Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880126 ",:" - k RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 26. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, and Michael Herron. David White, Mari Peyton and Ramona Markalunas arrived shortly after roll call. Jim Colombo arrived at 4:35 pm. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Welton: Today Randy Parton announced that he was pulling the Roaring Fork Railroad out of the County and out of Colorado. The reasons were complicated and many including the seemingly unending problems first with the City and then the County. He said they already had invested a million dollars. But more than that was the attitude of the Rio Grande sabotaging their attempt. Perhaps the time is not right for operating the railroad so it is over for now. Roger: I attended that same meeting. And what is going on at this point is they are going before the County Commissioners this evening to present this information. He has not said they will never come back but he has got to wait for a more opportune time. The point is that a lot of money has been spent on the develop- ment of this plan and rather than throw it away at this point, he is willing to give it to a community trust or some sort of entity to basically keep it alive until such time as it becomes operationally feasible with the Rio Grande. The process has not been conducive to continuing on at this point. That did not seem unsurmountable. The straw that breaks the camel's back is the Rio Grande. From a planning point of view, as long as I have been on this Board I have been after an alternate transportation system in this valley and I hate to see the whole thing die. I would rather see it suspended on some form of plateau but that is going to require some kind of initiative on the part of the County Board of Commissioners. If we have an opportunity tonight I would like to have a 30 minute recess so that we could go over to the County Commissioner's meeting and express our interest in this. Welton: I would like to have a show of hands of those who are in favor of having a 30 minute recess at a convenient time between PZM1.26.88 presentations so that we can go to the Board of County Commissioner's meeting. 5 were in favor. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: We are putting together the Resolution on the Code right now. It will be in your boxes by noon Thursday. It is the whole Resolution. It is imperative that we move through this Resolution process at your next meeting and the meeting on the 16th. Welton: Last week we approved the conceptual subdivision of 925 East Durant, 700 East Main Street and 771 Ute Avenue. Now we are going to have the GMP scoring session and try to resolve that. 771 UTE AVENUE Steve: In the area of roads we are the recommending a score of 1.5. They are proposing to pave 10 feet wide of Aspen Mountain Road and do curb and gutter around the project. We did not give them a 2 because we are concerned that the turn-around area in this dead end street is 32 feet wide and that we would anticipate that there will be some congestion since this is 9 units which might be comparable to a fair sized cuI de sac for a single family complex. And it is the exit for the Aspen Alps and parking system exit. Neighborhood compatibility: We recommend a score of 1.5. Our concern here is that the basic design of the building is an L shaped structure with a great deal of individuation of each of the 9 residential units. Those are pleasing aspects of the project in our opinion. However, the site coverage seems excessive on the site. Site design: We recommended a 2. We feel they are providing a fairly good amount of open space, consider ing the undevelopable hillside. But the actual buffered area towards the Alps is fairly minimal. They are undergrounding utilities. The trash pickup seems to work well and the pedestrian circulation seems to work well. But we did think that there was a problem in the basic amount of open space. We criticized the mechanical system because they had not been specific enough so that we could verify what they are going to install. This letter does satisfy us and the Roaring Fork Energy Center that they will be putting in modulated heating. The 2 PZM1.26.88 - trouble with gJ.vJ.ng them an excellent score in energy is that there is no solar potential for the site given that it is so close to the hill. However, given the mechanical commitment that has been verified we feel that it is reasonable to increase that to 2.5. In trails we have recommended 3 because they are paving a portion across the street from them. Greenspace: The design flaws are the amount of vegetated open space because a great deal of their site plan includes a paved area. We don't think this is in character with that section of the City. We also feel that it is insufficient visual relief from the neighbors. Public transportation and community commercial facilities: This is a quantitative scoring and we recommended a 2 and 3 in those areas. Housing: program. We have recommended 8 points for their cash-in-lieu - Sunny: We agree with the Planning Office's recommendations regarding all the services with the exception of the roads issue. There are currently junked cars, no curb and gutters. The pavement widths are substandard. There is a drainage problem from the Aspen Mountain Road. Immediately across from the site itself where we are installing sidewalks there is a large stand of Evergreens in the public right-of-way. We could have expanded the street that way but it would have required taking out that stand of trees and to remove the buffer that currently existed. <---- The design itself is based on accepted engineering standards currently about 14 ft wide. We are increasing it to 24 feet plus 8 feet. The Engineering Department recommended 2 in this category. In fact they recommended 2 in all of our categories with the exception of sewer where we cannot do anything and went so far as to commend the applicant on his improvements and recommended bonus points in these categories. Sunny introduced a letter into the records from Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department reinforcing the fact that there is nothing wrong with the design and that it is adequate with the traffic flows in the area, that the dead end is visible from Original Street and that there is more than enough room to access the Alps driveway and that the improvements undertaken by the applicant do, in fact, improve the quality of what is in the area. (Attached in records). 