Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870901 ,__'v.'_. .... .b.__ ~ RECORD OF-PROCEEDINGS PLANNING -AND-Zt>NING - SEP'.rEMBER 1..1987 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:05 pm. with Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, and David White present. Ramona arrived at 5:09 and Jim Colombo arrived at 5:12. COMKISSIt>NER 'S COMMEN'l'S There were none. STAFF COMMEN'l'S There were none. TBE-S'l'OREBOOSE iWILDING--GMP AMENDMENT Perry Harvey: We have made some changes as we have gone along. There are some things that are different than in the memo. We have been through preliminary and final HPC approval for the new storefront windows, for the addition of the square footage on the second floor and for the new site design. Bruce Sutherland will help me out with some of the architecture. When we first came for GMP the proposal was Nature's Storehouse with Little Cliff's Bakery. So we had quite a bit of floor area ratio in the basement. This was all a retail area for Nature I s Storehouse. This was a bakery with the retail part of the bakery upstairs. So we had a lot of service and a lot of activity. Our plaza area had this seating broken off from the sidewalk by this planter to make it kind of private back in here for Storehouse. Because of the change of ownership, the uses of the building have changed. The basement was already in plus all the plumbing and all the electrical for the retail space. What we have now is office on the ground floor. We are moving some of the FAR onto the ground floor. The original program was designed to look like broken up shop front type of architecture. We are adding some 360 sq ft up there, a little bit more on the back and reconfiguring the service and the trash area. We have redone the windows to be a store front feel. This will still be office upstairs. We are losing quite a bit of the FAR that was originally approved. The building is still 33 feet rather than the 40 that is allowed. And now we have got about 3800 sq ft of FAR verses the 4500 sq ft that is allowed in the CC zone at 1 and 1/2 to 1. If you remember we did that because when you have 1 lot and if you put 40 feet and 4500 sq ft it looks like a stack of railroad cars. You just can't do it on a lot that is 30 X 100. 1 Bruce: The ground floor is retail, not office. We feel that the architecture, the addition of this space on the second floor gives the building a good balance and we feel it is a good architectural solution and does not hurt the project whatsoever. Our uses of the FAR are no longer needed for the basement area. When we took the restaurant out of the project, we did not need to have the same amount of trash service area as we had before because then it was much more intense. So we revised the trash service area in the back of the building. Perry: The Planning Office has lowered our score and I think with the brick and sandstone and the proportions, that that is not deserving. Bruce: The site: There was a seating area out in front for the restaurant. Now that the restaurant is not in place, we f el t what we wanted to do is to open this space up and not make it so confining. We have moved the planter over against the wall at the Thrift Shop and we have included more planters in this area here. What we have now in lineal foot of planter is 48 feet in lieu of the 33 feet that we originally submitted. So we have about a 50% increase in the amount of planter. We also relocat- ed this tree which results in a larger and more usable open space. We had tried to define a seating area with brick and that sort of thing so that this would have a feeling from the rest of the site. We have removed the skylight and planter so that this is now one open area. We thought at this point we should not have a chopped up plaza feeling and we should have one material. What we are proposing to do now is to use exposed aggregate concrete which is the same aggregate that is in front of the Jerome in color and texture. We feel that this is going to give us a much nicer feel all the way around and tie it better to the Thrift Shop which has an exposed aggregate walk. We have suggested that we remove the brick from the wall of the Thrift Shop. Our original client liked the idea of brick in that wall. We were not too sold on that idea. However we did it as he wished. We feel now that the integrity of the architecture of the Thrift Shop is going to be much nicer to come on around and not have a brick wall that comes up and does not have a nice place to end. It would just be a kind of veneer on one wall only and we feel that this architecture should come around. What we have done to offset that is to place a planter along the wall from which we can grow plants on the wall and we will paint the wall if that makes sense. I am not so sure that it does and probably the Thrift Shop architecture ought to remain in tact and its color ought to remain the same all the way around. We have suggested removing our tree grates. We like the idea of 2 -.... having flowers in the tree wells. We have provided a brick edge on the planters. These are the changes designed and we feel, architecturally, that this helps the feel of the building to have this second floor addition and gives it some balance. The building was a little bit awkward as viewed from Main Street and Galena as you rounded the Oasis and looked at the