Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870922 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 22. 1987 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Peyton. Ramona Markalunas was excused. White arrived shortly after roll call. Roger Hunt, and Mari Jim Colombo and David COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jasmine: I want to make a comment for the record. me that the continual re-interviewing of sitting members is a real waste of everybody's time. If specific complaint about a Commissioner's performance thing but Mari has had 3 interviews. It seems to Commission there is a that is one Mari: This will be the third. The first one was when I applied, the second one was when I applied to be upgraded from alternate to full Board member. Roger: I attended a meeting of the adhoc parking committee of the Assistant City Manager. We are trying to get people interes- ted in the parking plan. On October 13th it is coming up to the City Council. They are going to be asking for somewhere between $50,000 and $55,000. This will be to implement the plan. The jist of the meeting was we are going to have to get the business community down here to try to impress City Council that action should be taken. STAFF COMMENTS steve: The first reading of the Historic Preservation Incentive Program will be on September 28th. You are all welcome to attend. It got changed a little from what P&Z had wanted. Professional offices and beauty parlors are out. They are thinking in terms of a one time only grant. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 Roger made a motion to adopt the minutes of September 1, 1987. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. GMQS CODE AMENDMENT (cont'd) PZM9.22.87 Alan Richman: At the last Meeting we tabled this item because we needed a couple more weeks to work with Craig exactly how this code amendment would affect not only this specific applicant but all applicants. Senate Bill 219 is adopted and will go into effect as of January 1, 1988. We wanted to start anticipating the need of the City to make a decision on when development rights vest. The Senate bill talks about 3 years subsequent to a number of options to be available into the legislation. Based on talking with Paul and with Craig, the three of us a recommending the time of vesting be the latest possible time as opposed to an early stage of the process. We are suggesting that it be a time when growth management allocation or final plan approval whichever is the latest. The reason for that is it means that we are accepting a project at the point of which we have really signed off on all the details. We know the most about the project. The only argument that you could really have for wanting it to be earlier is that you might want the clock to start ticking as early as possible so that you get to the end of the 3 year period as soon as possible. I think that is far outweighed by the advantage of waiting until you have a project that is in its most real form which is at the time of your final approval. Roger: Apparently we have to give public notice after that final approval when we are starting the clock. within the language of the bill you have 14 days to do that after that final approval. They say the exercise of such rights shall not be good until the day of publication. There is a 3 year and 14 days in there from the time of approval. That would indicate to me that it should be as close to the final end of the process as possible. Alan: Now to apply that general principle to the specific application initiated by Skip and Gideon. I can see the argument of treating single family and duplex subdivisions differently from multi-family, commercial and like projects. Craig, Paul and I talked about that and agreed that the best approach to differentiate between the single family/duplex subdivisions and the mUlti-family and the other projects would be to make single family duplexes eligible for exemption. That is a permanent one-time and then permanent exemption from the provisions of expiration. with other projects you would want the ability to have continuing review so that if someone was asking for an extension beyond those 3 years you would have the ability to question whether or not it is in the best interest of the community. 2 PZM9.22.87 It says to attain an exemption, an application shall be sub- mitted prior to the 3rd anniversary. So if an applicant is moving forward diligently in terms of placing the improvements in the ground, in terms of meeting the conditions of approval in terms of selling the lots and wants to be able to guarantee to the owners that those lots will have development rights in perpetuity, they can come in for that exemption as soon as they have started meeting those conditions. I would have no problem of granting it well in advance of that 3 year time period. For the other pr oj ect s--the multi-family, commercial and lodge type developments we suggest that they be eligible for extension much as they are today. That the conditions for granting the extension be the same two that we mentioned for single family and then thirdly that the project has been diligently pursued. Roger: Is it possible for them to comply with those before coming in for an extension. In other words isn't it the compliance with those over a time that forces them to come in for an extension. Alan: For example the Aspen Mountain Lodge had a number of conditions which should have been met already and a number of conditions which still are to be met by the time of certificate of occupancy. You write your improvement requirements to trigger at different dates. If they had met all of the conditions that should have been met as of this time prior to an issuance of a CO, prior to an initiation of construction, they are eligible for an extension. And to the best of my knowledge, they have. They also have been making improvements even though many of those improvements are not yet required of them. They have been undergrounding facilities. They just paid--$25,000 was required of them for Rubey Park even though there was not a specific time that that was required. They have met many of their conditions well in advance. Mari: Under paragraph l.cc "Circumstances which could not be controlled has prevented sales from taking place". What does that do? It seems 1 ike anybody could use that. The marke t has been bad. Is that a circumstance. Alan: The way these criteria are written you have to meet AA and BB and CC so it is not approved until all of the above and you are eligible for an exemption. These were purposely written with an add after each of the substatements. If someone wants to gain an exemption they have to prove that they have met their condit- ions or the reason that they have not been able to. 3 PZM9.22.87 Mari: But it doesn't seem to have any meaning. Alan: It is a statement that not only does this exemption affect me as the original land owner, it now has gone to the fact that 8 people who have bought lots in the subdivision and if you don't grab this exemption, you are not just