Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900403 ~.!{u ,c,." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 3. 1990 vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Welton Anderson was excused. Richard Compton, Bruce Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Michael: It's time we approve the housing out at the Gol f Course. We had extensive discussions over whether there should be a light installed as a requirement. I don't think there is anything we can do about it but I saw in the paper that the buses are not going to turn in there and I know that was one of the reasons we let it go without a light was the idea that the bus would turn in there so people wouldn't be playing Russian Roulette crossing the highway. Now it looks like that is going to be the problem. I don't know what the Planning Office can do about getting a light at that spot but I think if it wasn't warranted before it is certainly warranted now. Jasmine: I agree with you. I think this is one of the things commission was very concerned about was that crossing and what was going to happen was that people would take their cars because they would be afraid to cross the road to get the bus. Michael: I know the project didn't have the money for a light. They liked the idea of having a light but there wasn't enough funds for a light. And I think P&Z kind of backed off of suggesting it as a condition because there was some kind of a representation made and I think RFTA even came here. Mari: Well, yes but the representation was that they had no control over that. And that that was the State Highway Dept. Michael: I think RFTA came in and said the buses were going to turn into there. Roger: Or that they were going to have their own van or something like that. Another point is when it gets 4 laned in that area we very definitely have to solve this problem. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS None PZM4.3.90 MINUTES FEBRUARY 20 AND MARCH 20. 1990 Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 200 SOUTH MONARCH LILY REID/BERKO PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Mari Peyton: The benefits would be transferable to the rest of the site or-- "\ Roxanne: No. We don't have that provision in the code yet and that was something that we were trying to develop. In thinking that if we designated 1/3 of the parcel then we could transfer 1/3 of the benefits to the rest of the entire proposal. That is something that we were thinking of doing. The code right now does not allow that. But that is certainly an option that could be considered. Richard: That kind of an arrangement would seem reasonable for this kind of a design problem. Whereas now it seems to be applicable to the cottage and the open space rather than 1/3 of the development. Roger: I am very much favor of the relocation of this historic structure under these circumstances because it brings it out into a beautiful prominent place where right now the potential it is just stuck between 2 great big buildings. I like this solution for this entire site. My reservation is putting an historic designation on the entire site and I guess the question is specifically what does that historic designation give them on the entire site that we can't accomplish some other way. Roxanne: Timing--that they can submit a proposal at any time. They are exempt from growth management. And that they may be able to receive the variations and incentives that are allowed under designation--like parking. Roger: We can't address parking under any other mechanism other ",/", """".... 2 PZM4.3.90 than PUD? Roxanne: A PUD. Yes. Jasmine: But PUD wouldn't give them the growth management exemption. Roxanne: That's correct. Roger: This new structure--is there any more net leasable floor area than there was in the old structures? Roxanne: Yes, there is. Roger: Is there a way of transferring what would be development rights in the historically designated area to the other structure? without historic overlay or the historic designation. Roxanne: The code right now is not set up to allow for any kind of a transfer and I am certainly interested in seeing that take place. -- Roger: That seems to me the kind of mechanism we need for something like this. Michael: I am not real comfortable substituting our judgement for something that is HPC's purview of something that they have already decided on. I would assume that since this is really their area and they have felt comfortable with that I . am not comfortable not following that recommendation. I would assume by virtue of having to maintain this structure on the property that the owner of the entire parcel is losing a lot of available FAR that would be available should that structure not be there. Is that correct? Roxanne: Very possibly. They are providing more open space than the code requires. Michael: We are imposing on the owner of the property a community concern to maintain and preserve something that we feel is a historic structure. I know that this has been a long drawn out process and if we are going to exact something it certainly makes me feel better to exact something we give them something back. I just don't see what is wrong with going along with giving the whole structure historic overlay to accomplish this. ~",." If the community had not rallied against that prior HPC approval then we might be seeing a totally different project sitting there. But they have responded somehow whether it is by virtue - 3 PZM4.3.90 of voluntary or involuntary to that community pressure to have come with the design that they have come up with now. And I think there is probably a great benefit to