building from there. We are setting the mass back from the front and it will continue on around. Welton: So you are setting the mass at the second floor? Bruce: The second floor mass will be from this point here on across. Not in line with this face. Welton: Why not carry that 20 foot facade straight up? Just that little portion on the alley, at the east face. So that you have a two story more consistent with the rest of the older buildings in town. Why would the second floor be set back from the first floor? Bruce: We felt we were trying to set back the architecture in all cases so the second floor did set back from the first floor. The idea there is to break up the mass and to not have the building appear too massive from the streetscape. It is a difficult design problem is to design a building on a 30 x 100 ft lot and not have it appear too massive. We have gone to great lengths to set back the building and we have given up some FAR in the size of the building to do so. It is an architectural decision we have made. Welton: It has always looked like three different buildings on that 30 x 100 ft site and reading that elevation as it is there on the blue line that section of it first appears to be a modern interpretation of a victorian storefront that once you set back the second floor, it doesn't resemble a victorian storefront in any way. Bruce: keeping before. concept Again, this is a decision we with the character of what we We weren't trying to start of the building. made that we felt was in had done in the building allover with the whole Roger: I agree with the setback of that portion, more to give relief as you are coming around the corner so that that building does not stick out at the alley. So I have to agree with that design. Perry: In the Planning Office memo it talks about aggregate concrete small planters along the side of the building which the planters are brick with a sandstone cap so they can be used as a seat if someone wants a seat in that area. 3 Mac went around to CCLC and got their comments on our site plan. The main comment is that everybody wanted to see the tree grates. So we are going to do the tree grates. We wanted to do the flowers but we are going to do the tree grates. If that fights the site design, I feel that we should do something that CCLC wants. I have copies of that letter which I can introduce into the record. So basically what we have done is taken out the private seating that existed there for the restaurant and the planter that screened that from the general public by moving the planters back against the wall. This softened the building a little bit and opened up that whole plaza. Steve had been concerned that we needed to put in some benches and bike racks. I don't know that there is a master plan for open space in CC zone when you do something like that. We didn't get firm direction on that. So this is the solution that we have come up with. I think it really works and opens up the plaza so that no matter what happens, if the mall is extended or whatever, we will be able to use that as an activity center down the road. One other issue on the site is the service access. The Planning Office says service access may be more difficult because the trash area has been reduced and the conveyer has been removed. We don't need the conveyer any more because we don't have a restaurant and bakery in there. Roger: On the issue of the wall: As I recall that is just a gray painted cement block wall. That wall from any perspective that you see is more associated with your project than it is the other one. Welton: No. It is part of the building next door. Roger: I know it is part of the building next door. But if you get the full frontal view of the other proj ect, you are not seeing that wall. So architecturally or site-wise it is really not associated with the Thrift Shop. It is more associated with this site. I just think it looks strange and unintegrated the way you have it right there. Wel ton: I would argue with Roger. If you look at the other end of that same block, the gray cinder block building that is next door to the Isis Theatre has the Isis wall and that building's wall--the building set back from the Isis--and you wouldn't want to put cinder block up the wall of the Isis to match the building that is next door. Roger: No, because that is the more overpowering building. The Isis is the more overpowering building. In this case this project is the more overpowering building of the two and especially from that focal point from the corner, that is from the intersection. That is my only comment. I think HPC is the 4 .........-.--.