creating a hardship for the developer, you are creating a hardship for 8 individuals who relied on the fact that there was a development of record. It seems to me that if sales of lots have occur red that would be very convincing to you that the exemption is necessary. If no sal es had ocur red and it was unclear as to whethe r all the conditions have been met or any improvements had gone in--if you had a project that really was not proceeding and no sales had ocurred, is there any reason for granting an exemption? On the other hand if sales had ocurred and they still had not done the improvements and you wish to provide them with the ability to do those improvements over the next six months you might say grant the permanent exemption subject to putting those improvements in. Gideon: We have sold quite a few of the lots. We have had to guarantee to the purchasers that they will have the lots once they buy them forever without these restrictions. We have even had to put in reversionary situations, where if we don't get this exemption in a timely kind of fashion, we have to buy back those particular lots. It is a real burden on the developer. We have already spent on this project over $700,000 in terms of employee housing commitments, the trails, the bike paths. I want know that the day this is passed, I can come in and I can get my approval because otherwise it is a terrible burden on us in terms of what we have had to do to sell these particular lots. We have done all the things that we need to do and we need some kind of certainty in this. I am not sure what AA means. It says "Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval which were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with". Does that mean that as long as I have done some of my improvements but not all of my improvements? For example on a project like that it could take us up to 2 years to complete all of those improvements. We are going to have to buy lots back before that. Once you have reached threshold with a project, the road has been put in, the water and the sewer have been put in, and the employee housing, we should be entitled to our exemption. And we should get it now so that we are not put in a position where we have to buy back these particular lots waiting for everything to be done. 4 PZM9.22.87 Alan: It says "conditions which apply at this time". If the conditions apply to CO, then they don't apply at this time. I am trying to make that as clear as I can. This has been reviewed by your 2 attorneys. And they both felt that AA and BB were absolutely mandatory and were very comfortable with the language. We have had enough trouble gaining compliance with PUD and subdivision agreements that we do not want to give people yet another opportunity to not comply. Gideon: The last comment that I have to make is I do not think that it is either right or legal to make CC a condition. If you have a situation where the project has done everything it is supposed to do and the applicant has spent all his money putting in all the improvements and he decides that the market does not dictate to sell any lots or he wants to hold the lots, I don't see how you can take away his right to hold those lots. He has made the project. He has put in the improvements. He spent the money and that should be a decision the developer should be able to make. I just don't think it is right for someone to have to come in and justify to you after he spent all that money when he should or should not have to sell the lots. I don't think that is an appropriate condition given A & B having been complied with. Alan: I just suggest to you that CC is not a live and die condition with me. AA and BB are extremely important to both me and the attorneys. If it does not have meaning for you, I would suggest we strike that. Welton: Does anyone feel strongly about retaining CC? Jim: Only in that it gives the City some sort of feel for what is going on. If they come in and say we have decided market conditions are such that we are going to hold off on sales, I think that is valid. Jasmine: The purpose with all of this has to do with allotments and therefore whatever the reason they need for an extension I think we should know what is going on. David: I keep on reading this and I am not quite sure what it says. The concept that Jim and Jasmine are talking about is not dissimilar to something we talked about when we did time sharing. This time sharing came back to us and said, for example the Prospector, if they had so many units at closing with so many in escrow and it caused them a problem in selling. They came back to us, gave us some information and we changed that. This seems to have some application to that in some way but I am not sure. 5 PZM9.22.87 Welton: I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other. If it is circumstances which cannot be controlled including the market not being right for selling, sure. I think you can come up with most any kind of reason for not wanting to sell and extending their extension. Gideon: Fred and I just talked about it. He made the point that an exemption is discretionary. That is what my biggest problem is. It should not be discretion. If my client puts the improvements in, sells the lot, does what he is supposed to do-- that is why there should not be an exemption because exemption has discretion in it. It should be a mandatory requirement on the City's part because we fulfilled our end of the bargain. You shouldn't have the ability to turn it down. Fred: There is no question the bill was put in on behalf of developers so that they could have a vested right which they could rely on to their benef it and to the de tr iment of any ease of any government to maintain a project provided they have done certain things. You don't have to give any developer any extension. If you do it is discretionary. If you do issue them you have to have reason or grounds. I think the CC ref lect s an ability on the part of the government not to allow a GMP allocat- ion and then stand out there forever. It is making some condition of movement on the developer that does not allow him to sit on this. Alan: The bill is seen as a two edge sword. On the one hand the development community should have the assurance for 3 years that it has the vested rights to the development. On the other hand it is not mandating communities to keep approvals which are not being taken forward in any diligent manner and on the books forever. And so the legislation really has some benefits for both sides. We tried to write this in an even handed manner so that people who are moving forward will not only have the 3 year period but will have a permanent situation because we recognize that there was a difficulty with that. In the cases where someone really is just keeping the development approval hanging on a string for a long period of time, the City needs a remedy. It is written with that in mind. Welton asked if there was any other comment from the public. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION 6 PZM9.22.87 Jasmine: I really don't think the provlslon CC is putting any undue hardship on any applicant. And therefore, as a potential safeguard I would like to see it put in. I will move to recommend the following amended line to City Council as detailed in Planning Office memorandum dated September 18, 1987 amending Section 24-11. David seconded the motion with all in favor. GORDON'S COMMERCIAL GMOS SCORING Welton opened the public hearing. Steve: This is an application for a commercial allocation for 1,033 sq ft to enclose Gordon's Restaurant deck which is on the second floor of the Mill Street Station Building. And al so to build a new staircase. Adequate quota is available for the project. This is a situation where because of exemptions deducted from quota, there is less than 3,000 sq ft available for this competition. Therefore, automatically in GMP there is 3,000 sq ft available for the competition. I believe you are all familiar with the procedures of scoring basically you know the Commission Members each score the project individually and the average is computed for total points. The Planning Office has recommended scoring for Gordon's applic- ation in excess of the threshold requirements and therefore we are recommending approval of this project. Just to highlight a few of the staff comments: With regard to architectural design, we were concerned that the enclosure and staircase would add to the bulk of the structure as it is viewed from Hopkins Street. And the concept that was expressed in the application is that basically because of the transparency of the addition and because it is set back from the parapet on that deck area, it has minimized the visual impact, and better relates to the brick of the building on the other small structures on the block. That is essentially a residential block that has been converted to retail uses. I am speaking of the other side of the block from the Mill Street Station. And a number of small structures like La Cocina, the little cottage on the end of the street next to the intersection of Monarch and Hopkins. HPC particularly did feel strongly that that was the right concept--that there should be greater transparency and should be set back from the structure. However, we feel that it can be better realized than what is presented in the plans. And we 7 PZM9.22.87 noted that on the Hopkins Street elevation approximately 51% of the wall is shown as glass. The east elevation where the staircase would enter the addition is almost entirely brick and tile. The south elevation by comparison is about 65% glass. We feel that 51% of the wall on the solid wall of the east elevation is not really transparent. So we recommended a score of 1.5. With regard to site design we noted that the 5 improve the character of the open space area. some problems on the circulation. planters should There are still Amenities: Engineering Department is racks are necessary. The applicant has they will provide bike racks off site. determine where they must go. not sure that the bike assured the committee CCLC must be involved to visual impacts: No viewplains or otherwise identified signif- icant public views are being affected by this project. Actually, as you walk along Hopkins street now you will notice that the structure will indeed obstruct some of the view of Aspen Mountain but not a major design flaw. Trash: The Engineering Department has recommended that an additional dumpster or trash compactor be added to the project to take care of trash generation. This is indicating this as a design flaw and we recommend a score of 1. Water and fire protection can be handled. Sewer can be There is a small impact on the roads to this project. no change in storm drainage. handled. There is Employee housing: The Housing Author ity was approached by the applicant with a proposal that said they don't believe that they are going to be generating any new employees. The Housing Authority concurred and said that 100% of all new employees would be housed. The applicant would be committing to provide a letter of credit for the equivalent of 5.25 for it which is the CC zone district's employee generation for 1,000 sq ft. The Housing Authority recommends approval providing that the applicant is responsible to house all the employees even if it exceeds 5.25. The applicant will clarify this aspect of the program. We are recommending the full points available. Joe Wells: This is an enclosure of a space that is presently be ing used by the restaur ant in the summer. The in tent behind the application is not to maximize an increase in dining facil- ities but rather to provide some needed bar space and waiting area for the restaurant. Basically the arrival experience to one of Aspen's finest restaurants is a very small waiting area and a 8 PZM9.22.87 small bar with 4 seats. What Gordon would like to do is to get the entry away from the dining room which he is accomplishing in this scheme by the addition of a new stair and the elimination of the existing stair and to get the arriving guests into a new bar area with seating so that they might wait comfortably for thei r reservation and not have to stand in the entry way or stand around 4 bar seats. Engineering implies that this is an amendment to the previous GMP. It is our position that it is not an amendment. The amendment language applies to a situation where someone has received GMP approval and prior to construction have changed the project and have to come back to you for an amendment. This is a new GMP application and should be scored as a new application. In fact we suffer to some extent because we can't add open space. We are restricted by our lease as to what we can do to offer impr ovemen ts and so we suffer to some extent because of pr ior approval. Jay Vickory: It would be inappropriate to have glass above the back bar, the coat room and the toilet areas. We could not afford to set this back any farther than the 8 inches that we are proposing because of internal planning. We would not have adequate room for our tables and the bar. Our new structure has to stack above the existing structures. We tr ied to keep the roof line as low as possible. We went to the arch form which picks up the arch form in the building. And basically it is pretty quiet and simple. There is a problem with trying to draw people into the courtyard and we are trying to improve on that situation. Mari: What happens to the snow on that roof? Jay: The roof is almost flat but it has an internal gutter that goes along the back side and they are heated so that as the snow would melt it would be intercepted by these warm gutters and they drain internally. There are going to be 5 planters in front in addition to the bike racks. Jim: I am really co nee rned about the stairway. You have center support posts coming at another 8 ft or so? Jay: That is to put a light on. Jim: Are those going to be open treads? Jay: Yes. 9 PZM9.22.87 Jim: So that the snow will come off of that directly down to the mall area? Jay: This stair is snowmelt. Jim: Then it will drip down to the mall area. Jay: Yes, I suppose. It will be maintained. Jim: There will be a waterfall down there every time it spr inkles. David: It will be melting as it snows. Jim: Is the reason you are doing that so as to tectural statement because of internalized usage? way to use existing stairways? make an archi- Is there is no Jay: It is because you need 2 means of egress from the space and basically you have a stair back here and this is the new means of egress. This stair is set up for a 4 ft width. Jim: How far out does that go to its farthest point into the court yard. Welton: 12 or 16 feet. Jim: I think it is really awkward. Mari: I think so too. Jim: I think that architecturally the rest of the project is nice. I would like to see you use the existing entrance way and an emergency fire exit at the one end. Roger: I have to agree with your comments about the fire escape because that is what it appears to me. It almost looks like you are adding Joe's Diner on the top and putting the fire escape access to it. That is the way it affects me looking at it. I don't see it as integrated in the building at all. It looks like an afterthought. I have real problems with that fire escape type of entrance. What I see there I don't like. Jasmine: First of all I think it is totally obtrusive. I think that in addition to the fact that it looks very unsafe and rickety. I think it is a definite drawback to take that staircase as an access into the restaurant. I know some people who would never take that staircase into the restaurant. It just does not look as though it could support anybody safely. The 10 PZM9.22.87 other thing that disturbs me is that intrusion into the court- yard. They have got different roof levels and they have got this really nice open courtyard. And now you put this staircase right in the middle of this courtyard. Even though it isn't in the courtyard itself, it intrudes into that courtyard--shadow and dripping allover the stuff in the courtyard and I can't believe you haven't gotten protests from some of the other tenants in the building. Joe: In order to do the project there has to be some sort of staircase in. There are very few solutions to doing the stair that doesn't affect other stairs in terms of location. There are precious few locations that the stair can be placed. The affect on the open space has been considered. Roger: I would really, design wise, prefer a glassed-in balcony or something on that order which would look more integrated with the building. Architecturally that is unintegrated to the rest of the structure. Jay: We looked at 3 different optional places to put the stair and this is the best location. There are certain clearances we have to maintain above the walkway. There is this existing window that we didn't want to interfere with and that is why the brace is where it is. The shape of the stair is a response of coming off the side of the building and turning and coming back down to this corner which is where the circulation pattern is coming off these stairs here. It is just a logical flow and response to what is going on. Bill Dunaway: Why are you changing the stairs? what is wrong with the existing stairs? Jay: The existing stair does not conform to code. Jim: They need egress on that side of the building. Welton: Exits have to be at opposite ends of the space. Jim: I have no problem with the project outside of that. I hate to approve the threshold and wind up with this staircase. It would be an enormous cost savings to you to use the existing stairway and put the fire escape type of fixture on that end that would suffice for egress. It is an internal basic layout situation. You need to have your waiting room along the edge of the bar or something like that. Joe: There are valid ways to deal with a specific problem. We 11 PZM9.22.87 have to request special review approvals from you. If you have a problem with the stair, you can deal with it that way. Jay: We still need to go back to HPC. The HPC did see this exact stair. They have approved it conceptually. It is a matter aesthetics. What is, to us, dramatic and exiting and interesting to go out there and be on a spot where you look down into a plaza, that is supposed to be an interesting experience. Joe: Site design area: Obviously we can't add open space. The way we propose to deal with that is by the additional planters along essentially a very hard surface area and try to enliven the area along the wall outside the flow of traffic. Energy: We made a number of commitments which were endorsed as being considerably beyond the requirements by the Roar ing For k energy system including the double door entry system which is presently a single door entry on the north side. Insulation well in excess of the code standards and insulation of water lines and water saving fixtures in the new johns. In the area of amenities we are reducing the open space by only .5% which still leaves us with 29% open space in excess of the 25% requirement. We didn't think the project needed another bike rack since there is already one there on the building. It is rarely used so what we suggested in that area was to add a bike rack somewhere else where the City feels one is needed. Visual impact: There are two considerations. height limit in this zone district is 40 ft. Jerome is at about 45 ft by the time it passes The project is 28 ft high. First of all the Viewplain of the over the project. Construction is limited to the center of the project. We have been very careful not to propose any additions by the Berko building which is pretty well dwarfed by the original project. We felt that was an essential part of our proposal to try to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Trash: By creating the new bar we are able to go to the gun system. We thought that adding a gun system in the bar would help reduce the trash generation quite a bit. We hoped to be able to resolve any concerns about trash by scheduling additional pickups. Apparently staff feels we still need to add a dumpster. We clarify that we will do space for another dumpster in the trash storage area and we will add one during the peak times to make sure that there is not a trash problem. 