Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900327 ~.xU RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 27. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton, Compton arrived shortly after roll absent. Michael Graeme call. Herron, Roger Hunt Means and Richard Jasmine Tygre was COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS MOTION Roger: endorse like to staff has presented a resolution requesting City the amendment to the Transportation Element and add that to the agenda. I will so move. Council I would Michael: Can't we do it now? I move to adopt Resolution 90-3. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger: Requested a work session to review the transportation element as it exists, update it with respect to the Kaiser Down Valley Rail Commuter study and also the trolley study. MOTION Roger: review study. I move to have staff add to a work session agenda a of the transportation element, Kaiser study and trolley Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: Now that it is bicycle season who do we ask that the trucks not be parked on bicycle trails like they have been all winter along hwy 82 next to the Aspen Club entrance. Baker: I will contact Bill Efting who is still running Leisure Services and he is the guy who runs the trail systems. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Fred Gannett is here to talk to you about the enforcement issue which was brought up a month ago. Fred Gannett and Commission discussed the enforcement issue regarding violations of conditions of approval. PZM3.27.90 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. UTE TRAIL TOWNHOUSES FINAL PUD/REZONING PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation. The changes since you saw it last: In the proposal since you saw it last there were 4 free market units. That has been reduced to 3 free market units. They improved the pedestrian circulation. And the amount of the buildings that they are requiring a height variance above 25ft that amount has been reduced. There is not as much building area that requires height variance. The outstanding issues that we have flagged are--conceptually the applicant first said that they could not have any below grade living area because of drainage problems. They have modified that statement and are proposing some inhabitable living space below grade. Although they have submitted a drainage plan and there is a letter attesting to the fact that there can be some below grade living space. The Engineering Dept feels that there should be a stronger connection that the letter should directly address the drainage plan. That has been a condition of approval. The other issue is that they will be seeking a GMQS exemption for affordable housing before City Council. At that point in time we intend to have a full package of how many units will be low, mod, or middle. There are 7 deed restricted affordable units within the proposal. The last issue is the question of the additional 4ft that is needed to bring the road up to 20ft standard which is what is required for emergency access. Originally in the conceptual review we had just agreed on language saying that the 5ft side yard setback right at the entrance off of ute Ave that the applicants would agree to keep that unobstructed. They would not put in plantings in there so that you would then have your 20ft. In discussing things further with the Fire Dept and the Engineering Dept, they wanted to see that as a platted easement. We are still discussing this issue with these Depts and Bob Gish. There is a real question as to whose road is it really. The County claims no responsibility. The city claims no responsibility. In the 70'S the Ski Co said they would maintain the road so that the County took it off their County maintained 2 PZM3.27.90 road list. So the Council has asked us to address whose road is it and who maintains it. The other you have something question is do we actually need--can we have 20ft paved 20ft. If it is a private road that a little different than a public road. or do needs Michael: If it is determined that that extra footage needs to be done as an easement won't that affect the FAR calculations? Leslie: No. Existing easements affect the FAR. easements do not. Proposed Bill Lipsey, architect for applicant: Using model demonstrated to Commissioners layout of development. Compton: You are increasing the number of parking spaces substantially for the affordable housing. However with 13 bedrooms and the affordable housing area and 8 parking places it seems probable that you still have some overflow. And which would end up on the street. I am wondering how that fit in. Lipsey: I think the rationalization all along and supported by the Planning Office was that in light of the closeness of this project to downtown, that there would be fewer cars needed. DeVore: Whispering I think that we all did agree that the free market units didn't require as much parking because of their location. Mari: I had suggested if it was possible to add affordable parking spaces by taking away from the free market because my feeling is the free markets are going to be vacation houses and are less likely to need cars. Welton: The discussion was that along by reducing some of the parking internal to the free markwithet can reduce the overall size and the height and scale and bulk of those free market units. Has that happened? Lipsey: We just were not able to in reality make that work. It is difficult to take a car out of the back of a lower floor and turn that into habitable space that works with the floor plan. Welton: It wasn't to take a car out and turn it into habitable space. It was to take a car out and to reduce the whole size of that block. Lipsey: It is sort of the same thing. It just didn't work. 3 PZM3.27.90 Mari: Is there any free market parking that is not in the garage? Lipsey: It is all garaged. Those being second home owners there is a need for security. Compton: ute Ave is becoming busier and as another large project being proposed on the other end should be the same kind of mix in affordable and free so if that if the Engineering Dept decides they need to upgrade ute Ave and 2 or 3 cars from the Billings units are out on the street if that suddenly creates a