-. . arbiter of taste in this case and probably they should make that decision. Steve: It hasn't been presented to them yet with regard to whether to paint is the acceptable solution. Welton: I think with some Ivy growing up or some that would take care of it. Perry: That is what that planter is intended to do. David: I don't want HPC to be arbiter of taste. I don't want taste to be involved with what is going on. That is ridiculous. As long as you cover it up in some way, that is fine with me. Planting some trees in front would be fine. I always thought it was crazy to tie it to the building next to it anyway. Ramona: On the alley side of that building, will the levels be brick so it carries on around so when you turn off Main Street you see the same detail as the rest of the wall. Perry: Yes, and sandstone. Energy considerations: By cutting out our snowmelt and cutting out all of the restaurant/baker use I think we are increasing energy efficiency. Amenities: The Planning Office has elimination of plaza seating, deletion of snowmelt, reduction in landscaping, change of sidewalk plaza surface to aggregate concrete provide fewer ameni ties. We have discussed the delet ion of snowmel t in the Brand Building. It is just a question of maintenance. You just have to get out there and take care of it. I don't think it necessarily reduces amenities. We haven't reduced our landscaping. We have the same number of trees. We have more planters. So I don't feel that we have reduced amenities at all. As a matter of fact by opening up that plaza, I think we have increased the capability of enjoyment of that open space. Visual impact: I don't think that there is any change in the view plains or impact on any neighbors. Trash and Utility: That has been something that we have played with and changed and changed again and we have got our solution for you now. The original plan had 96 sq ft. Roger: What was the original requirement that that was reduced to? Perry: Any building up to 6,000 sq ft requires 20 x 10 by 10 feet high. I think it is 200 sq ft. which is a little onerous when you have a 30 ft lot because you have to do it on the alley. 5 --~'----'---'--'_. Bruce: We had a space that was approximately 8' x 11'6. Half of it was to be used for service to the building. We had the dumpster and the meters all in that area. Now both Elyse and Steve suggest that it would be good to have some service area where we could unload and set things down where we wouldn't be setting them in the alley as before and that we should have a dumpster area that is a little larger than what we had proposed. We feel that the dumpster location now is much better because it pulls straight out in lieu of pulling out from the end like the first submission. We have separated the meters on purpose because we were concerned about the dumpsters being in the same area as the meters. Then we moved the east wall of the dumpster area over to include an area for box storage. A point that Tony Vagnuer and Elyse brought up is that in addition to your dumpster you have to have a place to break down the boxes and store them until the dumpster people arrive. Perry: I went out and met with Tony Vagnuer to go over this plan. When we requested a special review for reduction, we said we needed a compactor and we were going to put it in the base- ment. We had this conveyer belt system for deliveries for the restaurant and bakery which was really intense. Tony and I arrived at three times a week pickup with a compactor in the basement. I said in the original submission that if we needed more, we could always increase the frequency of pickup. And so you gave us the reduction to 96 feet. Tony liked the fact that we had separated the meters, separated the trash and separated the entrance. He requested that we elevate the trash area 4 inches and do a little lip on it so that in the winter he can pull it out. So we said OK. Box storage: We increased our plan to allow more box storage in the basement. Now we are going to do a daily pickup and if BFI has problems with that or if that doesn't work we will put in the compactor. The code states if you are going to get a reduction, you have to prove that vehicle access is adequate. I think we have done that by raising the pad and we have got it right on the alley. You have to show that the amount of trash to be generated is less than the daily pickup will handle. Tony agreed with me that that was true. You have to show that the trash bins have easier access and are easier to move. That is done by that ramp enclosure which is roofed over. You have to make provision for trash and compaction and we have. You have to show that the local purveyor of trash services is satisfied with what you are doing. We have done that. So we have met all the requirements for a reduction in the trash and utility area. Originally that building just had a kind of a secondary stairway 6 - ......~_._......---.,-----...........~_."'---_..~.._'..._....' ~ back there to serve the offices. And there is a fire exit requirement. And it was a secondary access for the restaurant. It was intensive service. Now it is not going to be anywhere near as intense and we have reconfigured the stairs which is why we need it. Elyse Elliot, Engineering Dept: You were discussing the portion of the code that requires for up to 6,000 sq ft of building, 200 sq ft of trash and utility. For a building of this size which is approximately 3800 sq ft, proportionately that comes out to 130 sq ft of trash and utilities area. They were granted a variance according to Section 24-3.7 based on the same argument that Perry just told you and now they are asking for a further reduction. This is the first time I have seen the new plans. Perry: The square footage now is is the one Tony wanted to use. dumpster, entry and egress. approximately 66 sq ft. That This includes box storage, Elyse: The original plan had 2 dumpsters. That has been decreased. Perry said that the original plan was incorrect because the space provided could not accommodate 2 dumpsters and he has a dumpster dimension being 80 X 48. That is one of the sizes of TR dumpsters. TR