HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870421
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 21. 1987
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Welton Anderson with all
members present except Ramona Markalunas who was excused.
COMMISSIONER' S COMMEN'l"S
Roger Hunt and Mari Peyton had comments during this period but
there was so much noise and private conversations I could not
transcribe any of it.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 27. 1987
Welton: We have tabled the minutes of January 27, 1987 till this
meeting. Motion was made by Roger Hunt that after corrections
are made these minutes be presented again for acceptance. Motion
was seconded by David White with all in favor.
AGATE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT
Steve Burstein: This is a plan for the redevelopment of Block
17. The ba sic pI an is for two dupl exes and six single family
dwellings.
There are three basic areas of concern. These are site plan,
landscaping and architectural design and the scheduling of
activities. The proposed site plan shows a 30 ft wide buffer
strip along 7th street to Hwy. 82. They are going to save all
their trees and add some new trees and also add an 8 ft burm.
There is going to be continuous curbing along 7th street as was
agreed by the fire marshal. The continuous curbing seems to work
to everyone's specifications.
The bus shelter was discussed at conceptual stage and the
reviewing planner said that it was the agreement of the applicant
to install a bus shelter at that time. The condition itself does
not read as clearly so that we know for sure whether it was
simply a location for a bus stop. Bruce Abel, the RFTA Director,
said it is not a real high priority. He was neutral about the
need for one and in their follow up letter said they did not
desire one to be placed there. But if this Commission wants to
see a shelter there, they would not turn it down.
Welton: This is one of the busier bus stops.
1
Roger Hunt: It is a down valley bus stop plus all the other
local bus stops.
Steve: Part of it is that they just recently put the bus stop in
front of Poppies and that one takes care of some of that same
traffic.
Doug Allan: The bus shelter is now in front of Poppies and Bruce
Abel wants a bus stop at that location.
Steve Burstein:
Commission wants
turn it down.
It is not a high priority with RFTA but if this
to see a shelter there, they would certainly not
Steve: An irrigation system which should be installed
in order to insure that this highly visible area be maintained.
Also maintaining this area should be the responsibility of the
Homeowner's Association since it is a real amenity of the whole
project.
The lots and building envelopes have been laid out to basically
avoid removal of trees. We feel the applicant has done a good
job of trying to avoid removing trees and we have had discussion
with regard to how much space there should be between footprints
and the drip line of the tree. If you look at the tree on Lot 4,
Bill Ness has suggested that 3 ft should be considered safe.
However with regard to that particular tree he felt that with
that particular tree because it is such a constrained building
envelope that 3 ft may be excessive and with supervision less
would be acceptable. But he feels that 3 ft is, in general, the
distance that really insures that these tree's roots will not be
damaged.
Tree #27 on Lot 2 is a cherry tree which we recommend not be
relocated. It is a mature tree and because it is so close to the
edge of the site we think it can be built around.
In general the operation of the removal of trees and moving them
elsewhere on the site is a delicate one. It is important that
that be supervised and that there be a commitment to replace any
damaged trees.
At the conceptual stage the applicants stated that there would be
no request for any bulk variations. The basic concept of this
development was to do the two duplexes and the single family
houses. They are basically compatible with this.
In preliminary we have a few changes. There is a victorian
emphasis of the architecture. The height variance for a 12/12
pitch is being requested to be 3 ft higher--28 ft instead of 25
ft. In our memo we noted that the concept of the victorian
emphasis is questionable. But if the intent is to create a real
2
---_..._,.,~..~-_.._~~~...
replication of victorian features then it is probably not
appropriate and hope the historic preservation element and the
PUD regulations encourage compatible but contemporary design.
The roof pitches, materials, the orientation of the houses that
are to be basically towards the streets, the size of the features
are all elements that would be desireable. I think it is great
that we are talking about 12/12 pitches that indeed can be one
element that transfer well over into contemporary designed house.
But if you get into detailing the fenestration, special elements
like victorian towers or certain types of stovepipes that are to
look like some victorian type of a industrial town stovepipe
situation, I'm not sure if that is appropriate.
With regard to the height variance request, we suggest that there
may be several desireable variations.
Site coverage has been addressed by the applicant and they
basically have created building envelopes that are specific.
They have laid out two duplexes and one single family house
showing a range of from 31.8% site coverage to 37.6% site
coverage. Based on the basic site design that we are evaluating
here and looking at other site coverage in the west end, we
suggest that 33% site coverage more closely approximates the
single family house than the duplex on lot 5. We feel this would
be a more appropriate site coverage site limitation.
with regard to the FAR, P&Z and many others have expressed
concern about the effect of development maximizing the FAR as
pertains to compatibility particularly in this R6 zone district.
If the P&Z feels FAR is excessive for this development we can
work with the applicant to come up with an FAR reduction for this
project.
With regard to the scheduled demolition, landscaping,
construction the applicant has proposed a schedule whereby all
existing structures will be demolished within 24 months after the
first building permit is issued. Two other alternatives have
been considered. One is that prior to the issuance of any
building permit, demolition of all structures and the completion
of the landscaping along 7th street buffer area be completed.
The second alternative is that prior to the issuance of any
building permit, just the lodge structures be removed and the
landscape strip along 7th street be completed. Then within the
next 24 months, demolition and the rest of the landscaping be
completed.