conflict. DeVore: There are 20 people living on the property now and it is not deed restricted but it is affordable housing and we are increasing the parking (turned to whispering again) ?: We can all park there now. Michael: they? Lipsey: The peak of these skylights is 32ft. On this side that is about the same above what is called natural grade. When Dean came in here and the land was undisturbed, he scooped it out level all the way back from the street up to about the middle of the site in order to just have an easy platform to build his apartments on. So it is now 3ft or so below natural grade. So we are now using that lower point as natural grade. So that helps the project maintain a lower profile anyway. The buildings on the east and the west--how high are Bruce: You have reduced the number of free market units at the front of the site from 4 to 3. will the DeVore unit at the back be deed restricted to resident occupancy? Lipsey: Yes. Welton then opened the public hearing. Gene Alder, representative from Rick Neiley's office who represent the Black Swan Hall Homeowner's Association. Rick Neiley sent a letter last week asking that the Commission not approve the current submission in its present format because of the significant bulk that is presented by this application. Showing on the side of the Black Swan effectively a wall development. We appreciate the fact that it is a good product as far as employee housing but with respect to the joint land owners such as the Black Swan it cuts off their light and viewplain from their site. I would just like to ask the Commission to take a close look at Mr. Neiley' s point that he makes in his letter (attached in record) asking for the variances as far as the 4 PZM3.27.90 setback, height and the open space requirements. significantly affect the Black Swan homeowners. It does Tom Peckham, Vice President of the homeowner I s Association for the Ajax Condominiums: We have no objection to affordable housing in the neighborhood whatsoever. When _? _ 's proj ect went in right in front of us--I0ft away from my balcony door it cut off all of the view and all of the light. And what could we do about? I want to make a comment on the road) however. My understanding is you want to widen the road--Aspen Mountain Road. Does this mean you want to make it 20ft wide all of the way up the mountain to how far? Because we are right next door there and there is no room to put it. A 20ft wide road--it would stop effectively how many feet up the street. And I am afraid it would look like a thoroughfare. It would look like a continuation of Original Curve. In fact it is a little dirt road meandering up Aspen Mountain. So I would like some clarification on this. If, in fact, the city wants to take over and widen the whole thing and pave it and put curbs in that would be wonderful because we were going to be doing some of that work ourselves at our expense and we won't have to anymore if you, in fact, are going to do that. Jim Gibbard, Engineering Dept: We are still discussing this in the Engineering Dept. So far all we have discussed is the road up to the curve or along adjacent to the existing Billings property. We haven't addressed the upper part of the road at this point. But again this coming week we are going to consider some of these other options. Welton: The proposal as I understand it is more looking at the future rather than any discussion about widening the road today. And since the property line happens in the middle of the road, they are only required to have a certain amount of setback from that side yard property line which could mean that if they built to the legal limit of the code that the road could never be widened. And in one of the conditions it was put down in preliminary was that the building set back far enough that, should some time in the future, the road needed to be widened for the fire trucks that the built construction on this property would not encroach on the road. "-- Peckham: If you were going to be widening the road past the Billings property, you would be widening across the roof of our building. We are on the property line. 5 PZM3.27.90 Welton: I understand that. Peckham: I am concerned with the inconsistency of this thoroughfare-looking type of thing--a wide area looking into a little bottleneck as it goes up a dirt road on Aspen Mountain. Welton: The concern is just not to preclude future on this subject property that we tonight. any options in the are talking about Peckham: I would add that the Ajax Condominiums would be opposed to anything done to that road that we increase it's usage by people other than the residents on the road. The residents consisting of Ajax and the Billings project and the Aspen Alps. There are no other residences on that road and yet as you all know that is the access to Aspen Mountain and we get lots of Jeeps and motorcycles which, of course, are going to use it. But we would hate to see cars seeing this nice paved City street and they start going up and seeing that they can't negotiate the dirt road and they end up turning around and backing into our parking lot and clogging the thing up. So we would be opposed to any widening of Aspen Mountain Road. Pam Cunningham, General Manager Aspen Alps: At the City Council meeting the Board of Managers appointed me to say that in general concept they approved of the project. We did at that time go on record regarding the height and some of the setback questions. I have a Board meeting scheduled for Friday at which time we will present the information to them. But I feel they will be very impressed with the attempts to lower the height. Welton then read into the record a letter from Mary J. Gleason in favor of this project. (attached in record) Welton then gave a synopsis of the letter from Richard Neiley as follows: The PUD allowances for height and setback variations are not justified because they don't serve the purposes for which PUDs are designed which are greater design flexibility and clustering and increased open space in return for increased height. Gene Alder: That is in essence what the letter is and we appreciate how the applicant has softened the affect from the perspective of ute Ave but they haven't really done much as far as changing it with respect