dumpsters can be in any proportion as long as it comes out to 2 yards. And the one that you gave me was very long but narrow. There are other options for a 2 yard dumpster. You could have two dumpsters--2 TR dumpsters in the original plan. Perry: The original plan Tony wanted 1 and a compactor. Elyse: The original plan shows 2 TR dumpsters. By removing the compactor you have essentially increased the volume of trash by 4. And in one of Perry's arguments, he was saying that by eliminating the need for a restaurant/bakery, you reduce trash generation by half. But if you have 4 times the amount of volume that means half of 4 times is still twice as much volume of garbage. Perry: Which is why we went to the daily pickup. Elyse: The daily pickup is not a criteria according to Section 24-3.5. All the other alternatives that you mentioned are. What I am concerned about is right now is your pickup is maximized. You can't get pickup more frequently than you already have it. Going to the compactor is a good idea. I am just a little leery about the kind of agreement that you would have with the City. It would be more comfortable if there was a written arrangement. However, I still am uncomfortable in only having one dumpster location there. Gas meter: The gas meter is supposed to be located on the 7 -- --------,- ~ -----......-., Thrift Shop side and I feel very strongly that all utilities for this building should be located someplace in the utility area. I think that that should be cleared up whether you are granted an easement by the Thrift Shop or whatever arrangement you have. Bruce: There are a number of things that the Thrift Shop and this building are co-operating on. One of these is the gas meter because we are going to make some improvements to the back of the Thrift Shop in concrete which they need and they agree that it was best to put both gas meters together. So we have verbally have done that. We just are waiting for this process to go through and then we will execute an agreement. Perry: And if we don't get it then we will go down lower with that utility area on the site. Elyse: The Thrift Shop is a City property and I don't think the people who operate it can speak on behalf of the City. Bruce: I think there has already been a discussion between the parties relative to that. The other thing I want to mention about the trash is that I think that the nature of the trash is entirely different than what it was. When you are dealing with an office and a retail user on the first floor, you are basically dealing with boxes. You don't generate a lot of other trash. Welton: what is the purpose for the second reduction of the trash area? Is it just to get more usable retail space on the ground level? Perry: No. It is simply a matter of using the space that exists. It is a function of the distance in this area and the need for the stairs. It is street frontage. The meters were moved around so that it is a nicer entrance to the building. It is better because you don't have meters and you don't have dumpsters right there. And it works more efficiently. Water supply and fire protection: We are going to put in a hydrant. We had extra points in the original scoring because we were improving the neighborhood. So where the Planning Office says they want to drop us a point, I think it is because of the hydrant. We are going to do the hydrant so that is no change. Public transportation and roads: No change. Storm drainage: No change. We are keeping 100% of runoff on the site through a drywell system which is already installed. Parking: There is no on site. provision of employee housing: Anne Bowman and I sat down and refigured everything. We are still supplying housing for the 8 _.......___.._._._...d same percentage. That cash is already at the housing office. Steve: The purpose of the GMP amendment process is to take a look at technical changes and functional changes that have occurred since it was officially approved to allow for the applicant to make modifications. Our primary concern with this amendment application is that there are some qualitative changes that are not simply a matter of making a technical change. But they are actually a quality difference in some of the aspects that they are making application for. You had sufficient discussion of most of those things. with regard to architecture our feeling is that it is acceptable what they are proposing but it is not quite as attractive as had been in the original plan with regard to the vertical windows as well as adding additional massing onto the second floor. Welton: This one is much better than the original. Steve: HPC's comments also reflect that the vertical windows related better to the second floor vertical windows and to City Hall and to the sense of this building being somewhat victorian in some of its elements. The vertical windows are indeed a nice feature. Welton: Most of the commercial buildings built in the 1880's in Aspen have very glassy street level facades and very masonry second floor with tiny slip windows. Steve: We perceive the concept of this design to be different in that the store front windows were to be vertical. I don't have a big problem with it. I think it is still appropriate. I just think that the quality is not as good as in the original proposal. I don't think it works quite as well. We agree with Roger with regard to the