We feel that because of the prominence of this site the schedule
of this clean up and the redevelopment activity should be
considered. Our recommendation is for the demolition of
everything on the property. This would accomplish the fastest
cl ean up. It does put a burden on the appl icant because then
3
---~,_._,,~,--._,---
they have no income-producing buildings on the property and they
have to put up front all the money it takes to do the landscape
improvements. However we feel this is fairly typical for site
preparation costs. This is a little higher than for other
undeveloped property.
Our recommendation is for conditional approval. We have outlined
the conditions basically so that there are plat conditions and
subdivision agreement conditions.
Terry Wedstone, the project architect, said they were asking for
33 ft height variance. That would be the maximum ridge line if
we go to 28 ft on the sloped roofs. If I could build 12 on 12
roof pitch for all my sloped roofs that would be a wonderful
design tool to break up the mass of the house.
On the duplexes, because of the 30 ft setback requirement to get
us away from the street, it really limits some of the options I
may have on other sites I have to work with where working with an
L shaped building or manipulating the shape of the building to
limit spans and break it up. On these two sites with the trees
in the middle, I don't have that liberty. On the duplex
buildings, I am going to do combination of flat roofs and pitched
roofs and disguising any flat roofs with some kind of pitched
roof simply to break up the bulk of the building. That tied back
into a detailing problem and drainage problem that necessitates
the need for a height increase.
We are only asking for this height increase on the sloped roofs
and any place where there is a flat roof with some kind of facia
on it would still adhere to existing code.
When these plans were originally submitted and we did total
building envelope because we had not gotten into any further
design development on any of those lots, there was a concern
expressed at one time that if this was approved with no more
information than that that in fact we could build out to those
total envelopes. On a theoretical basis if that was done, that
would cover 62 and 1/2% of the ground area. In response to that
I have written in that if I knew I could have that ridge line
height and that tells me where I am going design wise on the rest
of the site, then I know an awful lot about the relationships
that happen on individual lots with the design concept. I know I
can work around both trees, I knew where I was at with a foot
print of general terms. I felt that 2,250 sq ft maximum, I'd be
safe. I'd have a little bit of leeway on some of the other lots.
At 2,250 sq ft footprint, that's a 37 and 1/2% coverage. So we
would agree to limit construction on any of the rest of these
houses to that percentage of lot coverage.
Doug Allan: Keep in mind that the garage has to be on the first
floor so you will have 2,250 feet of footprint on the first floor
4
of which 600 ft is garage. That leaves 1,650 ft of living area
on the first floor and the rest of it is on the second floor.
Jasmine: It is my understanding that these guidelines will be
established for whoever buys those individual lots. They may not
use your firm to build the house, or is that part of the
condition.
Doug: There will be covenants and a design committee established
similar to what they have in Starwood to be sure that these are
followed. The present plan is for them all to be developed and
sold as individual homes and not have the individual lots sold.
That was an alternative at one time.
Jasmine: This applicant who is before us and his design team are
going to be building these structures.
Doug: Right. There are sidewalks on 7th street. There were 12
conditions on conceptual approval. One of those was that we
build a sidewalk on 7th street. There will be no sidewalks on
the inner streets.
The concern now is the footprints, demolition schedule, bus stop,
and trees. We maintained all of the trees on the site except
one. Mr. Ness says that while it is not ideal the survival of
the tree is not really in question if you build up to the drip
line as long as you use mitigating techniques.
He then showed pictures of trees whose drip line had been
excavated into, which nevertheless had thrived since 1976. We
are not going to let any of these trees go. They are very
important to the site. But we can accomplish the preservation of
these trees regardless of building closer than 2 or 3 ft of the
dripline.
Demolition schedule: The developer will guarantee that all of
these improvements will be in place. The lender has issued a
loan commitment to do this project which is subject to many
conditions. One of the conditions in the loan commitment that
the lender has issued is that these buildings be maintained as
income-producing properties to help service the debt on the loan
during the development stage. We are willing to commit to within
24 months after the first building permit is issued to have all
of the site work done. That is to have the burm done and have
the old buildings cleared off. There are no junk vehicles on the
site. All the vehicles are operable and currently licensed.
Those would be removed at the time of approval or as soon as
anything starts on the site. But we do need that time frame of
24 months to move everything off of there. If this is approved,
there is an outstanding loan commitment, work will start as soon
as Terry is able to get a building permit for the first
structures to be built. It will immediately start to be
5
developed. That will trigger the 24 months and you can be
assured by guarantees and by covenants that within 24 months, it
will be a totally different situation.
The bus stop: There is a letter of today from Bruce Able
relative to the bus stop. There has been a question about bus
stop versus bus shelter. The 12 conditions approved by City
Council for this project does provide a bus stop versus a bus
shelter. Mr. Able has a bus shelter around the corner. That is
where he prefers to have the shelter. A bus stop is what is
desired there. We have provided for a pullout for the buses at
that location and the bus stop to be maintained in its present
location. I have agreed with Mr. Able that if he desired at a
later date to relocate the wooden bus stop 40 ft to the north, we
would agree to do that.
Irrigation: Mr Ness suggested irrigation or to provide adequate
water. Our proposal is to provide adequate watering to insure
that the new vegetation will be established and survive. That
can be covered by the subdivision improvement agreement.