of the adjoining owners such as the Black Swan. 6 ., PZM3.27.90 Welton: The 2 portions of the Black Swan as shown on this model- - are their views up the mountain--how is this development affecting their view, their sunlight, exposure to views and all? Lipsey: When we went out there and looked at the situation, there is a stand of existing Cottonwood trees and Aspen trees that is so thick that even in the winter time it is very difficult to see the facade of Black Swan. So you can imagine how bushy and dense this gets in the summer time when the foliage comes into bloom. So it is hard for us to understand when with that kind of beautiful stand of Cottonwoods 60ft high some of them, they could see anything here anyway even if it was open space. The end wall of the closest Black Swan unit has 3 or 4 very small bathroom type windows that seem to have the shades closed all the time so it is not as if they are looking at this facade of the Billings place. I would also add to that that this facade of Billings Place is not much larger than the existing facade of Billings development--the back unit which is there now. So this cluster doesn't represent much of a change at all to what they are now experiencing. If they are objecting to the massing of these buildings I guess my response is that the trees hide it anyway. In their letter it suggested that we weren't paying any attention to maintaining some trees that are nearby or on our property. None of these trees are on the Billings property and therefore none of these trees that are forming a protective visual barrier are going to be lost. They are all going to remain in tact. They are not our trees and we have no plans to remove any of them. Jerry Sullivan: I live next door. All of these trees exist from here there is only a couple of windows and these are all set back. So these people are looking at the park and over Red Mountain. So none of their view is blocked. DeVore: We have proper setbacks on the Black Swan side. Welton: Where you have encroachments in the rear, that is along a steep bank that is not developable and won't be developed. Lipsey: (using model) There is one encroachment here and then there is these two corners of this cluster that is encroached on this property line a couple of feet on the side yard setback but not on the property line. And then the side yard setback of 5ft is not encroached upon at all on the Black Swan side. ....- 7 PZM3.27.90 DeVore: concerning the whispering the person that--Mr. Mitchell who owns that property he received a letter from his agent, Chuck Vidall who says Mr. Mitchell has no objections at all to the encroachment nor to the height. Welton asked for further public comments. There were none and he closed the public hearing. Welton: One of your neighbors up the hill thought it was too wide. I think it is too narrow. That is the private road. In spending time up there today the 777 Ute--that has its building wall right to the edge of the pavement of the common that it shares with the Aspen Alps. It is a very un-Aspen-like way for a building to meet the ground without any kind of provision for pedestrians. They are very close to another building and barely enough space for a vehicle--sort of like the French Quarter of New Orleans where things are terribly packed together. I hate to see ute Ave take on the look of the French Quarter. My feeling is that your free market townhouse the western most is just too close to the absolute maximum line it can possibly go to. It needs a little bit of relief. If for some reason the City or whoever does improve that road going up that it is not just pavement from the 2 and 1/2 story wall of your western most unit with no provision for pedestrians or landscaping or anything to soften it. So my reaction is that that still needs to be pulled back a little bit to provide a softening influence. My second reaction in looking at it in more with the elevations and in a model that it perhaps is too urban. Again I am only talking about the free market units on ute Avenue. with 2 and l/2 story facades it looks like masonry construction. Lipsey: It will be l/3rd masonry and 2/3rd dark green wood shingles. The masonry is mostly base with a few vertical bands here and there. Using the model Lipsey described the masonry, shingles and landscaping of the development. We feel the landscaping should be a continuation of a massive amount of Spruce tree planting which is occurring in the pedestrian mall by the Alps and a kind of wild scattering of Cottonwood trees along Ute Ave. ,---' Welton: The shingles I think are a real positive departure from what I read in the elevations as being a 3 story masonry, very townhouse type of packed side by side New York type of thing. 8 PZM3.27.90 I still think that the angled elevation needs to be pulled back a little bit on the Aspen Mountain Road if for no other reason than that .other 777 ute was probably built as close as it could possibly be built too. And that sort of thing is just putting people too close together. Lipsey: Our problem there is we started out thinking that we only had to accommodate 6 feet of potential road and as the issue of another 4 feet has come up so that cuts into the 5 feet that we had for some planting here. And the other problem is that because of the very odd-ball shape of this site tapering in very quickly--it is almost a triangle slicing off this corner. In order to even get 2 cars into this unit, we have to hold this point right here in order to have the width to come around and park 2 cars in that garage. Welton: Even so if you just kept it at right angles right here and then set it back to keep the width of the garage doors that not interfere with your parking. Parking is never a good excuse for something as important as how it relates to the neighborhood and environment. Just another couple of feet or something as soft as a landscape material that would take up this entire 5 feet plus maybe another foot or two that would not be a landscape material that could be transplanted easily or that is not a significant price-wise that couldn't be torn up or moved around if the road is ever widened. Roger: My concern is about the road and the idea of putting in a 20ft roadway up there. To put a 20ft roadway sure enough