bricking of the wall but that was qualitated with a little bit better treatment that it does pull the plaza into discussion. I think it is debatable and I think that it is again acceptable to deal with it the way that the applicant is proposing. We are proposing that it simply go to HPC. Site design is the area that I spent the most time reviewing with the help of Wayne Ethridge who is CCLC's consultant on street- scape design guidelines. We both concluded that there is a qualitative difference that the brick pavement pattern with the concrete is more attractive. It better links in with the wall as a commercial use of this structure. The tree actually on the site gives a little more activity, a little more visual relief and greenery than simply having planters along this side of the structure. It would be appropriate that now that there isn't to be a restaurant that that is used just a little bit more artfully than what has been proposed in the amendment. We think it needs 9 a little bit of a focal point. Just to keep it in perspective, the radius from the doors to the corner is 33 feet. The Vol k Plaza is about 36 feet so it is comparable space. It is a large space and it could be dead space if it is not treated somewhat specially. I think that they did that in the original application and they are not doing that in the amended. Condition #1 pertains to architectural design. We do feel that that is acceptable. Conditions #2 and #3 pertain to the treatment of the plaza open space and to planters both in the plaza as well as below the windows on the Galena Street elevation having a drip system to the trees, specifying what trees are acceptable and the caliber that is acceptable. Condi ti on #4 is with regard to energy conservation. Basically this is as they had represented in the original and amended application. It has been more detailed in the amended. Bruce: We have reduced the consumption of energy by elimination of the cooking, fans, snowmelt and skylight. Condition #5 has been agreed on between the applicant and staff. Condition #6 is something I don't think there is any problem with regarding the runoff on the site. Condition #7--1 have nothing more to add to what Elyse said on trash and utilities. Condition #8 pertains to cash in lieu of payment. I went through the calculations and the housing authority was satisfied with this. Condition #9 is a clarification because 2 aspects are relating to restaurant use of the space that any change to applicant use must go through GMP amendment process. I would like to add another condition and that is pertaining to the basement storage space. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper with regard to the rental of that storage space. After the Planning Office considered this we determined that renting of that space would constitute a commercial warehouse use of that space. It is not a secondary accessory use of storage for tenants of the structure. Therefore we feel that that is inappropriate. We also looked at it in terms of commercial warehouse space. It is not storage in the sense of secondary storage concept as envisioned in the basement. Jim Colombo: Is the intended use of the basement area to rent out space to people other than the tenants? 10 _ .4 li ..... Steve: The application states that it is all It is all either storage or mechanical space. appeared stating that he would like to be able of the space. Perry: The intention is to provide storage for the users in the building. If there is extra storage space it may be rented out to retail shops in town that need storage space. Now under the definition of basement in the code, it says "If that area of a structure 50% or more of which is below existing grade subord- inate to the principle use of the building and used for parking, storage, and other secondary purposes". Storage is a secondary purpose. exempt from FAR. Recently an add to rent out some Jim: It is independent of the building if you are renting out to persons outside of the building. Perry: So you are saying that it makes a difference who it is rented to? Jim: It says subordinate to the building. Perry: Subordinate to the principle use of the building. used for parking, storage and other secondary purposes. used for storage and that is clear. Welton: If the word said accessory to the principle use of the building, to me, that would be clear and subordinate. Subordinate being less intensive, less of a primary use of the building. And It is Mari: I agree with Welton. want to. They can rent it to whomever they Steve: The problem is that it is exempt space from FAR. It was not counted in the GMP. It is simply not appropriate. Welton: That has been changed in the streamlined code. Steve: It has not been changed. Welton: In the new code it is going to say "net leasable". Perry: Any place in town if you want to rent an office and they have storage on site you may pay $20 a foot for your office space. You are going to pay something else for that storage space. So what you are saying is that if I rent an office in this building and I pay $22 a foot for it and then I rent 500 sq ft of storage for my extra dead files, and I pay $10 a foot for that, that's OK. But if I live across the street and I store my dead files over there, then it is not OK? 11 Roger: There is a very good reason for that. generated internally in the building is one thing. generated