the community by virtue of this building sitting on the corner. Mari: Is there an analysis that you can give us comparing what kind of FAR would be allowed without the house being there compared to what they would be getting with the entire site designated? Gideon Kaufman, representative for applicant: The city code states that any structure or site that meets one of more of the designation standards may be designated historic. We feel, and the HPC strongly agreed with us, that not only the Lily Reid house but lots A, Band C, all 9,OOOsqft should be designated under the criteria that is contained in the code. Specifically the applicant and the HPC agreed that we met 2 standards--community as well as neighborhood character justifying the finding for historic designation for all 3 lots. The standard has nothing to do with new construction or non- historic existing buildings but deals with the whole site as a location for the Lily Reid house. - In the Planning Office memo they say the word "site" means land immediately associated with historic structure. But I would argue that that is not what the code says or reads. The code specifically says "One or more parcels with one or more structures". The Lily Reid house sat on a 5-lot parcel when it had its historic residential character including Lots A, Band C. When Hod Nicholson owned the property for over 3 decades all 3 lots were under one ownership. Now that Larry Brooks owns the property, again all 3 lots are under one ownership. The property was specifically purchased to reunite the 3 parcels and to create this opportunity to preserve the Lily Reid house. Parry read 3 quotes from architects on HPC in favor of this project. Larry Yaw, architect for the applicant: Our design issue was set up on this parcel to create a site plan that placed the Lily Reid cottage while at the same time creating a new and compatible commercial building around the site. He then went a detailed presentation as to how the present plan came into being. The solution was to relocate the Lily Reid cottage into this - 4 PZM4.3.90 corner and to internalize the building at this part of the site. That puts it out into clearly a pedestrian space and surrounds it with grass and now the building can be seen completely renovated and in 4 dimensions and can be walked all around. This is a pedestrian plaza. In terms of the zone transition there are 2 things that this project helps. As we begin to identify this victorian with the one across the street we have created a gateway and part of the scale transition between the more residential scale here and the more residential scale or core scale here. Because we have had to use the whole site to create this solution we are asking that you consider giving landmark designation to the whole setting. To give this the soft setting background it should have we have stepped the building back which lets more sun in and also gives a much quieter background to the building. The HPC was enthusiastically behind us and we hope you are too. Gideon: The purpose of designation and exemption encourage creative preservation and restoration. only opportunity in downtown for the preeminence and of an existing building. We need the GMP exemption site to make it work. from GMP is to This is the preservation on the whole Jasmine: I think that judging from the remarks from other members of the Commission everybody is enthusiastic about the approach that you have taken and the results in terms of the physical appearance of the plan and the preservation of the house and giving it a more conspicuous location on the site. I don't think there is any problem anybody has with the design solution you have adopted. Our basic concerns which the Planning Office has enumerated have to do with what happens to other sites who may not come up with quite as sensitive or appropriate a plan what our goals should be is to find the appropriate solution to allow you to go ahead with the plan that everybody likes without causing problems for ourselves further down the road. Walt Nixon: I am here with my wife, Donna Norquist. We are proprietors of Uriah Heeps and we think that as an existing building that just can't be torn down. We are completely in favor of this and while it would inconvenience us for a couple of years we feel like it would be in the best interest of the community. .",~..,.. - 5 PZM4.3.90 Bill Poss, Chairman of HPC: I am here to show our support for this project and its designation. I am also here on behalf of myself as a public citizen to say that I am in support of this because it shows that we are interested in making and showing precedent for a good design solution. I think it is a good design solution. It was within the HPC's power to grant that and to show that the whole site was important to this designation and to get this design solution. I think it is an excellent design solution and I think we should .be behind it to show that we are willing to take those steps. Larry Brooks, owner of the project: I have mixed emotions that I feel I need to get across. Before I bought what was at the time the Berko next door I tried to come up with a solution by going to as many public officials as I could. I asked for feedback on what they thought was appropriate use and an appropriate way to deal with the buildings. Far and away everyone's solution was to make it a jewel. But it would foolish for me to have gone ahead and purchased the property not knowing what type of response I was going to get out of the system. Now I am coming out of HPC who virtually gave us in an hour and a half of praise from every member there including Les Holst who said