Tree 27: We will agree to leave that where it is. We can
successfully work around that tree.
Steve has suggested 33% coverage. Terry has suggested 37.6.
This is a small variation in percentage but it allows these
structures to be completed on this site in an architecturally
responsible manner and leave a lot of open space. Almost 2/3 of
the site is open space and this 2,250 sq ft foot print is minimal
for each of these lots to accomplish the design objectives.
We are in agreement with all of the recommendations made by Steve
except that we would like to be able to construct up to the line
of trees. That is not going to impair the survivability of the
trees. We need the 37.6% site coverage leaving 62.4% of the lot
open.
We have a letter from the electric department relative to the
purchase of transformers, the purchase of secondary transformers
and you are not intimately familiar with this but when we went
before Council at conceptual, Council essentially agreed that we
would no be double dipped on the cost. This land owner has
already born the cost in his taxes for the undergrounding of this
in the west end. Mr. Gilbert suggests that it should be paid for
again. That was something Council assured us would not happen in
this case. We would like that condition omitted.
The applicant shall submit a detailed schedule of demolition,
completion of landscape improvements and completion of
construction prior to submittal of final plat. Included within
the schedule shall be an agreement by the appl icant to demol ish
all structures on the property and complete all 7th street
6
landscaping, sidewalks and curbing improvements within 24 months
of the issuance of the first building permit and shall so
guarantee the performance of such to the City. That language is
included on page 5 of my April 21st memo.
Steve: There needs to be some further follow-up from both the
parks department and the electric department. In my discussions
with Bill Ness, as late as 2:00 this afternoon, he was still
saying that 3 ft is really the kind of distance to insure that
the tree will not be damaged.
Welton: I have experienced working with very tight properties
where excavation had to come considerably closer than 3 ft from
the dripline. A tree surgeon can supervise any damage to the
root structure.
Terry: I have included in the specifications dealing with these
trees that will be in the written specifications of the project
manual for each house. That deals with any roots that might be
cut and how to treat them and also the idea of placing a vapor
barrier between the foundation wall and the tree to make sure
there isn't leaching from the concrete. I will add that
specification to that section.
Welton asked for comment from the public.
Bill Hayes who lives at the corner of 6th and Hallam wanted to
say publicly he is delighted with all of this. We moved there
not knowing this was about to happen and wondering what would
eventually happen with this block. We are happy about it.
Welton asked for further public comment.
There was none and he closed the public hearing.
Welton asked for comments from the commissioners.
Roger Hunt: The parks department identified the need for a
collection box for the ditch on 6th street at the alley. Then
stated his concern on the recommendation of the Planning
Department which is the closing off of the alley and the trash
company at 8:00 in the morning having to back up in there in
order to do its thing. There are no trash yards for the
duplexes. That is a problem as far as servicing a normal city
block. It seems very bad to cut it off even if it is Hwy 82 at
the moment. The alley is there right now, it is workable and I
would prefer to see the alley go through. I have real problems
with it not going through.
Jasmine: My major concern is with height and FAR. Part of it is
not the applicant's problem. Part of it is my own feeling that
FAR does not really come to grips with bulky buildings. We have
7
gone through this many times. The Commission has never been able
to establish more appropriate measurement for preventing
buildings that just seem to be too big in any kind of objective
way. So we are somewhat at fault. I understand also that the
building envelopes here just represent tentative maximums. At
the same time this is an opportunity to try to make sure that we
have a special development which will have high rate of success.
I hate to see us winding up with oversize buildings. My
inclination at first was to go along with the Planning Office's
recommendation that perhaps the varied height might be an
appropriate tradeoff with allowable FAR. On the other hand I
think one of the problems is that people's perception of bulk has
a lot to do with how tall a building is. A taller building tends
to look bulkier than a shorter building even though a shorter
building may cover more lot size. I was interested in seeing
what other members of the Commission thought about this because
my own inclination would be to not allow the height unless there
was a reduction in overall FAR unless they wanted to come back
with more specific building envelopes than what is shown here.
Doug Allan: We could build out to the maximum but we have agreed
as far as the approval that we will not do that--that we will not
cover over 37.6%.
Jasmine: If you have taller things, it looks bulkier.
Welton: I do not agree with that.
Jasmine: We do not have an objective standard which is why we
have a problem.
Welton: I have looked at a lot of victorians today and the
proportion between the tall and narrow and my feeling is one or
the other--either reducing the lot coverage and return to the
height or keeping the height where the code is and getting
something larger. Adopting one or the other.
Regarding site coverage: 37.6%, that means total allowable FAR.
Doug: Building footprint.
Welton: Footprint is one thing but when you start doing second
floors, you are talking total floor area ratio to be 600 sq ft
garage plus 3640 buildable.
Doug: We are suggesting in our application 10 units. 12 units
would be allowed under FAR on this site.
Welton: You want a little extra height then you get a little bit
less FAR.
Doug: There is only one problem with that. It doesn't work from
8
an economic point of view and it won't work from a lender point
of view.
Welton: The detailing could be worked out in some way to allow
the room sizes to remain large and gracious and you need to have
the extra 3 feet of height. My concern is that you end up with
more uniformity of height without it.