by people coming to have storage space in is a commercial aspect that is not anticipated storage space. Perry: It is not accessory. It is subordinate to the pr incipl e use of the building. You just said accessory and accessory appears nowhere in the code. It is subordinate to the principle use of the building. And then the code says "Used for parking, storage and other secondary purposes". How can it be any clearer? The tr aff ic The traffic your building as accessory Roger: Now go back to the definition of FAR and how that basement storage is excluded from the FAR? Steve: Exactly. And that is how the Building Department has treated it. By the way the Building Inspector also agrees on this point, that it is storage space. It would be like renting out parking to other tenants. Our recommended condition on this is basement storage space shall be used e~clusively as accessory space for the tenants of the building and shall not be rented out commercially which would constitute commercial warehouse use. Welton: How about 800 sq ft of it then? Mari: The reason for that then is to not generate traffic to the building? I feel like if someone has to store stuff and they can't store it in town, they are going to store it at the airport. So you are generating even more traffic. Jim: Either way, if this goes through there has to be a reaction to it. The reaction is either going to be there is going to be a change in traffic patterns or not allow it as a subordinate use. If we are saying that a subordinate use is allowed then we have to take the reaction of what it is causing. That reaction is increasing traffic in the downtown area. In that case you are going to be scored lower in that avenue. You can't say this is OK now and there is no effect. There will be effect if you have outside people storing things there. Now it may prevent people going to ABC but people would not be going down this street to go to ABC most likely. Perry: Storage is a subordinate use that is allowed in every building. There is no commercial building in this town that has some kind of restriction about storage. There is an economic reality here. It is not a warehouse. It is not going to be a mini-warehouse. Do you want us to agree that we wont put in a mini-warehouse unit down there? 12 Steve: That is my recommended condition. Perry: No, your condition is only to be used by the tenants in the building. David: This is a town where you have storage allover. They use apartment houses as storage. They use everything anywhere they can find it. I don't know why you would put in something that is totally not supportable by anything. How do we find out? Do we send the Building Department there in 6 months to check it out to make sure it is done right? I can't see why this mixed use of the building downtown can't be rented out to anybody else downtown who wants it. Jim: I don't think so either, David. I can get behind the fact that they want to use it this way if there is a need. All I am saying is that when the application comes in originally you look at it differently in scoring when you are talking about traffic patterns, traffic problems and flow. When this comes in later, you have to look at those two items again. I am not saying that Perry's interpretation isn't right or that they should not be able to use it. At this point it is pretty subjective. There is perhaps a need in the community for it. If it was presented this way, we would have looked at traffic and parking under a differ- ent light. It is a whole other project. David: I don't like to see things come back totally changed either. But the reality is these things happen and you have got to put a building in then that makes sense. I don't see putting some kind of restriction on this building that doesn't make sense and that we can't enforce. Roger: The simple solution is add that space which is going to be rented outside of the building, include it in the FAR, because it is commercial FAR space. Perry: It isn't FAR because it doesn't meet any of the require- ments of FAR for ventilation or light. Steve: There may not be any ventilation and light requirements for storage space. Perry: The intention is to rent it to the tenants of the building. If there is extra space left over, are you saying it has to sit vacant and be of no good to anyone? Welton: Let's get a reading from the Commission as to whether we want to put in Steve's condition #10 concerning who can rent the basement space and who cannot rent the space. All in favor of adding Steve's condition, raise your hand. 13 -'~~",-_.--<~.,._=._. --_._-,,-~--_.