what you are going to have is parking along that roadway and that is exactly why the Fire Dept wants a 20ft roadway is so if there is parking, they can get around it. So if you have a narrower roadway, no one will park there so you satisfy the needs of the Fire Dept because it will be free access. I really don't support the idea of eventually going to a 20ft road because I don't think that justifies it. It is more of a driveway type of thing that we want in that area and not a road. There should be 20ft free and clear in case they have to go off what is now the roadway to get around something. I don't like the idea of being dictated to by the UBC because they say a fire engine can't drive on a road less than 20ft wide. Leslie: That is the standard. - Gibbard: I think what the Fire Dept is really concerned about is the density that exists there with the 777 ute, Ajax Condominiums up the road and then further up the road is the Alps. The Fire Dept has had trucks all of the way up that road--even the narrow 9 PZM3.27.90 part. But if there is a major fire there there is going to be very serious problems. with the present traffic control staff that we have now there is no way we can place "No Parking" signs in that area and have it adequately enforced. Roger: Part of the way of enforcing parking patterns is not to have any space for parking. In other words if there is a l2ft road which is what is there now, no one parks on it because there is no space to park on it. So therefore, there is fire access. You put a 20ft road up there someone is going to park on it. Jay Hammond, with Schmeusser, Gordon and Meyer: I am working with the DeVores on this project. In the sections of the UFC that the Fire Inspector references in his letter on this issue he references 2 sections. One section regards width and it talks about unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20ft. It goes on in a separate section that talks about surface. We have worked in the past on things where the point is that you don't want to have a vertical obstruction, a landscape feature, a sign that would obstruct the 20ft width. It doesn't necessarily mean that your surface has to be 20ft wide. I know the DeVore's concern and the concern of the proj ect is very much bringing pavement close to the structure. I would simply suggest that we would like to continue the thought about some form of paving or something where we might maintain a 20ft unobstructed width but not necessarily paving for that width. Roger: I agree with that. Jay: I think that the visual appearance of a narrower roadway-- now if it were signed and the signs are at a 20ft spacing but the pavement is narrower the combination would discourage parking. Welton asked Lipsey if he had any problem with any of the conditions of approval. Lipsey: I think that the one that is still unclear--we can't resolve until there is more discussion within the City and the County and the Fire Marshal about the road. Welton: And also to use low landscaping and no boulders or anything that would interfere with the turning and the tail end movements of the fire trucks going around that curve. Lipsey: If we can get the road to the scale that Roger has described, I think that that really makes a lot of sense. It gives the Fire Dept what they want and it gives the neighbors the scale that they want. And gives us the breathing space we would like. lO PZM3.27.90 Welton: Do you have any problem with #2 which is the 4ft easement which you can landscape any way you want to landscape. But it just insures that nothing of a permanent nature is built within lOft of the property line which happens to happen in the center of the road. Lipsey: We do have a problem with that easement because it is described in the letter as being a future easement which the City cannot exercise an option on. That could be a month, 2 months a year or lO years. We don't know but at some point if it did put a curve 1ft away from the west wall of the building that is not a good situation and we would rather have a solution that prevents or clarifies that and prevents it from happening at some time down the road. Welton: I think if you make an intelligent argument like you just did at the time that that easement is to be exercised then it may not ever be exercised which is what Roger and I think is appropriate. DeVore: We agreed to leave the side yard setback with low growth and with grass, flowers, bushes that can be removed and that can be a permanent agreement and that ensures that there won't be that sort of building road that it will always be that 5ft that can be used for emergency vehicles. Welton: This is shown as 11ft. Are you suggesting that it stay as 11ft as it is shown on the site plan? Lipsey: It will be 10ft from the center of the road towards the 777 ute project plus 6ft from the center of the road towards the ute Trail project for a total of 16ft. DeVore: We have already given 6ft. We have right now from our border to the building, we have 11ft across. Lipsey: That means that there would be a road as it stands now with the present easement of 15ft which is far more than enough for 2 cars to pass and nobody to park and the fire vehicle to have l6ft to access this project or other projects up the road where the road immediately necks down to about 10ft anyway. It seems that this is a real common sense thing and will work in terms of safety and maybe work better than allowing cars to park there and have the 20ft and allow more breathing space between the road and the edge of the building. ''''- Graeme: I agree. I don't think anybody wants to see that thing paved 20ft across and there are a lot of reasons for that. And what is in some ways disappointing is that the Fire Marshal in 11 PZM3.27.90 his letter refers to 2 sections in the code but he is not giving us any solid reasons except coming up with a couple of code numbers as to why the plan that they are suggesting wouldn't work. So I suggest we change #2 to such that it would state that the applicants would keep that 5ft section free of any encumbrances above 6 inches above the grade or whatever the Fire Marshal would feel comfortable with. Gibbard: There is another issue which is who is responsible for this whole road. Right now I don't think anybody