he was in favor of the project even though he was the only dissenting vote. Now I am confused that we are here after a hundred plus applicants before me have been approved by HPC and ratified by your Council and wondering why we would be the precedent that you set in reverse and not ratify us when everyone is in agreement that it is a wonderful project for the house and the City. It is virtually with due respect staff opinion, which is one person's opinion, that the house should maintain 1/3rd of its designation and then there was a comment over here that when it was moved to the corner then does that mean all the open space would be designated area? I don't understand how HPC could say it would be the whole thing and we can expand and contract it to whatever is convenient for us. I am confused as to how 4 people can be in favor of it and 1 can be against and why you would side with that 1. Chuck Vicenti: I own A-1 Maintenance and do commercial cleaning for many of the buildings downtown. Very basically it is just a really pretty project. So I am speaking for people who are downtown a lot and I think that the corner if anyone drove by and looked at it and looked at the proposal there-- why would any of us not want that? It just seems like the right thing to do. "'- 6 PZM4.3.90 Walt Nixon: I was also concerned that if it is not approved as has been proposed then perhaps it would drive the rent up so much that we wouldn't be able to stay in there even if the proj ect were completed. Jasmine: One of the points that Gideon made about the entire site having been historically part of the Lily Reid house-- Roxanne: When the structure was first built in 1885 apparently it had had 5 lots with it. The 1893 map indicates that it was built then. There was a hotel in fact on the site where the cleaners building is. It couldn't have been for more than 3 years that it had its 5 original lots that went along with it. Jasmine: It would just seem to me that there is in that case a historic justification for the entire parcel which would I think make--it certainly makes me feel more comfortable because I share a lot of concerns that the Planning Office has. At the same time I like this project and yet it seems to me that the fact that it was once historically one site even if it was not necessarily for a very long period of time that that seems to me to make that argument a much more convincing argument. Roxanne: Any original historic land that was associated with it is totally gone now and is not even a part of the parcel. ..~'" Bruce: (to the applicant) the Reid structure? Do you know what the use will be of Brooks: We have been talking with uriah Heaps, the Steak Pit, and the dry cleaner to occupy the bottom floor. We haven't come up with a configuration of who is going to use the Lily Reid house itself. We have been talking with Peter Guy as using each individual room as a dining room for the Steak pit. These are the tenants we have been talking to. I might add that none of the tenants have been in Aspen less than 17 years with the Steak pit over 30 and the dry cleaner over 30. Bruce: What disadvantages if any flow from designating the entire parcel as a historic parcel. What, if anything, is the applicant giving up down the road by having the entire parcel designated. Roxanne: will have located in Nothing. Designation is to go through all the a historic district. only a benefit to them. They same review because they are Bruce: My question relates to if years from now you wanted to do '-- 7 PZM4.3.90 something else with the big part of the building--does that kick you into a certain kind of approval process that you might not otherwise be in if you went through growth management and just build whatever. Gideon: There is a difference between designated building and review by the HPC in a downtown area. You are scrutinized much more carefully when you have agreed to designate a building and just being in the downtown and having review in that context. Roxanne: Any historic building downtown is reviewed with more scrutiny than a non-historic building downtown. Roger: I am in favor of approving this project just as I see it right here. But the one problem I see with historic designation on the entire site is that historic designation on the entire site exempts it from GMP in the future. So it is a land use issue. Now how do we get this thing approved with the codes as we have them or as we can modify them maybe. Because with the historic designation on the non-historic part of the development we are opening ourselves up to future changes in that structure which would have growth ramifications which we get no say-so over. So how do we accomplish that? Maybe in their deed restriction is to identify this is the building and any further changes would be subject to the growth management aspects. Brooks: The building looks bigger than it really is. The new building will be 12,600sqft. The existing building is 6,200sqft. When you take out the common area and you take out the employee housing then that addition on that entire site over what is there right now is just a little over 3,800sqft. In answer to your question I have been advised by the architect it is not possible to build any more on that lot. We can I t extend it out any further development. We can't go up because we would be above the adjoining buildings. Jasmine: What Roger is suggesting is that perhaps a condition of approval being that any further expansion of the commercial space on this parcel would then be subject to GMP. We would approve what was submitted here and that any further requests for any kind of additions or expansion