Terry said that is exactly what it does. It gives me a way to
break up the mass. As an architect I have to take an opposite
stance from the viewpoint that lower means less bulk. I have
seen too many buildings where all of a sudden somebody just gave
up and put on a shed roof that runs the full length of the
building.
Welton: If 25% of the ridges are exceeding and 75% are below
it, that would be quite acceptable.
Doug: We can deal with it on the basis of total ridge or on the
basis of total area.
Steve Burstein said the Planning Office can work with the
applicant and try to come up with the difference in areas and how
that roof line calculation works out, whether it is with area or
with line.
Welton: It would be nice to reach a conclusion tonight but so
much of the information was given to us at this late point that I
really could not justify giving approval with so many variables
still hanging in the air. I remind the Commission there are not
meetings in May.
Terry: What does that mean in terms of scheduling? From my
standpoint I am in deep trouble if I do not know what rules I am
playing by from here on in terms of trying to generate
construction documents to get a portion of this project done
this year. The building permit delay is going to be 4 or 5 weeks
and this question determines framing plans, elevations and many
other things.
Doug: We can agree that not over 30% of it will exceed the code
height measured on the ridge.
Terry: I know from working on these two lots that I have at
least one ridge situation that would be up at that height. I
could not say that on the other 6 lots I wouldn't have at least
one portion of the roof that he wouldn't be able to maintain the
12/12. I would like to maintain the integrity of that same roof
pitch as a unifying element throughout the property.
Welton: As an architect I have been dealing with this kind of
challenge for a dozen years in Aspen. Going to an 8' ceil ing
9
height, going to an 11/12 versus 12/12 you cut 3 feet out of it
right there without materially affecting the perceptual spaces in
the 1 i v ing room and dining room areas. I do not feel you are
absolutely stuck with something that forces you into a 33 ft
height.
Jasmine: We need some additional clarification on what the
details of this plan are to be. I do not think there is anyone
on the Commission could say to go ahead and we will work it out
later.
Doug: We would like to work it out tonight even if we have to
compromise and agree that we will not put over 30% over the code
height.
Jasmine: I do not think that is the right answer either.
Mari: I do not like a variance given without a variance taken.
My feeling is that the applicant is asking for a 10% variance in
the height. Then we should ask for a 10% reduction in the FAR.
Doug: You have gotten the 10% reduction by our going from 12
units to 10. That has already been given. A lot was conceded
going into this. That is in terms of a 30 ft setback and in
terms of reducing the density by 2 units which is over 10%.
Welton: You have given two lots but you still have the same
density--the same number of units.
Doug: We could have done duplexes all the way across and we
would have 12 units instead of 10.
Welton: I thought that was the applicant's choice not to do, but
to mix the duplexes and single families.
Doug: Right, we conceded that right off the start.
Welton: I don't know that you conceded that.
decision to do single families and duplexes.
It was your
Doug: We decided because we thought that that would give us an
advantage in that we had given something to begin with.
Roger Hunt: My major problem at this point is deciding height in
these units that I don't see. Of the units that I do see a plan
for, I could give a decision there. If, for example, we agree to
proposing a 30% ridge line over the maximum height limitation,
and those are appropriate to those units that we can see right
now. But we can't project that to these other two units.
Doug: How about dealing with this on just the duplexes?
10
Roger: We could probably make a decision on the duplexes
tonight. What that means is that for the other lots they will
have to come in for modification of the PUD when they come up
with something for the remainder of the lots.
Doug: What if we deal with it on lots 1, 3, 4 and 5 only? We've
got the tree problem on Lots 3 and 4 and the duplex problem on
Lots 1 and 5. We can deal with no height variance on the other
lots. The practical problem is we have a tentative long
commitment for this project which is good for this season to get
it started. If we wait till the June meeting to come back and
reconsider and work on it further, then we are out of the
building season.
Terry: From having worked on these two lots that although I
don't have as much building area to deal with the trees impose
constraints in terms of staying away from them and staying within
the setback requirements that again condense my area to the point
that I do need that height. The rest of the lots, I would think
I could work with and not need that increase.
Dav id White: This is by far the best yet. I like the way it
looks and from the standpoint of if you want to put no height on
those four, I will give you the ability to go over 30% on those
other four.
Doug: That was Lots 2, 6, 7 and 8.
David: Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5 not over 30% on gabled roofs.
What I think I am doing by this is tying them into a 12/12 roof
giving the ability on 4 lots because of some restraints to go
that 30% on the other ones.
Welton: Ridge lines shall not exceed 33 ft for more than 30% of
the linier length of all gable ridge lines.
Terry: That percentage is probably too low.
Welton: That gives you more flexibility than if we just said no,
nothing to exceed the height line.
Doug: That will be only on Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Welton: That will lesson variations in roof lines so that it
doesn't all get clipped off at a 30 ft height.
Welton made a motion to amend 3G to that affect. To amend 3A to
say no closer than the drip line.
11
Steve suggested that 4C and 41 9 and 10 be left to be resolved
because the Electric Department has not gotten back to the
Planning Department on this issue.
Welton pointed out this is an agreement made with Council.
Roger Hunt said there is a correction 41 3.
Steve: There is a correction 41 1. Also 25, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31.
Doug: Also tree 5 because of the relocation of the bus stops.