really wants to claim it as a private road. The City at this point hasn't made a decision as to whether we are going to claim it. If in the future we have to take this road in as public ROWand maintain it plow it--I guess right now Aspen Alps is removing snow from this road--if the City has to bring this in as a public ROW we would request that this road be 20ft wide all the way up. Right now there is no way we can do it. Michael: I was just going to argue against what Graeme said until I just heard that. And now I like it. If the City is going to go out and make it 20ft, let's make it tough on them. That makes no sense at all to do that. To make it 20ft just to make it 20ft because there is a code section and do something like that that is only going to encourage people driving up there. I mean the snow plow can go up 12ft. Gibbard: These are standards. setting with the Streets Dept. These are policies that we are Michael: I understand that there are standards. But you are taking a standard and you are applying it universally and there are some places where it doesn't apply and I that this is probably an absolute spot where it absolutely doesn't apply. MOTION Michael: I make a motion to approve the PUD with #2 modified in the fashion that Graeme described that there just be no planting there but an easement not be appropriated from these people. I have one other change to #7. #7 says that the water diversion is not recommended. I would like to make it a little stronger and say that the water diversion is prohibited. #2 then is not that an easement is appropriated from the applicant but that that 5ft strip is--that there is a prohibition against anything in that 5ft strip other than low plantings. Lipsey: Would you amplify your reason relocate the water channel--the alignment. the water if you did it--it appears to be for not wanting to We are still taking difficult to do that l2 PZM3.27.90 from an engineering point of view. We are not taking water that would be going to Glory Hole Park and putting it somewhere else. We are just taking it over to Glory Hole Park a little bit further down ute Avenue. We weren't going to send it elsewhere. Michael: The reason I made that motion is based on the referral comment from the Parks Dept. Lipsey: Their comment was based on that if a line was to be connected below the surface from some point over here over to the ponds it would interfere with some of the irrigation pipes that are in place. Leslie: The Parks Dept point is that where the Durant water channel leaves your property and goes across the street into Glory Hole Park should be an intake. It should not be moved. And also that with the vegetation on the other side that relies on the water channel it may change the vegetation. Jody Edwards, representing the applicant: I would like to suggest on #2 that you strike the words "A 4ft easement for future expansion" and just insert the words "covenant that applicant shall not obstruct above 6 inches a 4ft strip next to the road on " Michael: That is what we did. That was the motion. Jody: Also on #11 I have been talking with the Housing Authority and they provided me with several deed restrictions and the way we would like to work it with them is we agree with the city in our PUD subdivision agreement that sale of those units will be only to persons who agree to execute the deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority instead of we the applicant personally does the deed restriction part issuance of the building permit as it states in the letter. That would just be a slight logistical change to #11. Leslie: May I ask why you are doing it that way? Jody: That is the way they have always done it. they told me. That is what Leslie: This language is the way we have always done it. Jody: They gave me an example of several deed restrictions and the past deed restrictions were "I, Joe Blow have purchased X unit and I hereby deed restrict it to middle income in perpetuity". And it is about lO pages long. '.".,~,,, 13 PZM3.27.90 Michael: That makes no sense, Jody. The developer is the one who should put the deed restriction on so that anybody buying it buys it subject to that restriction and it is there forever. Roger: There is a word missing in #ll. followed by "have". "Shall" should be Motion was seconded by Graeme. Mari: I want to know if there is any more support for Welton's idea of shaving down that angle on the western most facade because I support that too. Graeme: I think you have a constrained and odd shaped lot and your trying to put a lot on it. I can appreciate the difficul ties of trying to get everything on there and I don't look on that as a major thoroughfare. And sure it would be nice to take some off but I think it would go on somewhere else and impact parking or something else. So it is hard to know where to shove it. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. MOTION Roger: I make a motion to approve the parking reduction for the ute Trail Townhouses for the affordable housing portion. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Welton: I will entertain a motion to include in the first motion the recommendation for rezoning. Roger: I will so move. I would clarify that it was a motion for rezoning, final PUD and subdivision. Compton seconded the motion with all in favor. GUIDO'S SWISS INN GMOS EXEMPTION AND CHANGE IN USE Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in -, ?, representative from Bill Poss, Architects: Right now at the second level of the restaurant building is that large deck. We are expanding the second level with this addition right here. You can see it is lower than the existing roof and tucks in l4 PZM3.27.90 underneath that. level only. At presently exist. The connection between the 2 buildings is new. This portion right here contains stair and elevator which are going to be required by the building codes. And a connection between the 2 buildings so both buildings will have service to both the stairway and the elevator. So this is new square footage at the second the first level this square footage does The last addition is there is about a 3ft addition onto the back of the building to accommodate extra square footage at the lower level of the existing building. Graeme: Is that