3 PZMl. 26.88 The biggest problems which the Planning Office has with this project are in the area of neighborhood compatibility and the amount of open space and green space. They agree that the density is not a problem. It is really a question of bulk. Mr. Shodeen has the ability to build a lodge. He really would prefer to build a small project. We also remember the fact that the P&Z was concerned about Lyle Ryder using Lot 41 for purposes of increasing the bulk on the other 3 lots. I think the problem is more of perception than numbers. The total site consists of Lots 15, 16, 17 and Lot 41 for a total size of about 22,600 sq ft. What we are interested in is compar ing the area and bulk of the project to the actual footpr int on which the building is to be built. The footpr int consists of Lots 15, 16 and 17 and a portion of Lot 41 on which we are actually going to build. So the actual site on which the structure is located is about 16,280 sq ft. Allowable FAR in this zone district is 1 to 1. If you were to build it on the total site it would be 22,600. The proposed building is 19,600 sq ft. If you compute floor area as the code requires, then the FAR on the entire property is .86 to 1 and on the actual building site is 1.2 to 1. We subtracted out the road even though we were not required to. We said if we were going to subtract out the road to get a more realistic computation here, we ought to be able to claim credit for that portion of ute Avenue which is within the public right-of-way which we are landscaping to the benefit of the property. So we took out the Aspen Mountain Road and added the small area of the Ute Avenue right-of-way. Essentially they balance each other out. The net total for the site is about 15,000 or 16,000 sq ft. So the FAR is about 1.23 to 1. If you don't want to give us credit for the portion of the right-of-way that is on ute Avenue then it is 1.3 to 1. The lodge project was built on the same 2 parcels. It is totally within Lots 15, 16 and 17 however and it is 22,660 sq ft which is effective FAR of 1.6 to 1 which is substantially greater than what this applicant is proposing. The applicant is entitled to FAR for the property which he owns. He tried to find a happy medium between the maximum allowable FAR on the project and a project that would still work for him. We feel that FAR of 1.2 or 1.3 is a substantial improvement over 1.6 and is certainly within the maximum allowable FAR for the entire site. A decision was made to locate the bulk of the building and recess it to the rear of the site so there is a continuity between the 4 PZM1.26.88 Glory Hole Park and the corner of our building itself. The height of the building is 31 feet at the highest point. The actual parapet is right at the 28 foot height limit that is allowed in this zone district. The neighborhood itself is mUlti-family or lodge. The structures are extremely large and the appropriate use of this property is going to be for multi-family or lodge type development. No one is going to buy a parcel this size zoned in this category and build a single family or duplex structure. with respect to its compatibility we would say under height requirements in most categories. with the scale of the buildings around it. And extent of the site coverage itself. it is basically It is consistent it minimized the Open space and green space: The site is 22,660 sq ft. The actual building site, however, is about 16,280 sq ft. We could take out the portion we are giving the City for the Aspen Mountain Road. And we can leave out the landscaping up here if you want not to give us credit for landscaping the public right- of-way. The building footprint itself is only 6,270 sq ft. You add in the Aspen Mountain Road and you compare the total footprint to the site itself and it is about 66% open space all of which will be landscaped. If you compare the building footprint--just the portion we are building on, it is still 53% undeveloped. All of that on the new proposed regulations for open space does not count. If you use the new regulations and you count the open space that you will be giving credit for then we have got some 6,600 sq ft of open space which is 43% of this footprint. The minimum requirement in the zone district is 25%. We exceed the minimum requirement by 72% in terms of open space. That is not counting the hillside and not counting the road. steve did recommend a 2 or standard score for site design with the only criteria being it covers too much of the site. I don't see how you can get 72% over the minimum requirement in the zone district and be construed to be greedy in terms of how we are utilizing the site. Under green space Steve is recommending a 1 saying there is no green area or usable open space on the property. This is not a rural site. It is dense. It is in town surrounded by large structures. Large recreational-type open spaces do not exist ,- here. Hence it was oriented in such a way as to give visual relief by linking it to the adjacent park across the street. The site does not have a lot