-- Roger: It is either that--or--in my case. Welton: All in favor of not doing a condition .10 and not addressing the question of who rents the basement, raise your hand. Those in favor were Ramona, David, Welton, and Mari. Steve: We still have the interpretation that it is not a permitted use. Welton: I don't agree with that interpretation. Steve: OK, let me get with Alan and get back with you. Welton: Would the applicant address the conditions that you have difficulty with one at a time so we can modify them. Perry: fl. We have no problem with except the second sentence. What would you like us to do regarding the Thrift Shop? Would you like us to go to HPC? Would you like us to do the planters which we intend to do. Wel ton: All those in favor of letting them plant or treat in some natural fashion the wall of the Thrift Shop, raise your hands. Those in favor were Mari, Welton, David, Ramona and Jim. So delete the exposed wall of the Thrift Shop. But the plaza will be given a brick facade or treatment that is acceptable to HPC. Roger: Back to fl. At the last clause in the last sentence also pertains to the first sentence. In other words to be approved and executed prior to certificate of occupancy as far as the prior sentence. Pe r ry: OK. f 2 they would I ike to do that aggregate concrete sidewalk which means the plaza and sidewalk is blended together and the closest brick is in the mall. This letter is signed by 4 of the 5 CCLC members who were in town. And it says, "As you can see from the enclosed tree and planter locations we (meaning the owners) have significantly opened up the plaza area for pedestrian use from the original plan of the plaza area. Additionally the sidewalk and plaza have been amended to a continuous aggregate surface so that the entire area shall visually read as a single element. The purpose of this amended plan is to enhance the walking public's use of the area by grading pedestrian anchor at the north end of Galena Street retail corridor similar to the Volk Plaza open space at the south 14 end of the Galena Street retail area. We believe that these changes are a positive compliment to the corridor area and hope that you will indicate your approval of the proposed changes by your signature below. Thank you for your time and consideration." The Comments are no trees in the raised planters are wanted by CCLC. John Bush has no problem except he wants tree grates. Monica Hose has the same. Marvin Jordan says, "OK with prov~s~ons of no raised planters around trees and must use flat tree grates". So I think the CCLC's expression here is in support of the aggregate surface. Steve: In the memo we didn't refer to CCLC because it hadn't been referred to them in the first place. We thought that that would be an imposition at this time not fair to the applicant. What they have done to go around to individuals is not really a fair way of presenting an application to the Commission with the Commission assembled in a formal manner. Jim: Perry, does the reason for this request have some architectural use basis or is it simply an economic decision? Perry: I think it is both. Bruce: We had originally put the patterned area around the seating area to separate a dining area. When the restaurant moved out, it seemed rather silly to have patterns of brick which had no use or function. We felt that the total area would get a much more open feel if it were of the same aggregate and color as at the Jerome and it ties into the Thrift Shop exposed aggregate. We just felt that architecturally it gave us a much nicer base and did not end up with a fussy pattern that didn't seem to work and took away from the building itself. Those are our reasons for wanting these changes. Jim: Correct me if I am wrong. This represents an extremely large open space area in front of the building in proportion to most store fronts in town. Approximately comparable to that of the Volk property. I think it is 37 ft radius in the front and this is 33. I have a feeling that when you say "open up the property" that that may be the problem rather than solution. And that this area may look extremely large. Bruce: If you would go over there and look at it, that area is very small. It looks so much bigger on the plan than when you IS stand there because the building comes out into the space. If you want me to put a couple of seats in there, I intended to do that all along. Jim: My concern is that this area is going to look too big. By putting aggregate in this area it is going to look a great deal like a parking lot. On that side of the street there is the fire station and the Thrift Shop with a great deal of driveway and sidewalk space. This becomes an opening to both Galena Street and the side street. with the new planning pattern out here along the edges, this is going to be totally open internally. Ramona: It seems to me that if they had a couple of trees in the Volk Plaza, they would have a lot more people enjoying the seating that is provided there. The same thing should be considered here. This building is only one lot wide. Volk Plaza is two lots wide so that there is more visual space including the street area that surrounds it. I would recommend keeping a tree or two somewhere in that plaza. Welton: But there are two different questions. Condition #2 is the material. Ramona: I like the concrete. The bricks are unsuitable. Maybe we should talk about #2 and #3 as one. Welton: I agree with Ramona that there may be a solution with internal ized trees. Do you have a problem with this agenda of trees? Perry: No, our concern is that there is a basement under the entire place so anything we put in is going to have to go into elevated planters and CCLC said they don't want raised planters around trees. Maybe we can work with them, and do some kind of seating arrangement which would break that visually. Mari: what is their objection to the raised planters? Steve: What CCLC says about raised planters in the right-of-way is that you are going to be bumping into them. I think that if you are to do some kind of arrangement where you've got a planter with the benches around it, that would be great. Bruce: This lot is 