additional square footage on the second floor only on the back? ?: No. Actually it is only on the first overhanging. There are lodge rooms down there light well. Basically what we are doing is light well. floor and it is which open onto a covering up that There is a greenhouse kind of thing that was added on after the building was built--a kind of enclosed portion on the deck. We are going to rebuild that so the whole building has more of a consistent character. Roger: The addition on the old Guido's Restaurant--or this new addition is basically over existing balcony? ?: There is a very large deck up there and we are just filling up that deck. Roger: here. And you are not changing in effect this open space area ?: No. That was just done last summer and it is going to stay just like it is. It will be used as patio dining in the summer. Joe Wells: Fortunately we had an old map which has all the building heights in the area on it. The 2 viewplains of concern- -this is the Wheeler viewplain which is a very flat viewplain that extends to this angle and then extends all across the City frontage and it is a very flat viewplain. The second one is the Park viewplain which starts under the goal posts and is fairly narrow and extends really impacting only over the rear portion of the commercial building itself. -- 15 PZM3.27.90 (Using photograph) the existing condition from the Wagner viewplain you can see Guido"s white building in the distance you can see Independence still higher in the viewplain beyond. What I was able to determine was that these are the additions that we are proposing. Obviously with regard to Wagner Park only the additions to the rear of the commercial building could be impacted. The roof of that expansion will be at elevation 4l. The viewplain as it starts over the commercial building is at 44.2 and extending upward to 49.2. I feel comfortable that we are not in the Wagner viewplain. Secondly even if we were in the Wagner viewplain, you previously approved a penetration into the viewplain over the McDonough space for Mari to have a place to live of some 3.5ft. So effectively that block is an expansion that is already penetrated viewplain. So the Wagner viewplain issue is not an issue. The Wheeler is very flat and covers the entire site. So it is interesting to note that the elevator tower theoretically penetrates the viewplain by 2. 7ft. However you note on these photographs, there is significant blockage of the viewplain in the foreground. Again, a few years ago you approved a penetration of 14.3ft into the Wheeler viewplain probably because there is afire wall on this building that penetrates by 16.1ft running the entire length of that building. Effectively the entire portion of the viewplain is blocked. The highest point of our building is the roof of the restaurant and it can't be seen. Welton: Is anybody not satisfied that the viewplain is not encumbered by this or being encroached upon. Joe: There is presently an elevator tower in this area that is 8ft higher than the roof. That is eliminated. This replacement elevator is only 2.5ft so to some extent we are lessening. Welton: issue. Does anybody still think the viewplain is still an There was no answer. Welton: Then that issue is resolved. 16 PZM3.27.90 Joe: We do have a problem with the trash issue because this is a unique of the building and doesn I t extend clearly to the property owner. We would suggest that if it would resolve this 1ssue we would be happy to commit to moving the dumpsters to the alley so that they can be picked up by BFI. We all have a problem with the notion that there is not an urban design situation when you are talking about public park next door to just building a trash building out here on the alley. The only alternative we would have is to build a separate structure out here and we would really like to deal with this issue by just committing to bringing the dumpsters to the alley ourselves on the days of pickup. The notion of putting trash out here on the alley and what has become since Rubey Park has been rebuilt a very public space. It doesn't seem to be the best urban design decision we could make. Roger: I agree. Especially since those buildings have been set back from the alley for a long time and now that Rubey Park has developed to be not only a transportation center but more of an open park area. I think it would be a shame to require them to put a trash building on the alley for the convenience of BFI. You said it required 28ft on the alley for trash. I say in this case let's if they have the total square footage let's look at how do we accommodate BFI and if the applicant are the ones who have to wheel up the dumpsters or BFI has to roll them out themselves and I am not concerned because that is paved space where the dumpsters can be rolled. The problem is those residents down the alley may not want to hear the dumpsters being rolled. ?: That space is going to have snowmelt under all the pavement out there out to the alley. Mari: The other thing I am worried about is if the trash is going to be rolled when the truck comes or be rolled out there and left standing until the truck comes. ?: I think we try and talk with BFI and maybe they will charge us more but they would roll them out. That would be the best solution. I think we can work that out with BFI. We are going to bring that area all up to grade, pour a retaining wall in there so the dumpsters will be up to alley grade. Joe: The dimensional issues notwithstanding if there is such a thing as non-conforming open space--I have always had this problem when the city uses one interpretation for an existing condition, obviously when if we were proposing this as open space 17 PZM3.27.90 it would not be accepted. So I think it needs to be on an across the board interpretation. But at the present time the 2 trash dumpsters on the site is presently collected by BFI coming in off the mall and bringing the dumpster out to the mall. That seems to me to suggest this area is not open space because a trash service area cannot be defined as open space. That is really the crux of the issue. Obviously if this corridor is open space then we are blocking that open space from view from the street which is the only way you can count it as open space. So