would then be subject to GMP. Change in use would not really be. Michael: If it is designated historic it is subject to more restrictive scrutiny in the future than if it isn't. Roger: Not in terms of land use. ,;1"1"'..... - 8 PZM4.3.90 Mari: I still never did hear the numbers that we were talking about. Joe Wells: The proj ect is roughly at 1.5 which means that we have the same obligation for affordable housing as if we were going through competition. Mari: I am not talking about ratios. absolute square footage. Joe: 13,500 is the square footage that is allowed without going through special review for bonus square footage--up to 2 to 1 or 18,000sqft. I am talking about Mari: Now, if there were no little house, what would be allowed on that entire site. Roxanne: still the same. They would still be up to 1.5 to 1. They could go up to 18 if they were providing housing on site. Yaw: Under any scenario we are using the Lily Reid house within the FAR calculations and not outside of it. Mari: So they are not really getting FAR bonus out of this. All they are getting is the exemption from GMP and parking. Richard: Nor are they giving up floor area. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend landmark designation of the Lily Reid site. That landmark designation including the new development with a single condition that any further development from this point will be subject to GMP and those approvals. Bruce seconded the motion. Gideon: mumbled something here. Roger: The problem is the new building is on Lots A, Band C. Or have you re-designated the site. Brooks: The whole site is Lots A, Band C. Roxanne: Recommend landmark designation for the parcel which is A, Band C. Roger: Right. And that any further development beyond what is shown here will be subject to GMP. - 9 PZM4.3.90 Bruce: I second that. Roger: I think as this goes beyond us here we should make it clear that this motion was a result--that this is a unique situation. For basically what everyone has conveyed to us that there is a tremendous historic asset which is preserved and actually enhanced by this and that in effect it-- Jasmine: Do we want to do this as a resolution then? Then we could include a lot of the reasoning behind in the "whereases". Roger: I modify my motion to state that the request for the Planning Office to make our motion in resolution form. Bruce modified his second. The purpose being to show that we really are not setting a precedent. Roger: Exactly. Richard: Regarding parking. That seems to be the one landuse impact that we are facing here. Roxanne: The code right now requires 2 spaces per l,OOOsqft of net leasable. And this calculates out to 18 spaces needed on the parcel. They are going to be putting 3 spaces on so they are asking for variation of 15 spaces. That is $15,000 per. So it is a total of $225,000. Richard: So it is a question of whether we exempt them from that fee or not. Jasmine: them? And the landmark designation would automatically exempt Roxanne: and find lingo-- Automatically the HPC would have to make that variation that it is more compatible and have to go through the Jasmine: So in other words our recommendation for the landmark designation does not necessarily deal with the parking issue. Roxanne: Exactly. HPC will deal with that at final. Jasmine: That is not part of this motion. Roger: Now there is one major caution to the developer and that has to do with the use of the historic house. That is I heard that you were thinking of a restaurant. It is in the code that restaurants require direct access to the alley or off street 10 - PZM4.3.90 servicing area. Now that can be accomplished through the new building but I caution you, have satisfactory service through that new building if you are going to plan on having a restaurant in the Lily Reid cottage. Jasmine: We have a motion on the floor and a second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Gideon: Could the Vice Chairman sign the resolution? MOTION Roger: I move to allow the Vice Chairman to sign the resolution. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public hearing. NEWMAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in We need to add one condition as follows: To comply with the definition and requirements of accessory dwelling units that the accessory dwelling in it be deed restricted to resident occupied unit with 6 month fees. Commissioners had no comments. Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Michael: I move that we recommend the conditional use with the 3 conditions as suggested by the Planning Office. (referenced above and attached in record) Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. GUIDO'S SWISS INN GMOS EXEMPTION CHANGE IN USE Tom Baker, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in 11 - PZM4.3.90 record. staff is recommending approval of the special review of reduction of trash service which you agreed to at the last meeting. There may be a change in the location of the trash area but that hasn't been worked out quite yet. We are recommending a commercial and a change area. change in use from dormitory residential to from the lodge to the storage Then we took at look at our interpretation for the open space and we went out and did a site visit. We took the staff out there and we found that this is open space. That corridor between the buildings was also open space in our definition. The applicant has the ability to go before Council and challenge that interpretation. We have attempted to identify areas that they could get credit for. The existing trash area, the areas under the overhangs--I don't know if that is going to be enough to