of solar potential. And the ability to 5 PZM1.26.88 <<- plant grass and trees simply does not exist. So in those areas where the sun would not support healthy vegetation, we are showing a paving pattern and it is the applicant's intention to use portable planters for seasonal types flowers and trees that would be appropriate in those locations. To imply that just because it is not grass, it is not usable open space nor does it help break up the building or provide visual relief is just unfair. Our position would be as far as open space is concerned--it clearly exceeds the requirement. There has been some very thoughtful consideration given to how it lays out on the site. Those areas which could be planted in grass are done so. The entire site is re-landscaped for the benefit of the Alps and the adjacent neighbors. Site improvements which have been made are sidewalk, extending the trail system, curb and gutters, and drainage. So we believe that the scoring has been unduly harsh in the area of green space, site design and particularly in the quality of design in which Steve implies that there is a design problem in locating this type of structure in this type of neighborhood. ~ Energy: Steve has qualified that and said that we are recom- mended for a 2.5. The interesting thing here is the only problem he seems to have is that there is no passive or active solar. We '- have a disadvantaged site and therefore we should come up with the best mechanical design system to prov ide energy sav ings for the residents. We retained the County Engineer who came up with some very sophisticated systems that are designed to enhance energy sav ings. To simply downgrade the project because it does not have passive or active solar and not recognize the extent to which the applicant has tried to improve upon the energy savings of the building is unreasonable particularly in light of the fact that the applicant has agreed to eliminate all allowed wood burning devices on the project. If we are going to have a standard score then we should keep those fireplaces. The final area is in the area of proximity to the bus routes and services. The requirements are that you are awarded extra points if you are located close to bus routes and the downtown area. We are 515 feet in this category. Yet we are being penalized as if we were a site located somewhere on the outer boundary of the townsite. The project is consistent with what the intent of the code was and should be entitled to the full score. Welton asked for questions from the Commissioners. 6 PZMl. 26.88 There were none. Welton opened the public hearing. Jerry Huey, General manager of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association: I represent 77 tax paying neighbors. As some of you may remember we opposed the Lyle Ryder hotel project twice because of the bulk of that project. We are pleased with this project. Mr. Shodeen has demonstrated his expertise in his own apartment and this is a much, much better project. There was no other public comment and Welton closed the public hearing. David: One thing that I can't quite understand--on a site like this where there is no benefit from sun--they had knocked them for snowmelt. This winter we have a law on the books that says after 10:00 in the morning everybody in town is supposed to clean off the snow in front of their house. Nobody in this town does it. And I think the Planning Office should totally change their whole outlook on snowmelt. It is a benefit to the community--not a subtraction of energy. Steve: Snowmelt is an energy user. David: It is ridiculous for us to have no place to walk in the City because the City won't enforce the codes. An applicant offers something that is a benefit to the City and what we do is say "Please don't build it, it uses energy". You are saving energy on one side. We have got a whole crazy thing in our head that says snowmelt is bad and many of us on P&Z have been trying for a long time to do something about the fact that these streets and the roads and everything is a mess because our community won't pay the money to clean them. So I totally disagree with you on that and I think that we on P&Z should look on that area and say "What is it that we have been doing?". Michael: In the new code we changed that. Commissioners proceeded scoring on this project. 700 EAST MAIN STREET Cindy Houben: This applicant proposes to improve the water system by adding two isolation valves and therefore we have seen that they do help the local area by upgrading specific lines and ~ moving lines but there are other areas where they probably could help the area more. We gave them a 1.5 because they did help the localized area. 7 PZM1.26.88 As far as road go the Engineering Department gave the applicant a 1. The applicant did try to offset some of their traffic problems by providing a shuttle service during the ski season. However we still felt that it was inadequate. Neighborhood compatibility: We felt that they have an acceptable compatibility with the surrounding area. But as far as excellent neighborhood compatibility we did not go that far. Energy: There was not a whole lot of detail given to the North facing windows. Therefore the Roaring Fork Energy Center didn't feel they did give any real specific comments. With regard to insulation they are above what the code requires. We recommend a 2.5 which is above standard but yet not quite excellent because you couldn't really tell what was going on with the North side of the building. That has a lot of good solar capabilities on that side which they did not take advantage of. Greenspace: We felt that there was too much paving within the site. We gave them a 2 because we thought that that added to the mass of the project. Gideon: We have received a recommended score of 39 from