12 PZM9.22.87 Public facilities and services: We agree with the Planning Off ice's scor ing straight down the board. I did want to raise one area of concern. The Water Department apparently feels there is a deficiency in the fee relative to the demand by the project. I was afraid one of you might pick that up and downgrade us in the area of water. We have been unable to find out whether that's a building problem or a Gordon's problem but the Planning Office seems to agree that it's not a GMP issue regardless of whose problem it is. Employee housing: We have agreed to submit an affidavit and a letter of credit. Basically our plan is to document the employee hours which we have already done through August. We intend to update that through September. October '86 through September 87 will be the base year in terms of employee hours and that will be compared to next year. If we exceed the number of hours then we have to pay a cash in lieu based on the number of new employee equivalents generated. We had originally committed to 5.25 employees which is the standard per thousand feet of restaurant space. The Housing Office wanted us to commit to any increase whether it be 10 or 20 or whatever and we agreed to do that. Welton: There are two ways we can go about doing this. We can score it down the line or vote to adopt the Planning Office scoring which is above the threshold. MOTION Mari: I move to adopt the Planning Office's scoring. David seconded the motion. Welton asked if there was discussion. Jim: The discussion is if anybody agrees that the overwhelming sore spot of this project is that stairway. Welton: We can address that in the conditions. Jasmine: I don't understand how we can do that. Steve: There are several reviews to be coming up. Our review is concerned with the compatibility of the development. It seems to me in that review we have the ability to address the staircase. Roger: I will have to vote against this motion because I think the site design or architecture rates a 0 and it is mostly because of that stairway. Secondly, in the back of my mind is the elevator that was never put in. I agree that Gordon's is 13 PZM9.22.87 held in the middle of this thing. It was supposed to be put in by the Ritz. I think they badly need a service elevator as part of the problem with service access to the back and vehicles stacked up back there because of the time necessary for a guy to clunk up the stairs with a 2 wheeler truck. If the site design is changed to 0 and that is factored in, it will still be over their threshold but I think they rate a 0 for site design. Joe: So how does that affect the motion? Jasmine: Roger and I have serious concerns about the architect- ur e of site de sign. Technically we can handle either area by putting it in under FAR application. It seems to me that the most appropriate place to do this is in the GMP application itself. We have an area for site design and I think that a lot of us are concerned that it should be registered there. Welton: There is a motion on the floor is there a second? There being no second the motion was withdrawn for revision. Welton: The threshold for category #1 is 5.4 points. The Planning Office gave them 10.5 points so if you want to withdraw the motion and remake it to change the site design to change the numbers-- Mar i: We would then be accepting the Planning Off ice scores on everything except the design. There was general agreement. Mari: I withdraw the motion. David: I withdraw the second. Mari: I move that we accept the Planning Office recommended scoring on every category except for site design. Welton: I was going to suggest that we vote on a score that we all agree on or a majority agrees on. Jim: Possibly a way of doing this is allowing threshold by rating 0 on architectural design and 0 on site design and 0 on visual impact. Welton: Then they won't make threshold. Jim: Ok, then give them 1 on visual impact. This puts on record 14 PZM9.22.87 our complaint about it. They have made threshold still and then on the bonus review simply identify the problem. steve: Architecture, you want to say o. Site I? Fred: Architecture, 0, site, 0, visual, 1 David: You have to be eligible by 4 points. Wel ton: We recommend Planning Office scoring except for 0 for architectural design, 0 for site design, and a 1 for visual impact which leaves them enough points to make threshold. Mari: I so move. Roger seconded the motion Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine. GORDON'S SPECIAL REVIEW steve: The City Attorney's Office has something to say about some of the non-compliance with the original application of 1980. We have identified 4 of them. They are the employee housing, a food locker in the service area, landscaping was promised to go within the site which never occurred and the elevator. We don't think that they were GMP scoring issues. Jasmine: The elevator was. Steve: The elevator was one. Fred: They were not GMP scoring issues. They were scoring issues for the 1980 application. The question is whether or not this applicant should be penalized for the 1980 applicant who did not live up to his promises. Our position is that he shouldn't. We hope that this applicant as well as the other tenants in the building will slowly but surely bring this into compliance. In other words live up to what was promised. Jim: Is that going to be our precedent in the future then? Fred: No. The point is in terms of whether this applicant should be held to bear notice of what prior applicants did not do. we say he should not be penalized. That does not mean we will not 15 PZM9.22.87 seek to enforce or to bring compliance these issues. It is just asking that this applicant not be penalized for what was not done and what he did not commit to do. So it is not a precedent in that respect. Jasmine: A couple of weeks ago an applicant applied to put in a restaurant use in a new building on the second floor. One of the conditions of approval and scoring on that building was that if a restaurant use was to be put in on the second floor that a dumbwaiter had to be installed. Here was that poor guy who is wanting to put in a restaurant. Because the developer did not put in the dumbwaiter, they can't put in a restaurant because it is a new use. So we can say no even though it is not the applicant's fault. The applicant just wants to open up a business, the landlord of the building says "yes you can have a restaurant use in there but I am not putting in a dumbwaiter". This means you can't have a restaurant use. Fred: What you have here is an application to amend what is already in place. It is not a new use. It is to create an expanded extension of a use. Jasmine: OK. But the problem we come up with here in P&Z is, we put all these regulations in that we score on the basis that these applications will be enforced, they are not enforced and then--what does this all mean? Fred: It is not a question of not being enforced. The question of enforcement is get ting to real ize that it is just not easy. The question in this case here is that you have the Building Department and the Planning Department and the Attorney's Office trying to go after different parties at different times. I don't know personally the history of the enforcement except to say that it has obviously not been enforced. Jasmine: It is just that we have the Planning & Zoning Commission and apparently nobody else seems to have any redress. Fred: It is not that you have no redress. And it is not tha t there is not an avenue to take place. It is just whether or not this is the appropriate avenue. Bill Dunaway: Is handicap access now a part of the code for the restaurant? Fred: Handicap access is part of the code. 16 PZM9.22.87 Bill: How can they do any sort of addition if they don't meet the code provisions? Fred: You are absolutely right. How can they? The fact is that they have a restaurant because they meet code requirements. Bill: I thought part of the code was that you can't enlarge a nonconforming use. Steve: It is not a use by terms of definition. Bill: Well, nonconforming structure then. I am not talking the original plans. I am talking about the codes today. They are asking for an enlargement, and additional-- Fred: There is a prov ision in the Colorado State Statutes that says that if putting an elevator into a building costs more than 2 and 1/2% of the total construction cost of the building that that poses a hardship on the builder and it give him an exempt- ion. That is how this building got built without an elevator. Steve: Did you go to the Board of Adjustments on that? Joe: No. That cleared through the Building Department. David: I don't think it is right to stop an applicant who is not the owner of the building when we are really trying to get at the owner of the building. We know about the employee housing issue. We know about these others. What Jasmine is saying is the only thing we have to stop this from happening is the owner of this restaurant goes back to the owner of the building and says "What you did stopped me". That is not really fair. But what is fair? How do we get at this? We have got a real problem. Fred: It is obviously a question of enforcement and that is not easy. Dav id: The problem with this is someone comes before P&Z they make all of our thresholds by offering everything and then they don't live up to what they committed to do and then they stick it on the tenant. Fred: I do suggest you make your comments to Council. Osten- sibly it is Council who has the final action. They have the authority to direct the Building Department and our office to take specific actions to specific instances. Jim: I would agree that until we get a consensus from the City that this applicant should not be made to bear any burden. So I 17 PZM9.22.87 agree with the decision of the City Attorney. I think the best, place to enforce these things is right here. Fred: One way to do that is to have letters of credit made to the benefit of the City by the developer at the time that they are committed to certain things. And if those things are not put in on time, you just draw up the letter of credit. Steve: The applicant is the owner of the building. shouldn't be too much confusion. It is Tony Mazza. Joe: Technically it may be Tony Mazza but Gordon is bearing the expense for doing this project. I promise you that if you make the condition of the approval that an elevator has to be added, this project will not happen because Frank and Tony won't pay for it and Gordon can't pay for it. So there Fred: We are facing enforcement issue head on now. For everything that comes up there is going to be some enforcement angle. It needs to be addressed principally by Council and then Council needs to authorize specific action. Steve: With regard to the FAR on this what the applicants need is to try to utilize unused bonus of FAR on the basis of their having supplied employee housing back in 1980. The employee housing issue, you can confront that head on. It has been converted to an office use and that is illegal and it also screws up their ratio--their internal FAR ratio. David: It has never been an employee unit. Steve: We insist that there be a condition placed on proper occupation of the units and that this all be properly verified prior to the issuance of the building permit. I think that the applicants are willing to go along with that. Furthermore, the leases should be reviewed on a 6 month basis to be sure that proper occupancy rental rates are occurring there. There are 2 criteria for the bonus FAR. The first one deals with the compatibility of the new structure development with the surrounding land uses and zoning. The concern that HPC had in regard to increasing the sense of bulk you could decrease that if you were to set the structure back further and if you were to utilize more transparency or graphized bricks or something like tha t. We are still concerned with that particular aspect of it and HPC does have final review authority. It is, in large part, an historic compatibility issue given the location next to Berko's. 18 PZM9.22.87 We suggest that our condition be added on the bonus FAR, the greater transparency and set back further from the Hopkins Street elevation be accomplished to the satisfaction of HPC as deter- mined at the final HPC rev iew. Joe: Our concern is one of timing so we either resolve it in your next meeting or this project probably doesn't happen. Glenn: Our 3 rd condition is that they come back to us pr ior issuance of the building permit. Roger: Is a spiral staircase satisfactory as a fire escape? Welton: No, it is not. Joe: First of all the studio unit is presently being used by Gordon as his office. He was unaware when he took the space that it was supposed to be an employee unit. Nonetheless, he is the guilty party. The new lease which I have with me gives him a new space down next to Rebecca's on the ground floor and he is satisfied with this language that prior to the issuance of the building permit that the unit will be restored to employee use. I have some concerns about the precise language in the 2nd condition. I hate to be placed in the position where you are to some extent referring to HPC on the issue that I really feel is your purview more so than HPC. I am concerned with the language "to the satisfaction of the HPC". David: I agree with you. I don't like that at all. I don't see why we give that up. That is our area of concern. Why should we give that up to HPC. Steve: The HPC has expressed interest in it as an historic compatibility issue. Joe: We think that this is the roll and purview of the P&Z and not the HPC, particularly on non-historic structure that is totally in compliance with the established height, setback and other area involved with requirements of the zoning district. David: I have to be with Joe. Jim: what is your setback problem? Steve: Originally they talked about 8 inches and we said "well, what about 2 ft?". They didn't want it to say "You must do 2 ft" . They wanted it to be fur ther studied and it really hasn't 19 PZM9.22.87 been. It has simply been maintained that that is all the space they can do. Jim: Perception-wise, I don't see that 2 feet is going to make any difference at all. It is not important. Welton: It is not that important a factor to me either. Roger: What is more important to me is the transparency of this addi tion. Jay: We have used glass everywhere we possibly can use it. MOTION Jim: I would make a motion to accept this proposal subject to the following conditions: #1. As noted in the Planning Depart- ment's recommendation memo. Striking item #2 both the trans- parency issue and the setback issue. Adding a new second item which is that applicant return to P&Z for approval of stairway design prior to issue of a building permit. David seconded the motion with all in favor except Roger and Jasmine. Welton: Reduction of trash and utility area. Steve: The Engineering Department has pointed out that there is a need for a 4th dumpster or a trash compactor. And basically it does not meet the criteria as the Engineering Department's recommendation that something else be done. The area itself is great except they put a large food locker taking up over half of the space. Chuck Roth: It sounds like Joe is going to commit to another dumpster and that would take care of the problem. Joe: The space is not as long as required but it is unusually deep. Trash storage areas have to be 10 ft deep and this one is almost 15 ft deep. There is room to get another dumpster behind the other 3. We called BFI to see if that would be a problem for them function-wise and they said no. We have to pull them all out anyway so it does not matter to them whether one is in back or not. So we can make that commitment. Roger: Is the one in back available to fill? Joe: I suppose that is a fair question. answer it. I am not sure I can 20 PZM9.22.87 steve: The condition we are recommending is that if they try to accommodate another dumpster that it be in the configuration approved by the Engineering Department. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the reconfiguration of the trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that either a dumpster or a trash compactor be provided in the trash area in a configuration acceptable to the Engineering Department. That shall be determined prior to the issuance of a building permit. In case of the 4th dumpster which may be configured behind the other dumpster, that the Engineering Department shall be sure that it is accessible for use by the tenants of the building. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine: My concern is what happens when a builder receives P&Z approval and then an applicant who is a tenant in the building comes to P&Z and has to go through this hard time by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is really unfair that the developers can get into this situation because if in fact you do enforce it the burden of these improvements is supposed to be on the developer and not fall upon the tenant who is trying to run a business. I know that we don't want to be unfair to the applic- ant in these situations because they have walked into something that is not of their making and yet we are supposed to be concerned with development and development application. To say that it is an enforcement problem is not adequate. I would like to see if the Planning Office or Councilor somebody could come up with a way that developers of these projects can be held accountable--not the tenants who rent the space. Jim: I think a resolution to Council to ask that the Attorney's Office come up with a feasible solution might be a way to get this done. Steve: The problem is that not all land use applications and review processes allow the P&Z to establish conditions of approval. David: I really acknowledge what Jasmine is saying because what we do is we grade somebody on their applications. On this application, they were 3rd out of 3 applications. If they had not put in employee housing, which they did not do--if they had not put in the elevators, which they did not do--they might not have passed it. That building might not have ever been built. And what we are doing and we have done many times, we have held 21 PZM9.22.87 up the current applicant who wants to do something to his restaurant or something like that because the person who built the building did not do something right. We have got to figure some way out of that. I think we have to go to Council with some kind of a resolution from us saying it is a big concern for us because we would totally change our views on things. Roger has said it. We have all said it with different applications. They say they are going to build certain things and we give them so many points for this and they pass threshold. Then they don't build it as they said they would and we gave them the points to get by threshold. Bill Dunaway: I really think that a promise made to GMP super- cedes a state law because you are not imposing it. You are making him live up to a promise. I am talking about the developer. I don't buy this thing of not allowing to put it in and I know it didn't come up to you or the Council. It was handled by the Building Department. It was still not correct to supercede the promises made to get an allocation just because there is a state law because that law does not apply to his promise. He agreed to put in an elevator. Welton: Right. Steve: It is an error, there is no question about it. Welton: Find some way to fix it. Jim: Is there some way to get a formal request to get this issue on Council agenda so we can get the thing resolved so he can get going. Can we make a formal request for that. MOTION Jim: I make a motion to request that this item be put on this week's Council agenda if the applicant has submitted to a review of the plans. Jay: What is not shown on the model is the hand rail and a system of grids that is in there. Again this is all beefy stuff, beefy pieces of steel. It is all designed to be sturdy. Jim: This looks fine. In my opinion it basically the fact that it sticks out 12 ft or so into an open court yard which is pedestrian oriented. It just doesn't seem to tie to the building itself. It becomes some sort of appendage to the building which in itself is not a work of art. I think that the stairway should be less obtrusive. I understand where you are coming from as far as location and what you are bringing it into. But I think that 22 PZM9.22.87 is not going to be a very pleasant approach to the restaurant. That is a wonde rful restaur ant. I think that is going to be a deterring factor getting into it. Any sort of appendage that comes off like that really it just doesn't go with that building in my opinion. Make it understated if you can--get it closer to the building. Perhaps look at an inner relocation as far as entry and waiting area goes and perhaps putting the stairway somewhere else. MARSHALL LOT SPLIT Glenn Horn: This is at 320 Lake Avenue. It overlooks Hallam Lake. It is a large lot. It is 13 ,000 sq ft. It is zoned R-6. Right now there is a beautiful 2 story victorian house there which is historically designated. I think it received a score of 3 in the ratings. It is not the highest score you can receive but it is a notable structure. And it has these 3 beautiful huge Cottonwood trees. The parcel 2 which they have shown here is really a beautiful back yard for this parcel. It is heavily landscaped with lots of trees, very private and it all overlooks Hallam Lake. We went down to the lake and had a look at this particular parcel and due to the trees and the way that the existing house is set back f rom the bank it just is not visible f rom Hallam Lake. We thought that the lot split would protect Hallam Lake and also is consistent with the character of this particular house which is historically designated. Since the time that I wrote this memorandum, Jane went back and talked with the property owner to talk about the side yard setback in particular to the setback between parcel 1 and parcel 2. And they decided rather than making parcell 6,000 sq ft and parcel 2 7,600 sq ft, they want to move this boundary over to the south which would protect