satisfy their needs but we are working with them. What we would suggest is that P&Z grant them special review for reduction in open space in case they choose not to go to Council and pay the cash-in-lieu. We have a resolution to that affect. We would like to add an 8th condition that would say that maximum building height for that new construction should not exceed 28.6ft. Mari: Is that the elevator tower? Joe: It is the roof of the existing restaurant. Mari: But the elevator tower would be higher than that. that include the tower? Does As far as I could tell, answer to this question. same time. Mari never did really get a straight There several people talking at the Jasmine: Does the applicant have any problem with the resolution and the conditions of the resolution? Gideon: We have 2 issues we want to discuss. First is the employee housing. We will go along with this if everyone on the P&Z is going to go along with it even though we don't think it is technically correct. We are willing to deed restrict 3 dorms and have 2 other dorms for a total of 5. Richard: On attachment B they are getting credit for 3.76 employees on that? 12 "'~-'-- PZM4.3.90 Baker: Yes. The code isn't clear on that but what it's intent is to get at the change. The only way to do that is to identify what the probable impact would be given the housing authorities guidelines for a restaurant. And we used 4 per thousand and got the 9.2 figure. The residential category isn't addressed in the guidelines so what we did was if you were going to provide a free market 7 dormitory unit facility what would your threshold employee housing impact mitigation be? And that is where this 3.76 comes from. The same with the lodge. We felt that was only fair to give them credit for the uses they had in place and then subtract it from the calculation for the restaurant. And then apply 60% to that because that is the minimum requirement under commercial GMP. Everyone generally was in favor of this. Gideon: Then the issue of open space: I would just like to remind the P&Z Commissioners that the land in question does not meet the code definition of open space. If we came before you with a brand new project trying to get credit for the configuration of our land as open space, we would be told it does not meet open space under definition of the code and therefore it doesn't count as open space and it is not open space. "'~...-- What the Planning Office is attempting to do is create a new definition which exist in the code--non conforming open space. Non-conforming applies to something that exists. We have no existing open space so how can it be non-conforming? The code defines non-conformities in terms of structures, uses, or lots. Not in terms of open space. We are none of these. It is either open space or it is not open space. So this is not an interpretation that the Planning Office gets to deal with. It is creating a new code definition that the P&Z does not have to accept. You can determine that it is not open space and find that there is no mitigation necessary. And that is what we ask that you do. Baker: What they are alleging is that they could build lot line to lot line because that open space that they have doesn't technically meet the definition requirements. That is in essence where you can draw from what they are saying that conclusion that you can go from lot line to lot line. Roger: Well, there is some open space that they do have that would meet that. Baker: But it doesn't meet the technical definition. None of it 13 PZM4.3.90 does. Joe Wells: There are 3 non-conformities defined in the code. There is non-conforming structure, non-conforming use and non- conforming lot of record. In fact we have a non-conforming structure because we do not have open space on the site that meets the dimensional requirements of the code. We don't have non-conforming open space. We have anon-conforming structure. The code says when you have a non-conforming structure you can expand that structure as long as you do not worsen the non-conformity. We are not worsening the non- conformity with regard to open space. Michael: Is it the staff's interpretation that this open space? Baker: It open space. say that it mitigate by line then. certainly doesn't meet the technical definition of However it clearly functions as open space and to isn't open space and therefore they wouldn't have to building on it, they could go from lot line to lot Mari: That would increase the non-conformity of the structure. ""', Baker: The code can never be written so clearly that every avenue of debate is closed. In our view it is clearly the intention to preserve what open space is available and that there should be mitigation when it is reduced. Michael: Is it the staff's interpretation that only the area occupied by the elevator shaft is what they should be mitigating or is it the whole corridor there? Baker: Well it is more than just the footprint. Because there is some part behind that is now not open to view from either Galena or Cooper. So there is a combination of things going on. But it is more than just the footprint. Gideon: If we came to you and said--and I have tried that--and I have said to you "But we meet the intent". There is a section on height and all those things and I said "It is open space--you can't see it". And we were told "Sorry, but technically that is not open space". Now we are being told "It doesn't count if you want to try and get it but if you have something then we are going to try to preserve it". And that is not what the code says and that is not fair. The other problem we have is we went to the HPC. We had another plan and