the Planning Office. This is the highest score recommended by the Planning Office for residential GMP project. Our development philosophy was to identify the unique and important features of the site and to preserve them. For example, rather than appropriate the river just for our develop- ment alone, we decided the river and the river feeling were very important community assets. Therefore, the area as well as the river itself has been preserved and will continue to be a real asset for community both the park and from Main Street. With the site's proximity to Herron Park we incorporated into our design the concept of an open feeling around Original Curve continuing that park-like feeling. We sought to distinguish ourselves from the Concept 600 building and the Original Curve Building in terms of mass, height and bulk. We attempted to be a transition from that massive streetscape along Main Street to the open areas of the river and the park. So, therefore, we incorporated the smaller scale to the Main Street frontage into our design. This is a mandatory PUD which means we had the flexibility and will have the ability for variations. Instead of variations the development plan sought to maximize the uniqueness of the site and not to maximize development. No code variations were sought. 8 PZM1.26.88 Over 10,000 sq ft of FAR is not being utilized. Height never exceeds code and in many instances is less than code. Open space and greenspace all substantially exceed code. Only 32% of this site is covered with buildings. No variation is sought in parking. 41 spaces are put underground. In fact we vOluntarily reduced many of the area and bulk requirements that we had the opportunity to utilize. Larry Yaw: We think that this is a very important and prominent site. In every respect the site planning and architecture have been conceived to acknowledge that importance and improve on it as a community asset and as a neighborhood asset. The project has 55% open space. The key decisions that helped create the open space were to put all-4l spaces--to a subsurface garage with the exception of 4. All will have direct access at that level to the units. We reduced density by 10,000 sq ft, and height by 10 to 15%. We put majority of the buildings on the back of the site away from the impact of Main Street. There are no wood burning fireplaces. We have created an open space along with the existing Cottonwoods and created the important transition from the Concept 600 Building which is 4 and 1/2 stories to 2 and 1/2 stories to open space. Also in this area we have staggered the buildings to create view from the road to Herron Park. The Main Street cluster has been designed so you could see only 3 units at one time. We have also extended the natural earth form with the trees for visual screening for this part of the site. In addition to the 550 feet of sidewalk we extended the sidewalk down to the No Problem Bridge another 300 ft. That provides safety and helps the drainage problem. We have put the recreation building and pool area in a location which has natural solar benefits. The interior courtyard which provides a continual open space from Spring Street to the Main Street corridor is 70 to 80 ft wide. This provides more than ample greenspace for the use of the residents. It provides separation, privacy and solar access as well. The ramp to the parking has been located over 200 ft away from Main Street and traffic conflict. We have more than ample space for guest parking as well as the parking which is provided adjacent to the employee unit which is located both for control and service. The refuge collection area is in the garage and will be brought to the surface only when it is collected. 9 PZM1.26.88 The architecture is conceived to support and articulate the site plan concepts. One is to create beneficial open space. Two is to create a very compatible neighborhood scale and three is to recall some of Aspen's victorian period. In a plan sense these concepts are exemplified in a couple of ways. We individualized each unit to break down its scale. We have broken down the whole concept into 3 clusters in order to reduce massing as it comes to the street. The materials we are using are sandstone and brick. We are only using 100 of over 300 linear feet of frontage. In general the sandstone is used along the faces and in some of the articulation of building elements of the facade. Brick is the other material. By using the roof forms we stress the individual unit scale. Within the building we have 2 kinds of roofs to further reduce that scale and give it a residential character. We have used balconies, some arch forms and a variety of of fenestration within single concept to reinforce the residential scale. We are 3 to 5 ft under height scale. At the edges we have provided a combination of slope roof and flat roof with the flat roof portion at the edges so that snow doesn't slip off the roofs and create dumps where there is pedestrian movement. We have retained the gable quality and still protected the occupants of the project. Joe Wells: The existing water system in the area is the main at Spring Street. There is a main on the north side of Main Street for this area. There is also a second main on the south side of Main Street. There is a dead end line presently serving down to the Creek Tree Project. We propose to extend the dead end main to the east to provide a hydrant over in this portion of the site. Then to interconnect across to the main on the south side so that this is no longer a dead end line. Jim Markalunas's biggest concern in the neighborhood expressed to us was the absence of an isolation valve so that he can shut down the system without having to cut off a major portion of the neighborhood. So we have proposed to add an isolation valve