we would have to pay cash-in-lieu for any portion of this corridor which is considered open space because it is going to be blocked from view from this point on to the south. It is probably going to be $50,000 or $60,000 at a minimum. Roger: And you are not getting any credit for open space at the Rubey Park side? Joe: No. Because that is not open to view from the street. Roger: Galena are on well, it is Avenue Mall. a corner. open to view from the street and that is the This happens to be a unique site because you Joe: We were hoping that we were going to be able to count this area. This is where the parking begins so it doesn't count. Michael: If this was new construction on the Mall, you wouldn't have to provide any open space. Joe: There is still a 25% open space requirement. Welton: So the question in essence is that alleyway between the 2 buildings--are we substantially reducing an open space amenity to the community by allowing this connecter link and the elevator to be built in that effectively reducing could potentially be open space? ?: My answer is "No". Welton: My answer is no--that they open space that is most effective is the open that is now used for outside dining ont he north side in the summer time that will continue and part of the front quarter of that space between the 2 buildings I have always been afraid of getting something thrown at me if I walk between those 2 buildings. Does anybody feel strongly like there is an open space issue. 18 PZM3.27.90 Mari: I think the only recommendation we can make is that if city Council rules that it is open space, we would recommend cash-in-lieu. Gideon: The problem I have with that interpretation is that I don't see why P&Z cannot make a determination that what is in clear letters in the code. If we came in front of you and we wanted this to be opens pace we would be told that it doesn't qualify for open space. I don't see how you can have two standards--one for new and one for old. This doesn't meet the requirements for opens space and therefore it is not open space. Another think is we were asked to keep this building. The have given up a lot of expansion capability by keeping the A frame, by keeping the character and all they are asking for in return is an interpretation that it is not open space. It is a big issue because it is $50,000. They are also giving up over 4,000sqft of additional FAR. So I think that is the kind of thing that you can take into account when you make a finding as to whether this is open space. Roger: We can certainly recommend to City Council that we think that that should not be counted as open space. And just let it go at that. Baker: You are not making a decision that is yours to make. So we have to go to Council with this and we can certainly indicate what your finding is. But we as a Planning Office have to go to Council. Graeme: I think the applicant has a good case. And I also think that the design solution does differentiate between the 2 buildings enough to make the distinction that needs to be there. So I would recommend that we take a stand on it. MOTION Roger: I would move to recommend to city Council after the presentation of the applicant concerning the connecter between the buildings that we find that that portion of the connecter that was in what used to be sort of an alley does not fit our vision of open space or usable open space. And therefore we recommend that no fees be charged for the use of it or whatever words. ',_,e Michael: I would like to add that we recommend to the Planning Office reconsider it's position and not make a decision in a vacuum. And make a decision based upon all the relevant factors 19 PZM3.27.90 to this particular proposal and maybe we can avoid making the applicant go to the City Council. Roger: I would amend my motion to include that. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger: I want one thing clarified for the record. I was benefit of going before HPC but I want you to affirm on the motion that you have taken care of the ice fall problems as a result of the roof over the mall. ?: As I mentioned to HPC with metal roof ice and snow problem-- will hold the snow on the roof and keep it from sliding off with snow stops. And then we will also have heat strips and gutters to control this. Welton: One thing I want to get clarified is all this shuffling around of dwelling units and dormitory spaces and de facto housing and how you can end up with turning that into a restaurant turning the restaurant into retail space and have a net loss in net leasable space--I am assuming you are counting the bakery space as commercial net leasable retail space and by converting it into storage it is no longer net leasable space. It becomes regular space. Joe: Historically kitchens have always been considered part of the net leasable space. Another part of it is the lodge rooms and the basement of the commercial building that are being eliminated for more storage. And there is a tremendous amount of increased circulation in the building to meet code requirements that aren't presently met. Welton: It just seems to me that--I am working with a client to try to put some employee housing on the roof of the Aspen Sports Building. I am working with the same person to put employee housing on the roof of the Sportstalker building. Why would anybody in this day and age want to take employee housing whether it is restricted or whatever from it is in with the situation of trying to get qualified employees that need housing--why would you play the numbers game and cut out space for employees and staff? It makes pure economic sense to cut it out and get the maximum amount of retail that you can out of it. But from a long range point of view it doesn't make any sense. Richard: How are the lodge rooms being presently used? Joe: Short term rentals. 