the HPC gave us very limited directions in terms of what they would and would not approve. And this is about all that ""-., 14 - PZM4.3.90 they were willing to live with. So we have been penalized pretty heavily by maintaining the historic nature of this even though it isn't even designated. Baker: This is an issue that is going to be taken up with Council. You don't need to respond to this if you don't feel comfortable doing so. Richard: I think that it does function as open space in a sense that it is a relief from mass and a break in between the buildings. That, in my mind, overrides the technicalities. Mari: I feel that if we do not find it to be open space we are in a way rewarding them for their non-conformity. Roger: I think there are 2 clear areas of open space even though they don't fit the definition of the code. They are on the north and the south side of the chalet structure. I consider the alleyway between the 2 buildings as open space. Some of that may apply but certainly not much as far as I am concerned. There are areas that seem to meet, if not the code, the function of open space and maybe we should define those areas and tell the Council that is what we think. Some may consider the alley as open space but I really don't. It is no more open space than a 4ft channel between buildings. I don't consider that open space. Michael: I agree with Roger 100%. But I think it is not a question what we think. I think it is a question of what the code says. And this is clearly not open space even if we think it is. And to take a perspective on it, it is like they are trying to get something from us. It is just a question of the code says that is not open space. I don't think there J.S anything being given away that belongs in the public purview by allowing them to build an elevator shaft between those buildings. My office, up until Monday, was right across the street from there and I was back and forth in that alley 3 times a day. And until this application came through I never realized that you could see through that alley. My point is it doesn't matter what I perceive it as. It isn't open space. And to sit around right now and try to penalize them by construing it as open space is not following what the code is and that is what we have to live up to. Bruce: I pretty much agree with that because I am concerned that the next time some other applicant on a totally project comes in, he will say "Well, on the Guido's project you adopted this broad definition of open space and therefore on my new project I want ".'" 15 -- PZM4.3.90 you to apply that same broad definition so that these places that don't meet the definition I want them to qualify so I can get out of the open space mitigation". I think we have to be consistent in interpretation of the code. If it is open space, it is open space and they pay the mitigation impacts. If it is not open space, it is not. Whether it is this proj ect or any other proj ect. I think we have got to be consistent in our interpretation of the code. Jasmine: 2 of the members feel very strongly that it should be considered open space regardless of the fact that it doesn't technically meet the definition of the code. 2 members feel very strongly that the code should be followed as it is now written in all fairness. Roger has a compromise solution which would invol ve the perception of some of this area as open space and some of it not. And I would tend to agree with Roger's position. MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we construe this as not being open space in accordance with the city of Aspen code definition of open space as it exists today. Bruce seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Richard, no, Bruce, yes, Michael, yes, Mari, no, Roger, no, Jasmine, abstain. MOTION Roger: I move to pass onto city Council our feeling of this project concerning open space which does not technically qualify as open space under the code. However, it is certainly perceived as open space. That includes the areas to the north and the south of the old structure. I see no problem in this as precedent in this case for new developments because this is an existing situation. This also includes our comments concerning what we perceive as open space on this parcel. Mari: Are you moving that this be added to the resolution that the Planning Office is going to present. Roger: Yes. Add a comment in the resolution giving the city council what we perceive as functioning open space even though it does not meet the technical definition of the code. Jasmine: Modify #7 in that case because we are not necessarily ,-,,.,.,",,, 16 PZM4.3.90 saying that there should be a payment or that there should not be a payment. Roger: In effect it would modify #7. Baker: The second "Whereas" from the bottom on the first page. You might want to elaborate on that. Roger: Adding the comment that if my motion passes we would add the comment that there are 2 areas that we see as functioning as open space. Basically on the north and the south side as opposed to the alley. I don't see the alley functioning as open space. Bruce: So you are saying it is going to be a wash anyway. If you give them credit as open space for the areas on the north and south of the building. Roger: I am just defining that that is the open space. they are building I don't, myself, consider as open space. What Gideon: I want to be clear--the majority of the P&Z clearly feels that alley area should not be counted as open space. You are giving directions that the P&Z is taking a position that at least a portion of this should not be counted as open space. ,'...... Roger: I guess a portion