Welton: 4J--the last part of that to be revised as the applicant
has adjusted within 24 months of issuance of building permit. I
feel that living in a neighborhood and seeing that whole block
razed at one time and becoming a desolation zone for a long
period of time--I think it would be kinder to the neighborhood to
do it in steps.
Doug: We don't have a strong feeling about 3D. We feel it would
create a better overall design for the neighborhood to have it as
we have proposed it. If you insist on having it open, we would
like to have a narrow neck in there to have it open but not a
full width so that the service vehicles could come in and out of
there. Actually we would prefer them to all come from the other
end.
Steve: The conceptual condition was to say if fire access was
required, then it should indeed be open. If not then let's try
to work on something else. We thought about trash and snow
removal and felt that if the applicant is willing to take care of
the alley that this does work. I think it gives more of an
amenity to the street side.
Welton: Does anyone feel strongly enough about it to modify 3D.
Roger: I do.
There was no consensus to modify 3D.
Welton then asked for a second to the motion.
Roger: I would second the motion if 3D were modified.
David: I Would modify 3D but if I modify 3D I want it really
necked down and only make it as an emergency. I don't see any
point in having it as a main entrance as shown on the plan. It
should be necked down to 14 ft.
Roger Hunt then seconded the motion.
Welton asked for discussion.
12
,-."_,_".~-,",,,,"",,---_,_-_"_"~'~'~~-,-.-'--'.
Jasmine: I am still not happy with 3G and feel that we are
neglecting our responsibility to the Planning Commission with not
having specific information. The architect is not happy with the
30% revisal. I am not happy with the height and bulk of the
buildings. I really feel that unless we can come to grips with
Section G in a much more definite way that I will not vote for
approval.
Doug: We will comply with the RFTA requirements as it is
presently written by Steve.
Welton asked if there was further discussion.
Roger: If 30% of it is over it by so many feet, 30% of it should
be under it by so many feet.
Steve: We can take it under further study if you want it to be
ironed out.
Welton: What is represented on the wall indicates some high
ridges and medium height ridges and some drummers are down lower
which I think is a good vocabulary on the roof of various
elements. Strictly cutting off at one height, I think you would
end up with more of a uniform ridge height which really wouldn't
be perceived too often given the gables anyway.
Roger: I would propose in effect giving a credible ridge height
for portions of the flat roof. In other words if this point
during the long leg of the rectangle were given credit for ridge
linier.
Doug: That is an acceptable compromise.
Welton: That is bringing it right back up to what we see on the
wall. That is adding at least 50% more high ridge.
Doug: We would agree to the 30% maximum.
Roger: That would allow them to count to top of the flat roof
and I consider that the top of this parapet because that is the
perceived ridge for that portion of the rectangle. But allow
them to count that and have a balance.
Doug: We are not suggesting that we get more than 30% by doing
what he is suggesting--still be limited to the maximum of 30% but
we would have to offset it somewhere else to get that 30%.
Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second and I think
this can be handled procedurally by the Planning Office or the
Building Department.
13
Steve: Is the Commission suggesting it be taken to Council
before final?
Wel ton: No, I am suggesting that rather than defeating the
motion and then revising it to specifics that the clarification
that Roger just made that that clarification be forwarded to the
Building Department and/or the Planning Office without modifying
this motion.
Jasmine and Steve asked for an explanation.
Doug: That if we use that variance for 30%of the roof line--if
we use a 3' variance then 30% of the rest of the roof line has to
be 3' below the code height.
Roger: That comes under 3F--so that is a motion and that
condition has been modified to indicate what we just stated.
Whatever 30% of it is above would be a balancing 30% an equal
amount below or more.
Doug: An equal amount and an equal height below.
Welton: Let's modify the motion.
David: I modify the motion.
Roger seconded the motion.
Welton asked for further discussion.
There was none.
Roll call: Jasmine Tygre, yes, David White, yes, Roger Hunt,
yes, Mari Peyton, yes, Welton Anderson, yes.
PUBLIC HEARING
1010 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/POD PRRT.IMINARY PLAT
Glen Horn: What we have to decide on tonight is requests for
three things. First the subdivision and PUD preliminary
approval, 8040 Greenline Review and the Stream Margin Review.
When this application went to City Council and this board the
first time, it was decided to postpone the 8040 Greenline Review
and Stream Margin Reviews until tonight. City Council approved
the 1010 Ute Avenue application in much the same form that you
recommended. There are not many changes of significance. I do
want to enter into the record a letter from Valerie Richter which
comments on the siting of Lots 2, 3 and 4 in the meadow just to
the east of the Gant.
with respect to the Planning Office comments there is no problem
14
with the Stream Margin Review. The applicant supplied a letter
from a certified engineer saying that all the improvements will
be well out of the flood plain.
Regarding the 8040 Greenline Review an issue came up at the City
Council meeting which was to be addressed tonight. That has to
do with the location of the parking lot on the proposed public
park which is Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision. A gentleman who
lives on Lot 2, Jack and Carolyn Davis objected to the location
of the parking lot so close to their house.
The applicant has been working with the representatives of the
Davis's and we think we have a satisfactory agreement. The lot
would be located at least 30' from the eastern property line and
is presently staked that way. The applicant has agreed to
construct an 8 ft burm with evergreens on top of it to visually
screen the parking lot from the house. There will be a condition
that the park will be a passive park rather than an active
recreational park. We would make this recommendation with you so
you would make that a condition.