adjacent to the existing hydrant as well as a second valve. We met with Jim recently to discuss the layout of the internal water system in which we will take service into the side here from the Bleeker Street line and from this extended line here, then interconnect through the garage to provide sprinkling through the garage which is required by code. 10 PZM1.26.88 Jim suggested it would be very beneficial to relocate one of these 2 isolation valves for this line which would give a second service access to the Creek Tree area and thereby improve the service to this neighborhood by shortening that dead end line and provide a second line. Jim gave us a letter to that effect concurring that by using the internal system the service to the neighborhood would be improved. Gideon: We have improved the quality of service when it comes to roads. We have added curb and gutters along Original Curve through our property line and 300 feet past our property line on City owned property. We have eliminated all curb cuts from Main Street eliminating the potentially dangerous traffic situation of having cars back up and enter Main Street at the end of the dangerous curve. We have added a sidewalk off of the No Name Bridge which for the first time creates separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic over there. We have the shuttle service that will keep cars off the road. The Clean Air Board had a special meeting and has written a letter to you commending this applicant for eliminating all woodburning devices and urging you to give this applicant bonus points because of that in terms of sOlving that community problem. Welton opened the public hearing on 700 East Main Street. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Jasmine asked if this were a phased project. Gideon: The commitment we made is that it would be started in 1988 and completed in 1989. The Commission then proceeded with scoring on this project. 925 EAST DURANT Steve: Water is a 1 because there is no improvement to the system. Sewer is also 1 because no improvements are proposed. Storm drainage we gave a 2. Fire Protection--again no improvem- ents are being requested so we recommend a 1 on that. The parking design, we recommend a 2 because they are providing all on-site parking along with 8 spaces behind the garages. Roads, we recommended a 1 and our concern too is that there are no improvements to the roads. The Engineering Department made a comment that it will adversely effect the development because of the parking situation off the alley. We think the scoring criteria is clear. It is a matter whether you are making 11 <- PZM1.26.88 improvement to the system or not and they are not making an improvement. They are simply doing a good job with the parking. Neighborhood compatibility: There are some aspects of the project that we think are fairly positive. But there are also some faults with it. We noted that the FAR is within the allowed. It is .86 to 1. The height is a 1 ittle it lower than allowed. It is 28 ft. The site coverage is 41%. The concerns that we raised that we think are flaws with the project is that the project has been construed to be a 4-plex via a 2nd floor connection between the 2 halves of the project. In effect you have 2 duplexes with a small connection point and 12 feet of separation between them. Our concern is that those duplexes if you were to compare them to other duplexes housing the same kind of densi ty of 4 units are signif icantly larger. They are a good deal larger than would be the case for projects that have simply gone that root of lots of 7,200 sq ft rather than 10,400 sq ft what has been proposed. We think that they are very bulky in that respect and that the separation between the halves don't give a sense of measuring these. Furthermore they have a small moat in the front yard and the only other project in the immediate vicinity that has that is the old Hunter which is across the street. We feel that it does increase the sense of bulk in the development. Site design: We gave them the standard in this area. They are providing 36% open space which is just 1% over the minimum that is required which is 35%. Again there are some good aspects of this project such as the front yards which are a little bit larger than elsewhere in the neighborhood. However, those projects had been built under prior regulations. So, in effect, it is not entirely fair to say their front yards are greater, therefore, this is an excellent design. We just felt that it was basically a standard design. The good aspects are the circulation. In the alley, the enclosed trash dumpster and the utility undergrounding. But given the site coverage we feel it is basically standard. Trails: We recommended a 2. They are providing lighted trails. And they would have some bicycle racks in the right-of-way. We view those as primarily a benefit to the project. It would provide an amenity but when you try to weigh it, we felt it is basically standard. Greenspace: We also rated it as standard. We noted that the site design with the moat area reduces some of the use of the 12 PZM1.26.88 site area for open space for use of the residents. basically acceptable in terms of setbacks. Proximity to support services: We have the same concern. The public transportation is clearly within 2 blocks. In the area commercial facilities, it has been calculated that the project is 612 feet which is over the 500 foot criteria. It is Employee housing: The recommended score is 10.4. Wayne Ethridge: Fortunately we are in the position of being able to agree almost totally with the staff's recommended scoring except in this case it is the recommended scoring of the Engineering Department. We would say that we went into this project with the under- standing that we would minimize the construction