20 PZM3.27.90 Richard: And the dorm rooms? Joe: Employee housing. Richard: And the apartments? Joe: Short term rental and 2 are resident occupied. Richard: You are reducing your need for employee housing by removing employee housing is what it comes down to. Gideon: You can still get 6 employees in the dorm rooms. So there is not an overall reduction in the amount of people that can actually live there. Welton: But there are 7 dorm rooms on the second floor of the existing restaurant. Gideon: There are 7 dorm rooms and there are going to be 3. But you can have 6 people living in the 3 rooms so you have a net reduction of 1 person. ?: The dorm rooms that are up there now are very small. The 3 dorm rooms we are putting in now will house 2 people where as presently they only house 1 person per room. We are reducing the amount of employees we are housing by 1 employee. Richard: And increasing the retail space by about 2,000sqft. I have a real problem with the way it is calculated. It is calculated--it does not address the issue of employee housing. Baker: We looked at it from a number of angles. We looked at it from mumble and the fact that those dorm rooms are not considered dwelling units the way the code reads and allow them not to be included as something that under Ord #1 for multi- family. And in terms of the calculations, my recollection is that they are correct but I would like to review them again if you have concerns. What I would also recommend is that because there was information that came to P&Z tonight I would like to come back to you with a list of conditions of approval. Joe: We filed this application on Jan 22. Last Thursday morning I got a call questioning the trash, questioning the viewplain issue. That is very difficult for all of us to have things on file for 2 months and then at the 11th hour be notified by staff that in their view there are some problems. I would much prefer to resolve these problems with staff. 21 PZM3.27.90 Welton: I am going to vote against any motion to approve this simply because from the unconscionable move of, to my mind, of playing a numbers game of this nature to generate additional and retail space by shuffling this over there and that over there displacing de facto employee housing in the process and calling something that is in fact leasable--calling it storage so it doesn't count as leasable--but from the standpoint of loss of housing which I don't think is in the community's best interest. Michael: We don't have a code that addresses the--If something comes before us that we are going to turn around and create a set of standards for them to have to live up to that aren't in the code--that is illegal. That is unconscionable moreso than what you are accusing them of doing. The code doesn't say that you have to consider defacto. How can you make applicants come up and start to address code provisions that don't exist because you think they should exist any moreso than turning around and saying that you think the building should be all employee housing. That is not what the code says. That is the only standard that you can ask them to address is what the code is--not something that we would like it to be. MOTION Roger: I move to table this application to meeting of April 3, 1990. The reason being is it will give time for staff to come up with a reasonable list of conditions which I would expect when it gets back to us we can move on to approval. What we have to realize is that someone has decided that this is a historic structure and valuable to retain. There are some tradeoffs in retaining that structure and maybe this is one of the tradeoffs. So what I am hoping is that when the Planning Dept comes back with the new conditions are to come back to us with a recommendation those things can be taken into consideration. Guido: We at one time were converting almost the entire second floor of the existing building to employee housing and adding a third floor to the building and that was destroyed in HPC level. And this is our second attempt to do something. It is greatly scaled down from what it was and everything is greatly scaled down including the employee housing. ?: The other thing is we are trying to save the restaurant. It has been here a long time. We would like to continue it on but economically we can't keep it on the first floor. That is the way things are going in Aspen. I have lived here a long time. We are still trying to keep this a family operated business. '<'4.""0-' 22 PZM3.27.90 Richard then seconded the motion. Welton: In reviewing this I didn't find enough history and generally with a Planning Office memo we are given all of the information that is available as to the whys and wherefore of how all of this has come about. How it has evolved through HPC and through the P&Z process. I would be in favor of tabling it so that a compelling case--a more convincing case--a more reasonable case can be made to convince me that I am on solid footing when I say "OK, it is fine to give them the 7 dormitories and replace them with 3 dormitories because the scale of the operation is significantly different". For whatever reasons are applicable. Right now there is housing on the lower level. On that window well. There is housing on the upper level. And we are just contributing whether it is deed restricted or for whatever definition it fits into. We are just chipping away at another area where people are being housed on a long term at local level and there has got to be a real good reason for me to say "Yes". Richard: My perspective on that housing issue is that because of the reduction in the net leasable space which includes the dorm rooms, is reducing the need for employees. That just based on numbers on net leasable space, sure but I would like to have something that shows what in fact is going on in employee-- how many employees are needed for the present restaurant and retail space, how many will be needed for expansion and then we can go from there. I am not saying you should get rid if the retail space and put back in housing. That is not my approach. But I just want to see how many in the most realistic terms how many employees are going to be generated above or below the present level and we will deal with that number in whatever way is appropriate. Michael: I would ask Roger to make one amendment to his motion and that is that these conditions come back to us next week so that the applicant isn't delayed any more. Roger: I am perfectly happy with that. Richard amended his second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Regular session of the meeting was then adjourned. Time was 7:05pm. Members then continued with the work session on Cottage -- L Janice 23