30' X 100'. We are proposing 7 large trees in plants around the parameter. This is a narrow sidewalk. The Volk Plaza is now wondering if they don't have too much planting etc. and are even restricting the flow of traffic through there. We don't object at all to some benches and small landscaping internally but do object to big trees in that area. Plus the fact of high risk of survival of planting trees in tubs. Welton: Does anyone else have any more comments about trees in 16 the plaza? Roger: I think it should be a planter, not necessarily a bush but flowers or something like that. Welton opened the public hearing at this time and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. Welton: Who is in favor of concrete for the plaza? Those in favor were Romana, David, Welton, Roger and Jim. Welton: Who would like to add to condition #3 concerning the landscaping that small scale planting/seating shall be provided in the internalized area of the property. Mari: I so move. Roger seconded the motion. All were in favor. Perry: The of the CO." December. last sentence, "Shall be installed prior to issuance Given our construction schedule, that co may come in Mac: We would like to have till the spring of '88. Welton: I would entertain a motion to amend the last sentence of #3--landscaping improvement shall be installed prior to June of '88. Steve: Would there be a staff review on that? Steve: The rest of #3 will stay as it is worded with bicycle racks and with window box planters. Ramona: I missed the part about bicycle racks. Perry: So did I. Steve: We do have bicycle racks. We need more of them. Welton: Were there bicycle racks in the original application? Perry: No. Steve: I had thought that there was a representation that they would be willing to put the bicycle racks in. Mac: They would not have mixed with the outdoor dining. Steve: OK. So there were not bicycle racks. 17 "-""- Welton: We don't need bicycle racks in front of this building. We need bicycle racks on the mall. Welton: All in favor of deleting the bicycle racks from #3? All were in favor. Welton: #4. We need conservation measures including insulation, skylights, solar massing and an energy efficient heating and cooling system will be used as represented in the original amended application. Perry: That is fine. Welton: You don't have any skylights. Perry: We opened that plaza area by taking them out. Welton: #5 and #6 were OK with the applicant. #7 is the trash area. Perry: What we would like is 66 sq ft which is what represents our new plan. Welton: Does anybody have a problem with their amended plan? I think in looking at it that trash area works better than the 96 sq ft trash area. Roger: So long as #9 goes with it. Perry: No problem. Steve: Please note that 66 sq ft does not allow for 2 dumpsters and they did have two dumpsters so they are decreasing the number of dumpsters. Roger: I would like also to add to #7 the fact that if it does become a problem to the attention of the Engineering Department that they will get a letter of agreement with the applicant to upgrade the trash handling to include a compactor. Jim: So, Perry, you are agreeing at a time when Engineering decides that there is a trash problem there that they can request and you will provide a compactor. You are agreeing to that. Perry: We will put in a letter of agreement that if they come to us and there is a problem that we have 10 or IS days to rectify it and if we can't, then we will do a compactor. Welton: We are saying 66 sq ft plus if there is a problem with it, Engineering will review it and make them put in a compactor. No problems with #8 or #9. 18 The Planning Off ice recommends that we rescore the amended application above the minimum threshold and recommend to City Council to confirm GMP allocation for the project subject to the conditions as we have modified the conditions. Mari: I move we accept the Planning Office's recommendation. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: I will entertain a motion to recommend to send the amended score to City Council and recommend City Council to confirm GMP allocation for the project subject to conditions as modified in the meeting of September I, 1987. Mari: I so move. Roger: I would like to get a clarification on this FAR issue concerning the basement and how do we accomplish this. It should be counted in FAR if it is commercial space. Steve: I will discuss it with the Planning Director and if necessary go to the City Attorney and report back to you what the decision is on how to treat that storage space. Roger: What he read, but what is not ambiguous is that storage space be excluded from the FAR as accessory. Welton: That is something we need to clean up when the code gets streamlined. Perry: We are working with the existing code. The precedence has been set with places like the Volk Building and any commercial building in town that puts 100% subgrade space as storage. Mac: The reason we advertised is that a lot of the retail tenants who are coming to me for leasing of the building say "we don't have storage downstairs". That is all we are advertising. Welton: You are advertising retail space with storage space? Mac: Yes. Welton: There is a motion on the floor, do I have a second? ......"~ David seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned at ~~::_::~~,~...'._~hVl_~ _ _____ Janice ~~. ~t~y De~~erk 19