impact on the neighborhood. That is a very sensitive neighborhood. Durant does dead end at the east end and instead of putting in a water line which really doesn't do anything to serve us or the neighborhood need--increasing the size or increasing the fireplugs, we chose not to do that and instead put our money into employee housing. We are constrained from a design standpoint because it is a very small site. We have gone into extensive detail about how we can make this project compatible. We fully agree with the Engin- eering Department's comments on our parking design. In terms of impact on the existing road network, what we have done is eliminate any impacts on Durant street. We have the right to park on Durant Street. We have chosen not to do that. All of our parking is based off the alley. We have 8 parking spaces which are provided with snowmelt at the rear of the project in addition to handling all of the required parking by the code in underground garages. Augie Reno: We wanted to be compatible with regard to size, height and for the location with regard to setbacks. We wanted to try to break down the scale of the building in a number of ways. Part of the way we achieved this was to change the plain of where the buildings are located relative to the street so that we just did not get one large mass of wall. Another item is what Steve alluded to as being a contrived connection between the 3-bedroom units. By doing it this way it creates a view corridor from Durant Street all the way through to Water Street. It would create natural light and ventilation on 3 sides of every unit of this particular proj ect. We wanted to 13 PZM1.26.88 h...... create a courtyard for the 3-bedroom units that created a sense of privacy that separated the public and the residents of the project. This connection in fact becomes a gate or entry portal to the particular project. We made an attempt to provide guest parking on the rear side of the project which we were not required to do and we looked at that as an opportunity with regard to this open courtyard space as creating circulation through the building. Those are the elements that we feel are really strong in defending that particular element of the project. The Planning Dept. has also indicated that we are in excess of the FAR. Then on the other hand they say that we are only at .86. This is an RMF zoning. This is a multi-family type project. We could have built an additional 6,200 sq ft on this particular project. We elected not to. This is not a 5-unit townhouse. It is not maximized so we feel we have, in fact, done something better than trying to maximize the FAR. Subgrade moat: One of the Planning Dept's. concerns is that subgrade moat issue is indeed not compatible to the area. We took a walk around the neighborhood. Steve alluded that the old 100 does have a subgrade area. In fact it is a full level area. Ours is only about 3 and 1/2 feet. 950 East Durant there is a drop of 3 feet off the main street. The building right next door has a definite grade change to a lower garden level-type entry. The Chateau Roaring Fork has the same thing. Subgrade level in the area are more dominant instead of being less dominant. The height restrictions on this are basically in an area where we can be much higher than we are. At the ridge of each one of these units we are at 28 feet. We are less high than the surrounding buildings. We believe that the score we received was unfair and that it was somewhere between a flawed and an excellent design. We believe we achieved an excellent design for this particular site. Wayne: what we have done in order to take into account what is going on around us is we have increased the east side setback by 2 feet to reduce the impact of the existing Alpina Haus and saved the row of existing Fir and Spruce trees. We have chosen at the expense of FAR to do this. We have moved the power poles as far east as possible at our expense. This is a benefit for the neighborhood and our own project. We have a small scale residential design which is 14 \ PZMl. 26.88 '- enhanced by the separation between the buildings. There is an access that runs all the way through our project all the way between Chateau Snow and Aspen Silverglow. This is another reason for providing the separation between the 3-bedroom units. We maintained all the existing vegetation on the site. The extensive landscaping proposed for the project has been commended by the Planning Office. At the same time we are being knocked for not prov iding usable front yard space. One of the ways we could have done that is to move the sidewalk closer to the street. But that doesn't provide a very good environment for people parking along here. It does not provide enough space for these street trees and so we have chosen to deal with that by moving our buildings back well beyond the setback requirement. There is a 10 ft setback in the RMF zone. We average 23 feet on the front. WE have a 10 foot setback in the rear. We average 24 feet in the rear. So that is quite an accomplishment given the size of the site. The Engineering Dept. recommends a score of 3 for this site. We certainly can't disagree. Steve made a comment earlier about what would happen if this were duplexes. It is not a duplex _ development. It is a mUlti-family development. Had we taken full advantage of the FAR that is available on the site--we have about 15 We made the decision not to use the FAR that is available to us because we wanted to provide light, ventilation, privacy and a separation between the 3-bedroom units because we feel that that is a better design than a standard mUlti-family development would present. Energy conservation: We are allowed by code 1 fireplace and 1 clean burning device. Our single fireplace will be efficient. We have excellent solar orientation to the south. We have exceeded the code requirements for wall insulation by 20%. With the addition of drywall. We have heat-mirrored glazing which is very energy efficient. We have 95 to 97% efficient boilers. Our snowmelt system is thermostatically controlled and has a manual override. We have low-flow fixtures on our hot water devices which save water and energy. We have 1,170 sq ft of windows versus the code allowable of 1,303. Steve made a comment about the windows and yet we are under the code requirement for that. The separation between the building provides an opportunity for natural light and ventilation which minimizes the need for artificial lighting and cooling in those units. It is available on 3 sides of all units. 