the subdivision--possibly make the trail so that it joins
with the new trail so that if someone is coming home to this
subdivision from Aspen Mountain they may be able to ski right
back to their homes. We feel that if the trail is properly
designed, it can be an amenity for the existing neighborhood, the
people across the river as well the people who will live in this
subdivision.
31
with respect to the site plan, there are several sensitive areas
we are concerned about. First the view of the west meadow: We
feel there could be additional clustering or more innovative site
planning techniques to further cluster and use the clustering
provisions of the code more effectively to reduce the appearance
of density in the west meadow. Our principal recommendation is
that different type of building techniques could be used for lots
2, 3 and 4 or possibly they could be relocated into the east
meadow which would be out of sight from the people who travel on
Ute Avenue or live across the street on the base of Aspen
Mountain.
Another principal recommendation with respect to the site plan is
that the houses that are located on the ridge above the river be
dropped back below the ridge. The ridge is a prominent
geographic feature which should be preserved. If these houses
could be dropped down, this natural ridgeline could be reserved
the way it is now and still accommodate the housing within this
development. If you protect the ridge by dropping the houses
down toward the east meadow, there will be the greater impacts on
the Calderwood subdivision. The applicant has focused their
master plan for this site around protecting the views of the east
meadow for the residents of the Calderwood subdivision so that
would be one of the trade offs involved by dropping the houses
down off the ridge or relocated them into the meadow.
Basically you are looking at a philosophical difference between
the way the applicant sees the site and the way the staff sees
it. He is trying to preserve the east meadow and the west
meadow. We think he could do a better job of preserving the west
meadow and we feel the east meadow may be sacrificed to preserve
the eastern ridge.
We recommend approval of the subdivision based upon the
conditions cited in the memorandum with respect to these
geographic features.
Gideon said this applicant went for the single family concept
rather than for the higher densi ty. And to cl uster them too
closely takes away the single family viability. That was why
they did not go to duplex with the greater density. By doing the
subdivision this way we think we have effectively done a
preservation. We have a letter from some of the neighbors who
like very much this concept. We are only developing 40% of this
ridge. The closest house being impacted is 200 feet away. The
ridge is a small feature compared to the view in the back which
is Aspen Mountain.
We feel we have gone into this project really being sensitive,
balanced it as best that we can. We have come up with a low
density project and have been as responsive and sensitive as we
32
can to the concerns of Calderwood, the Gant and to the
neighboring property owners.
PUBIiIe-HEAlUNG
1-6* -uTE- Ky'ENOE -€6NCEPTOAL BOBDIVISION- PUDREVIBW
Bob Stuart said he had watched Gideon and had accompanied him
through this process and as an interested member of the public he
felt they had done a hell of a job. He said you can nitpic these
things and everybody has their own input and likes and dislikes
but judging from what was going there initially which was 68
units and a gondola building and a whole bunch of parking, this
is a big improvement. And judging from the density of some of
these other projects, this is something you should get on with as
quickly as possible and work out the finer points such as trail
system later.
Georgeann Waggaman said there are 3 or 4 houses in Calderwood
that are tremendously impacted by this project. We know this
project is going in and that they have to accept this. But that
Option B comes as close as 20 and 30 feet to those houses.
Welton said he did not think the Commissioners were prepared to
say where the trail is going to be. It is going to take more
walking around there and more study.
Welton then closed the public hearing.
Gideon said regarding terms of condition #1: He did not think it
would be appropriate to remove the burm when we had worked in
conjunction with the Gant on this and they see this as something
mutually beneficial.
Regarding #2: It is obvious that at the preliminary stage there
is a lot more work that needs to be done on the trail and its
appropriate location.
Glen said the applicant should come back with a proposal.
Gideon said they would come back with a proposal on this.
Gideon then said in terms of #3: We really have done everything
we can to address that particular concern and would like to keep
the ridge configuration as it is with our commitment to the one
story and our preliminary talks with you in detail about the type
and style of houses in terms of what their impacts would be
rather than looking at having to relocate them.
Glen then suggested the applicant bring in elevation drawings.
Gideon said they have no problem with that. Then said in regard
33
-
--
~
with #4: We have made changes and been responsive and would be
happy to bring elevation drawings and more detailed drawings on
that also.
Welton said he felt that moving from the west meadow to the east
meadow would be a nebulous trade off.
Glen asked what about clustering those further in the west meadow
and looking at other types of building techniques.
Gideon again brought out the fact that this is a single family
concept, which was a trade off they had to make, and they feel
clustering has taken place there.
Welton said this clustering is not as the definition of
clustering as in duplex. This is giving common driveways.
Alan Blomquist said to "push things around a bit to get better
arrangement of the land" to phrase that somehow to include
getting option B in there.
Gideon said to move to the west meadow would only put more
development to the area we are trying to keep development away
from.
Welton asked for further comments from the Commissioners.
Welton then asked for a motion to approve
Jasmine moved to approve this application subject to the revised
conditions dropping i4 and with iI, #2 and #3 as revised.
David White seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton then adjourned the meeting. The time was 8:15.
n
Janie M.
34