the Cottonwoods, make this lot 7,600 sq ft and this one 6,000 sq ft. I think it would pr otect the Cottonwoods from this new house which would be very close to them. And also give the existing parcel of the Marshall house a lot more privacy from this new house that is going in. Jim: There is a house already proposed for this lot? Glenn: No, we are just trying to establish a building envelope. One of the things that Jane has said is that they have volun- tarily gone to the Historic Preservation Committee for review--a non-binding review but a review on this house. Jane also has seen Tom Cardiman and talked to him about what the concerns the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies would be. And his concerns are concerning runoff and that sort of thing on Hallam 23 PZM9.22.87 Lake, and setting things back from the bank. They are not going to build any decks or fences or anything like that on this bank which will protect the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. I don't think that this side yard setback is really of particular concern any more because they are going to move the lot line. The way it is drawn, the house could be within 10 ft of the top of the bank. And right now this house is about 40 ft from the top of the bank. I somewhat arbitrarily picked a setback to split the difference between the 2. And that is my recommend- ation. Likewise I thought that it is unlikely that this particular house here if it is expanded, it will be expanded toward the street because it is a victorian and historically designated. I thought it might be more compatible if the setbacks on the properties matched. I would recommend that we match the front yard setbacks on the two houses. The issue boils down to your discussion of the setback. I feel uncomfortable talking about FAR when we are in the midst of revising those and I don't think it would be fair to do anything with restrictions at this time. Jane Ellen Hamilton representative for the Marshalls: The only conditions that we have some problems with are the setbacks. Ronnie has lived in this house since 1972 so she is real concerned about the area. That is why she voluntar ily came to you with a building envelope and with the conditions from Tom Cardiman satisfied. We have agreed to relocate as many of the trees as possible during the construction on the back lot line at Tom's suggestion for vertical habitat. If we go along with the setbacks that Glenn has recommended particularly the front yard setback, given the fact that we have already given ourselves less of a setback than we are entitled to in the code we would ask to be able to keep it up at this line simply because we need to have floor area. By coming in from the side, reducing this down and also by reducing setbacks we have already reduced the size of the building envelope could be if we hadn't done so. I would like to point out that in between the two lots there are a lot of trees, a lot of big bushes and several big evergreens that sti 11 would be in place. We are also willing to discuss with you on the rear line that Ronnie would be willing to designate the back 5 or 10 feet of the building envelope as a deck only to reduce the visibility of the bulk from Hallam Lake. 24 PZM9.22.87 Tom has indicated to us that he is all in favor of this as much as a person can be to any development on the lake because we have agreed to do everything he has asked. Welton: Are we creating lots less than 60 ft? Jane: I am going to have to check with the surveyor because they will have to redraw it but I am assuming--it will probably be about 65/55 break but I can't speak to that. Welton: It is a minimum of 60 ft on the front. David: I have a personal feeling that one of the things that is bothering me in the west end is all the buildings right up to the curb. There is no front yard any more. I think with this back a little bit, it looks a little nicer. Jane: We hate those huge things that have been going in in the west end too. We just need to have the flexibility when we are selling a lot because with the restrictions it is going to have on it has already affected it's sale value. Welton: I suggest a 15 ft and 10 ft and a 20 ft rear yard setback with the last piece of 10 being back on. Jane: We would be willing to do that. Jim: 30 ft setback per building envelope. Glenn: 30 ft for building, 20 ft for decks Welton: And front yard being 15 ft. deep. David: They are coming to us and giving some things. Glenn: I don't know. From an architectural standpoint if it is better for these things to be uniform and try to copy the house next door or is it better if it is a little different. Jim: stagger it a little bit and give to give them both some privacy. Jane: We have come to you to try to make a lot of concessions right up front and there is only just so much we can do. Glenn: One thing to keep in mind is that although Ronnie and Jane might have good intentions for this particular lot in terms of building, some that have been built in the west end are all built to within 5 to 10 feet of the maximum principle. There 25 PZM9.22.87 seems to be a track record--going right to the max. Maybe they won't go to the max for a building envelope but they pr obably will go to the max on FAR. Jim: If we allow these 10 ft setback and they put a porch they will be 2 ft from the front property line. Welton: A porch cannot encroach in a setback. A deck can. A suggestion would be the difference between the Planning Office recommendation and the minimum of 15 ft and 30 feet with the 10 deck on that. MOTION I would entertain a motion approving a lot split on that basis. Number 1 being as we just described with the conditions being as they are in the Planning Office memo. We need to address the condition 10 being minimum lot frontage for each lot shall be 60 ft. Roger: The way of addressing that is going to the mlnlmum frontage on parcel 2 and then--in other words just a straight angle back to come up with--I guess it would be OK minimum then whatever the straight line back is to give you the minimum of --' 6,000 sq ft for that parcel rather than come up with a straight little jog there. Welton: The lot areas for lot 1 be 7,603 sq ft and the lot area for lot 2 by 6,000 sq ft with a minimum lot frontage for each lot at 60 ft. That would be condition 10. Roger: And then a recommendation of a line in between being a straight boundary as far as possible. Welton: And a line in between be a straight line configured in such a way as to come up with these lot areas. Glenn: We need to still be able to get a driveway in there when we configure this lot. The building envelope may have to change slightly because of the driveway. We will figure that out before Council takes a look at it. Jane: What we would like to do about the trees is to add at the end of the number 2 condition "to the extent possible". We will relocate every tree possible. Some of them we may not be able to. Welton: I will entertain a motion. 26 Roger: I so move. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15 pm. Janic(f4{i;~-J#-ii t; 27 PZM9.22.87