15 PZM1.26.88 .- Trails: We agree with the Engineering Dept. recommendation that the addition of bicycle rack and the addition of lighting which does not really serve the project and the quality of the landscaping and the setback which we have provided should deserve the maximum score of 3. Greenspace: The Planning Office recognizes the quality of our landscaping and appreciates the relief provided by the setbacks. We have exceeded the code requirement for open space and yet due to a design feature which Steve referred to as a moat which is common in the area, we seem to be scored down to a standard. I think the things which we have done here with setback, with separation between the buildings clearly exceed the standards of the code and merit a score of 3. In terms of proximity to services: We have no argument with the public transportation issue. We have a similar situation in that we are a block and 1/2 away from the downtown area. We are 612 feet away. The code requirement is 500 ft. The reality is the two most critical elements for people who live or visit here--the Grog Shop and City Market--are a block and 1/2 away. We think that that merits the maximum score of 3. '~ Bonus points: The Engineering Dept. has recommended several areas which they feel merit bonus points. Things we didn't do in this project are: Take full advantage of FAR available to us, rebuild the currently adequate water and sewer systems that exist on Durant Street, interfere with parking on Durant, use our allocation of a curb cut, and didn't design a project that would require massive disruption of the neighbor- hood. The Engineering Dept. indicates that we could receive bonus points for our parking design. They have recommended a score of 2 for roads. We think that the design of this project looking externally merits the maximum award of bonus points and we would appreciate your consideration of that. Welton opened the public hearing for 925 East Durant. Welton read into the record a letter from Michael Spalding of Coates, Reid and Waldron stating they have no opposition to this project. (attached in records) There being no further public comments welton closed the public hearing. Commission members proceeded with scoring. 16 ..- PZM1.26.88 stanzione: very candidly I think you have an opportunity to obtain cash-in-lieu of approximately $1,000,000,000 on 3 projects which come in with less than a normal year's allocation. My rough line tells me that that could build 30 dormitory rooms of 300 sq ft each at $100 per sq ft. So that is cash and the building could be bonded out from there. I don't understand the memorandum saying not to go into next year's allocation or the year beyond. We need the employee housing now. We need the rooms now. We don't need them in 2 years because you don't know who is going to be here 2 years from now. You don't know where the economy is going to be. You don't know how many opportunities are going to be before you. If this was a normal year I think the housing authority would be very happy, the Planning & Zoning Board would be very happy and the Council would be happy. But because of last year's decreas- ing allocation, you are down to having no units. I would urge you, without knowing what the score is, to go into next year's allocation, take the opportunity while it is in front of you to do something for the employee housing crisis in Aspen. SCORES Everyone made threshold. Scores include bonus points. 700 East Main 40.6 14 units 925 East Durant 37.0 4 units 771 Ute Avenue 36.1 8 units MOTION Roger: I move to forward the scores to City Council. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Alan: The maximum of units 20 units if you were to give out in future allotments. The number of units available is 12. As we recommended to you, if 700 East Main finished first, we thought it was quite reasonable to go into next year's allotment. There seems to be no rationale in that project coming back for 2 units next year. If this kind of an order worked out we felt it was unreasonable to go into future years for any of the other projects. Our 17 PZM1.26.88 - argument is that the residential sector has really been the busiest sector. Last summer surprised a lot of people. The actual numbers for the end of 1987, we were significantly above the quota last year--42 units. We certainly would not recommend going beyond the first project here for recommendation. What happens is we start out with 39 units. We built slightly in excess of this last year and so 39 gets wiped out and code says when 39 are not available to competers, a minimum of 30% of the available quota must be available. 30% of 39 units is 12. So 12 are available for allocation this year. They are awarded to the 700 East Main project. There is no discretion involved there. The additional 8 units come into play in another section of the code that says in any given year you can award 20% more than the quota which was originally available--20% more than the 39 units available or an additional 8 units are available to be borrowed from a future year's quota in a "bonus allocation". We are really not in a situation here where we have the potential to award a multi allotment like happened for Little Nell or the .