Another condition would be that there would be no overnight
parking in the proposed parking lot. John Kelly has also been
authorized to say that the Davis's will support the application
if these provisions are made a part of the approval tonight.
Other than this issue with regard to the parking lot we see no
other 8040 Greenline Review issues except that the engineer is
going to want to take a look at the final grading and
improvements in the trail that will cut across that slope on the
proposed park. That will be the trail which goes from the Aspen
Mountain Trail down to Ute Avenue.
The architectural covenants seem to be in order and they include
everything which should be a part of architectural covenants.
Bear in mind that this is going to be land subdivision and the
developer does not intend to construct all the houses. He may
construct up to 4 houses but it is primarily a land subdivision
where they are going to market lots so the architectural
covenants will be very important and they seem to be well
prepared and comprehensive.
The landscaping plan is in order. The.re is one issue with
respect to landscaping plan and like most of the others you are
going to find out it has been resolved. The City Engineer said
there should be commitments in the PUD agreement from the
applicant that the public improvements associated with ute Avenue
will take place. Utility locations, reconstruction of the
street, reconstruction of the Ute Avenue Trail and development of
landscaping on the north side of Ute Avenue. Jay Hammond would
like to see commitments that all of these things will happen
within the public right-of-way. The applicant agrees and is
15
going to sit down with the attorney and the City Engineer and
work out a satisfactory agreement prior to final plat submission.
Regarding the development schedule, there is an issue which we
will be seeking your comments about. That is the section of the
code 24.11.7 which says that building permits must be issued
within 33 months of the general submission of the residential
growth management application. This presents somewhat of a
problem to these developers because they are doing a land
subdivision and when the City code was written no one ever
envisioned that there would be a large land subdivision within
the City of Aspen. And in a case of a land subdivision, it is a
tough restriction to ask them to be in the ground with 16 or 17
really high income luxury type homes within 33 months of the
original GMP submission which was in December 1986.
We feel we have our hands tied on this because there is really no
out for you at all in the City code. We are stuck with this
condition and we think it is something that may have to be
amended in the City code. You may want to make a recommendation
along those lines.
Gideon: The Pitkin County code specifically addressed this
situation. They said however in the event the applicant shall
receive approval for a subdivision land only and proposes to
offer lots for sale for development by individual owners who need
only record his plat with Pitkin County.
Glen: There is still an issue with respect to the trails. There
was a request to have the developer come back with some trails
options. We had trail option A which ran along the river on City
land. The GMP application said if the applicant would construct
this trail along the river on City property as part of their GMP
submission and submitted cross sections of this trail and
engineer this trail, they are prepared to construct the trail in
the event that is your preferred alternative.
In lieu of constructing that trail they will give us an easement
for one of three options. Trail B which is a trail that pretty
much hugs the property line between the Gant and the proposed
1010 ute Subdivision. That is the one that was in the GMP
proposal and they have come back with this new proposal for trail
C which is the trail easement which we support. Their commitment
is to give us an easement for this trail. We think it represents
a good compromise between the needs of the adjacent property
owners and the needs of the subdivision. They tried to put the
trail, for the most part, equal distance between houses in their
subdivision and existing houses in Calderwood and the Gant. They
have even gone so far as to suggest split rail fences, more
security-type fences.
Our recommendation is trail option C. Trail option D is the one
16
would go along the river.
trail option C.
We don't like this one as well as
The only other remaining issues have to do with park dedication
fees. The applicant has suggested that they would calculate
their park dedication fees based on the maximum of 4 bedrooms per
unit although there may be less than 4 bedrooms per unit. They
would get a rebate at the time of building permit if there were
less than 4 bedrooms per unit.
Another issue that has come up is that the applicant has
requested that they get some credit for the dedication of a park
as part of this subdivision to the City on a park dedication fee.
There is some question about whether or not you may want to do
that in that the park was a commitment of the growth management
application. And you need to decide whether it is right or wrong
and get credit in the GMP application and also get credited for
it in their park dedication fees. It is not a big issue but
something you need to address.
Lots 13, 14 and 15 were subject in the original submission. They
were subject to review from the north side of the Roaring Fork
River across to the subdivision and the affect of buildings on
the ridge line. At the time I felt strongly that there should be
some sensitive design of those buildings so that the view of the
ridge line was maintained. The applicant has prepared some
renderings of what they feel these buildings will look 1 ike and
they have also made a commitment to keep the buildings
approximately no greater than 12 ft above the center line of the
ridge.
This afternoon Dick brought over some new language for me and it
explicitly establishes what the top elevations of those buildings
would be with respect to the ridge line. I have looked at it and
it makes sense.
There are a few changes in the conditions. We are in agreement
with respect to those.
Gideon: We have worked very closely with the Planning Office and
the neighbors and as a result all the issues are re!lolved. We
or iginally proposed trail option A. However, we are will ing to
go along with trail Option C. But in order for us to do trail
option C, we have had to make certain representations to
neighbors. We would like those representations to be incorporated
into the commitment.
Dick: Trail option Band C went around along common property
line to Calderwood and the Gant. Under trail option B it was
basically a 15 foot wide easement along the property line which
is too restrictive for a lot of the conditions that exist along
the trail.