<~ Aspen Mountain Lodge. To do that you have to have a projects that exceed your basic quota and that need multiple quotas just to be allocated. That obviously is not the case here. It is simply that we have a minimum quota available this year. If there had been 39 available there would have been more than enough for everybody. MOTION Jasmine: I make a motion that we recommend to Council that we allow the additional 2 units to the 700 East Main project to be distributed in one year rather than having to come back for a second application and that we not grant any additional allot- ments. Ramona seconded the motion. Jim: I would support that motion if it left out the other allotments so that we can get the issue of 700 East Main Street resol ved. Welton: That is already resolved. Jasmine: My motion said that they-- Jim: But it also includes leaving out--you included no further bonus points or futures being involved. " 18 PZM1.26.88 Jasmine: My motion was to allow them the additional 2 units of the quota so that they could finish their project and that is it. welton: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Mari. Welton: Does anybody want to make a case for--since the maximum is 20--bending it. Ramona: I don't quite understand all the mathematics that are going on here. We are deducting 40 units from the 39 units. Alan: We exceeded our quota last year meaning that we have none to start. Ramona: And yet we have 20? Alan: No, we have 12. You have none but the code is very explicit. You cannot go into a competition year and have no quota available simply because projects were built by exemptions. ."., It is an absolute mandatory provision, it is a legal requirement that if you grant exemptions in all these projects the 30 residential units that we built on single family and duplex lots as well as the 12 that were built by change in use were built by exemptions and that is what that provision was put in for. It is to make sure that there is the ability for someone to have a competition. The only time there would be no quota available is, for example, what has happened to us in the lodge sector for the past couple of years. We have literally given away the future years ahead of time. That is not what happened here. You had a 39 quota of units available in 1987. It got built out by exemptions and therefore the code says you must make at least 12 units available and it also says you can, if you so choose, on a discretionary basis, make up to 20 units. You can award 20 if you so choose. Jim: We have already given away 2 of them. So we have 6 futures that we are dealing with. We have either the option to approve the second project of 4 units and give away those 4 or we have the option of not giving any further futures or we have the option, which won't do anyone any good, of approving 6 which would allow 2 for the 3rd project which would not help them at all. So I see the option for the 3 rd project as being 1 ittle or none. 19 PZM1.26.88 Welton: ment. It wouldn't necessarily come out of next year's allot- Alan: Actually you are correct. Those additional 8--the 12 must come out of next year's quota. The 8 beyond that could come any time over the next 5 years. Ramona: If we are so many behind, what does it hurt if we are 6 behind next year? Alan: The point is that Council was trying to make a statement about residential development. I think the philosophy around here is that we manage our growth rate and that we try and meet our quotas and we are exceeding it in this sector. We did not expect to exceed it when we started granting excess allotments in projects like Little Nell and the Aspen Mountain Lodge that we expect to see in the next year or two. David: We have exceeded lodge but we have never seen them and who knows when we are going to see them? We have lost a lot in lodging. These are not employee units but at least they are units and will be paying $226,000 and I think we should look at .~'" it in that way. MOTION Jim: I make a motion to approve additional 4 future allotments for the use of approval of 925 East Durant. David seconded the motion. Jasmine: I really don't understand this--my motion specif ically excluded these 2 projects. I recommended that we not recommend additional allotments. That was my motion. Jim: My understanding the second time was that you were saying 2 to 700 and no more to 700 leaving the issue of the other allot- ments of the other 2 projects to be resolved. Jasmine: That was not my intention. I am really very perturbed by this. I really think that everyone seems to think that "Well, we are already so far over the edge, let's just slide all the way down the edge". These are not residences. These are, in fact, tourist accommodations or second homes. I think that we are being very short-sighted by saying "Well, yea let's not worry about it because we have got another 5 years to deal with this problem and we are getting all this money. Who knows what we are going to do with it? I am very much opposed to this. 20 PZM1.26.88 - Mari: I think that it is fallacious to think that because we are getting money for employee housing we should allow things that we would otherwise not allow because the reason why we are getting the money for the employee housing is to offset the impact. We are only offsetting a percentage of the impact and down the road several years. So I am not swayed by that argument at all. Roll call vote was: Jim Colombo, yes, Ramona Markalunas, yes, Mari Peyton, no, David White, yes, Jasmine Tygre, no, Welton Anderson, yes. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:35. c~rne{l!~ity Clerk 21