17
There were two primary points that were really causing some
problems. One was with the Gant swimming pool. The trail was
coming pretty close to that and with no fencing along the area
people were concerned about security for the public being able to
access their pool.
The other area was for the Calderwood people and their back yards
that were close to the property line. So we have tried to work
out some compromises in the context of the trail as far as
distances, privacy screening, landscaping and security.
We think we have resolved the Gant issues. One being the burm
and then in essence what we are proposing for the section
throughout the pool area and one at the end of the Gant would be
to depress the trail. We wanted to lower the trail bed itself
and raise the earth around it so that in effect we can create
some depth and height for visual screening between the trail and
the people in both locations. And by creating more extensive
landscape screening program between the two in combination with
split rail fencing which will line the edge of the trail to keep
the casual person from leaving the trail area. Also along the
Gant area we want to build a 5 ft high fence on top of the burm
so in fact we have created a 10 ft high barrier between the two.
They seem to accept that approach and we need to work out the
types of planning and where it is going to be to really maintain
the visual privacy.
In the Calderwood area we are taking the same approach. What we
have attempted to do is pull the trail away from the property
line as much as we possibly can. There is a nice mature stand of
trees around the irrigation ditch which we wanted to save. We
wanted to do a privacy fence that would be heavily landscaped
that would be in an irregular pattern so that we don't have a
continuace line of fencing. We have created some landscape
pockets on both sides of the fence. We have created as much open
area in between the two areas as we can. This seems to have
solved some problems with our concerns and the security aspects
for this project as well as some privacy screening for the other
two lots which were getting the most impact.
We have represented to those people that if trail option C is
adopted that part of the conditions would be the kind of
representations and drawings that we have here so that should be
incorporated into the resolution.
Glen entered into the record a letter from Glen Jeffers,
president of the Gant Condominium Association stating they would
still rather have trail option A constructed rather than trail
option C. In the event that trail option C has to be
constructed, they would go for it with the proposals of the
applicant.
18
Susan Resnick:
good.
I do not understand why trail option A is not
Glen: The reason we are not recommending trail option A is that
it is to be constructed on land that is already owned by the City
of Aspen. It is the position of the staff that it is more
valuable to the City to acquire trail easements at the time of
subdivision rather than commitments to construct trails on land
that is already owned by the City. The reason why is once you
lose the opportunity to acquire an easement at this point of the
development process, it is almost impossible to come back later
on and get an easement. It is most likely the homeowners would
be unwilling to sell it and would put the City in a position of
condemnation. Therefore we tend to be in favor of getting
easements rather than having trails constructed.
Susan: Then you mean it is better to take private land rather
than use City land for the same purpose.
Welton: Both of them are eventually going to go.
Glen: The subdivision code requires the staff to ask for the
dedication of trails at the time of subdivision if they are shown
on the comprehensive trails plan.
John Dietz: Glen's comments on the easements and the technical
reasons on the alignment of the trail and the need for the trail
itself presumes that there must be a trail there eventually. It
is questionable.
Welton asked if there were any more public comments on the trails
question.
There were none.
Gideon: The applicant had prepared a perspective of the houses
on 13, 14 and 15 showing the elevation drawings and the height
restrictions we have imposed per the Commission's suggestions.
Dick Fallin: What we are attempting to illustrate is the impact
of going above the ridge line. A 12 ft height is the height we
felt at which we could comfortably design things and still get
the type of houses and the size of houses we needed and not
sacrifice, in a drastic fashion, any flexibility in architectural
design. These houses are not intended to indicate the kind of
house that is going to be built on this lot. These are just
illustrative in the fact that we are showing floors and a roof
composition of roughly the size that would be allowed on that
project. This 12 ft height limit which we are proposing gives
the scale of how far a building could project above the ridge at
tha t 12 ft point which we feel is a very minimal impact. The
19
vegetation characteristics and the landscaping will be done when
the houses are developed.
Welton asked for public comment.
There was none.
Glen Horn on Planning Office recommendations: 1 b. Add language
at the end of the sentence that would say with the exception of
the Lodge Improvement District as proposed by the City Council in
Resolution 87-1. The reason for this is the development team are
committed to make all of the improvements to their portion of Ute
Avenue that would be required by the Lodge Improvement District.
Their development has been sized and stepped to those
improvements and it would be redundant to ask them to join the
Lodge Improvement District as they are doing all the work right
now.
Item J on page 7: Insert the fire marshal and water department.
It should change from 741 to 742. And we want to change the
timing a little bit to the issuance of certificate of occupancy
for the first house in the subdivision. Sometimes the sequencing
may not be right to have to come in and do the fire hydrant work
before they start in with houses. But the key point is that they
are never without fire protection when they are building in the
area.
Gideon: There is one other change on that. Markalunas changed
his opinion half way through. The first time we were asked to
relocate the fire hydrant which we agreed to. In his latest
request, he also wants us to replace it with a more modern one.
We are not sure that is really fair and we would like the ability
to debate that with him.
Gideon: I have language that you said should be modified to
reflect commitment to relocate fire plug 742 and replacement
should be negotiated.
Roger: Just a tag on the end replacement to be negotiated.
Glen: We are going to add an item o. This has to do with the
park dedication fee. The applicant has requested credit for the
dedication of the lot as a park. It is your decision as to
whether or not you want to credit them on their park dedication
fee for something which they have originally proposed.
Gideon: During the GMP you commit for an awful lot of things.
That doesn't mean you are precluded from getting credit. That
park is a 2 acre park that has a duplex capability that we are
giving to the City. In addition to that the purpose of a park
dedication fee is to create new parks. We are putting a park
there in the neighborhood and not to allow us to get credit for
20
that in park dedication fee seems to make no sense to me. We
should be allowed to get a credit for the value of that lot.
Glen: The fee is in lieu of land dedication.
Welton: It reads it is for land dedication or the money.
Glen: If you want to credit them, I would suggest that you add a
condition that says City and applicant will calculate credit for
park to be credited to the park dedication fee.
Gideon: City and applicant will calculate credit for donation of
park which will be credited against the park dedication fee.
Glen: We want to add another one called P. Commitment by the
City to include overnight parking in proposed public park and
that the City shall maintain the park as a passive recreational
park with nordic/ski hiking access to Aspen Mountain.
Gideon: And that we are going to move the location of the
parking lot 30 feet from the property line.
Glen: That shouldn't be right here. That should be under the
final plat changes. But we will take care of that.
Glen: Moving to 2(a); dedication of trail option C to the City
of Aspen as depicted by the applicant at the public hearing.
Gideon: Dedication throughout the City of Aspen provided however
that this easement will not be utilized until construction of
trail option A by the City is complete or the Gordon Bridge is
built and a public right-of-way to Hwy. 82 is accessible. The
reason for that is a lot of the neighbors are concerned about the
use of that trail. As soon as it goes somewhere, then everyone
is willing to be subjected to the inconvenience. It also
requires the City to go out and do those things so that no one is
impacted by this trail until the City has somewhere to connect it
to. We give an easement but they can't do anything with that
easement until the Trail goes somewhere.
Glen: It connects to Trail option A or the bridge or it never
happens.
Glen: It is Dick Fallen's memorandum of April to me. Let's add
21 that will say that the parking lot in the proposed park will
be relocated 30 feet to the West of the East property line and
there will be an 8 ft burm constructed and landscaped with
evergreens.
Gideon: There are two other things. I want to add something
about the GMP because we are in that dilemma where we subdivide
the property and maybe we could encourage the City to adopt the
21
same language the County has. Otherwise we are going to have
problems down the line. No one is going to want to buy a lot.
Roger: Could we include it as a condition at this point
indicating this is what we are proposing by change of ordinance.
Glen: What we should do is have us look into it and consider
language similar to the County and leave some openings. The
language may not fit exactly.
Gideon:
something
right in
give some
The only concern I have is that we need to have
in here so that a perspective purchaser knows. Glen is
terms of flexibility of the language but something to
assurance that it will be done.
Glen: The Planning and Zoning Commission agrees to sponsor a
code amendment addressing Section 24.11.7 of the code with
respect to growth Management Quota System approvals.
Gideon: To allow once the plat is signed for, the lots to
continue in perpetuity.
Gideon: The 24-8.12 requires that you comply with Sections that
were never adopted. The code is a little screwy there in that we
are required to do things that don't exist. There are two
sections of the code that were never adopted.
Welton asked for any public questions or comments.
There were none.
Welton closed the public hearing.
Roger moved to recommend approval of the prel iminary plat and
subdivision 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Review of the 1010
Ute Avenue Subdivision with the conditions being those that
modify and amended Planning Office memo dated April 21, 1987 with
various amendments and additions 1-0 and P and 2-1 and additional
conditions on record and to be included.
This was seconded by Jasmine Tygre with all in favor.
OZZIE' g-SHOES-e6MMEReIAL- GMP' EXEMPl'ION
Steve: We are looking at a 103 sq ft expansion. Ozz ie's has
some limited open space. This plan would bring it up to that
open space and leave a small area for plants. As you can see the
visual impacts are not so significant as it is a wood and glass
store front and it is compatible with Hunter Plaza which will go
next door where Palazzi's gas station is now. The streets are to
be redone and for that there would be consultation with the CCLC.
22
The steps would still encroach 18". We recommend approval of
this. We feel that the planter and also leaving the strip where
the City will plant trees is an amenity and feel that is grounds
to support this request.
Nicole Finholm, representing the applicant: We basically wanted
to update the front of Ozzie's with a display window and try to
be in keeping with the new buildings which are going around us.
We want to create our own identity and yet relate to the other
buildings.
The steps I have encroaching because I felt it necessary to
create more of a landing at the entrance of the building. We are
not changing the existing entrance and it does funnel in quite
narrow in there and I wanted more of a platform. I am only
encroaching 18" and I still have the 8 ft sidewalk requirement.
Regarding the handicap ramp--we talked with Jim Wilson and Tommy
Isaacs, the handicapped consultant for the City and they have
waived the handicapped access ramp.
Jasmine moved for approval of the GMP exception for a minor
commercial extension of Ozzie's Shoe Store subject to conditions
1 and 2 in the Planning Office memorandum.
Mari Peyton seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned at
7: 45 ~~~~ fJ!~~_________
J~~ M. ca;i;~, City ~puty Clerk
23