of what maybe the staff considers open space but I guess the second step in this is that we definitely define the area north and south of the building--those spaces facing a streetscape do function as open space. I don't consider the alley as open space. Mari: But are you saying they will not be with the elevator--if what we perceive to be open space is not affected by the elevator tower then why even mention it? Roger: Because I guess we don't have the final word on open space my motion didn't define the open space yet. It defined the procedure. Let's pass on to the City Council our opinion of what the open space is. Next. step--we determine what we think the open space is. Mari: Roger, is it your opinion that the elevator tower is being built in open space. Roger: My opinion is "No". Mari: Then it doesn't matter what other open space there is. Jasmine: That is right. Exactly. It's a mute point. 17 PZM4.3.90 Joe: It matters a lot. I think what you are trying to do, Roger, is give guidance to the City Council since they are the body that makes the decision and I am not sure that your motion necessarily accomplishes that. And besides that you have got a condition #7 after the "Whereases" that says that we work with the Planning Office to figure what the payment-in-lieu is going to be. I would hope that you give stronger guidance to City Council than that. Jasmine: Do I have a second to Roger's motion? Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION Mari: Office 112ft. I move to approve the resolution as stated by the Planning with the addition of condition #8--maximum height 28 and Richard seconded the motion. Bruce: It appears to me that there is a conflict between one of the "Whereases" which says "Whereas the Commission disagrees with the staff's interpretation of open space on the site". How about that we just take a vote that there were 2 that agreed and 2 that disagreed and 2 that were in the middle. We have got to change that "Whereas". Mari: Let me amend my motion just to strike that "Whereas" because we do not agree with each other. We have no consensus on this commission and it is going to be decided by the City Council. Gideon: The reason that "Whereas" is in there is that an overwhelming majority of P&Z disagreed with the staff interpretation of open space. At the vote that was taken last week the majority of P&Z agreed that it wasn't open space. I still detect that a majority of P&Z agrees that all of this should not be counted as open space. Jasmine: I don't think you can say that. Roger: I think you can. Jasmine: You have got 3 and 3. You don't have a majority. Gideon: If you abstain that is 3, 2 to 1. That is a majority. 18 -. PZM4.3.90 The majority of the P&Z agrees that all of this should not be counted as open space. And then you leave it to city council to make the decision which it is or it isn't. But at least you then give them some direction. Roger: Exactly. Baker: The staff is working with the applicant. We are working to find a way to resolve this. We are working on giving them credit for the existing trash area. We are endeavoring to find a solution to this. I don't want the P&Z to feel under pressure to come to a conclusion if they don't feel comfortable doing that. Mari: My motion as amended is the resolution presented by the planning Office with the addition of condition #8--maximum height 28.5 feet and striking the "Whereas" the next to the last "Whereas"--just striking that entire thing. Jasmine: But everything else would stay the same. intent is to leave the negotiations between the and the applicant with the benefit of whatever passed on to Council to be determined by Council. And then your Planning Office wisdom we have '" Mari: That is my intent. Richard: I will second that motion. "<"" Roger: I think it should be the P&Z could not come interpretation of open space. indicated to the City Council to a consensus concerning I think that is significant. that the Mari: Let me try this amendment. Suppose we say "Whereas the commission did not reach a consensus about the interpretation of open space". Richard: I will accept that. Roll call vote: Richard, yes, Bruce, yes, Michael, no, Mari, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. CUNNIFFE GMOS EXEMPTION FOR CHANGE IN USE Kim Johnson, Planning Office: record. Made presentation as attached in Charles Cunniffe: I am thinking that what I really need to do is table this. There is something that has come to me from the Building Dept--some requirements from the Building Dept--that I might not be able to afford to do to the building. And I may not be able to afford to provide employee housing in the first place. /............ 19 ,-,- PZM4.3.90 since I haven't added any staff--I am just trying to consolidate office space into one location downtown instead of two. And I do have a condominium at Hunter Creek that I have 2 employees in as it is now. So I don't feel I really can afford to provide any additional employee housing. MOTION Roger: I move to table the Cunniffe application at the request of the applicant to date certain of April 17, 1990. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PUD ICE RINK AND PARK Leslie Lamont, step process. record. planning Office: This is the first step of a 4 Leslie then made presentation as attached in Michael: Regarding Engineering's concern about parking: It doesn't seem to me that parking is appropriate along a park especially where you want to open it up to have more public access. Cars certainly would impede that. I can understand this point to allow the access to be open but I also don't think there should be parking there. Leslie: Engineering's primary concern is the Decreasing the width of Durant Street you would have to the parking on that side and they don't want to elimination of that parking. Mari: It would seem to me like with all the congestion on Durant Street as it is I can't imagine squeezing it down any more. parking. eliminate see the Leslie: You are not actually limiting the flow of traffic. You are just eliminating the parallel parking situation against the flow of traffic as well as the visual impact of automobiles along the curb line. Michael: And then you are opening up a park to the public to make it more inviting by not having parking along there. Mari: How many parking spaces is that? Parry: 8 or 9 spaces. Michael: I I ike the idea of opening it up and making it more inviting to the public and having an entrance there that is conducive to the public coming to it. Having cars there would certainly eliminate the necessity to have that access since you ,.-~...... 20 '.......,., PZM4.3.90 would have to be able to walk through the cars. Richard: On the other hand the cars the sidewalk and the moving traffic. both sides of that. do provide a buffer between There are considerations on Parry Harvey, representative for applicant: Went into background of project. The approach on this is a classic PUD where the density is being pushed to the rear of the site and clustered with the entire front being left as open space as the most appropriate for interaction with the community. That is how the design got to this point and it is really only written down in the PUD. We want to split this off to get it moving. We would like to start construction this summer. Hopefully we can get it open for this winter and then come in and finish the landscaping in the spring. This has 2 program elements--winter and summer. We see it in the winter as an artificial rink from mid November through March. It will be on a daily basis of supervised public skating, group and private lessons, shows, skate rental and repair and sales on the site. We are talking about lOam to 11pm 7 days a week during the winter season. A fee for skating and for skate rental of $6 to $7. There would be potential for bringing in skating shows. Marketing would be with local season passes, senior and youth programs. We will work with the hotels and lodges to give skating coupons. There are 2 elements for security. One is making sure you get everybody cleared into one access point to go skating. The second is late at night I want to eliminate random access when the Paradise and the Paragon close and people are going back to their lodges. I don't want anybody thinking they can jump down there in the cowboy boots and slide across the rink. It is not only an attractive nuisance from an insurability standpoint because even if there is a security guard on one corner of the ice, somebody is going to be knocked out on the the other corner of the ice before he could even get to them. That is why we wanted to control it at 2 access points. In the summer when this is all landscaped and the railing is out and the dasher boards are out and this is open plaza area then obviously access can be from anywhere. And we would encourage access from 4 different directions. The summer program we are looking at 2 options. #1 is skating .-,~, 21 '- PZM4.3.90 year round. We have been up to Sun Valley. It doesn't seem like we could skate all year. There are problems with that. #2 is as a community activity center. Ballet rehearsals, Community dances in connection with the Youth Center, plays, private parties, fund raising gatherings, sculpture shows, musical performances, award ceremonies, staging for bike races or foot races. We have included in here plans .for a future restaurant. Engineering said we should have some kind of food service. One of the concerns we have is creating something that will stand on its own economically. It would probably be along the lines of a Pour La France with the ability to cater to special events. Bonnie Johnson from Design Workshop: Made presentation regarding plans for ice rink. Larry Yaw, architect: Made a further presentation regarding plans for the ice rink and restaurant and protective cover for the ice. '. Roger: Basically this was put upon the Hadid group by political planning as opposed to anything that made any sense. #1, talking about the ice rink--you are trying to operate an ice rink probably by our second highest trafficked road in this community. And of course that means dust which is going to fall right on the ice. And there is no solution to that. So it is a stupid place to put an ice rink. #2, taking the cars off the ramp just further aggravates that. #3, sticking out further into Durant further aggravates that. I don't know that you have a solution to that problem. I have real problems going out 11ft into Durant. Unfortunately when you stick something out that much into the street you are going to have people coming up and dropping people off no matter how it is signed. As far as an area for performing in the summer you can probably handle that. Parry: There is absolutely no question there is going to be a problem. And it is going to be something we are going to have to deal with. Mari: My comment as far as conceptual is that when we first discussed what to do about this section it was supposed to function as open space. And digging it down into the ground into a pit from 4ft below grade to 10ft below grade is going to remove the open space aspect of it. Especially if it is going to be covered by a structure. Bonnie: Actually Wagner Park is dropped down below street level ,-'~',. "-~...... 22 PZM4.3.90 as well. It is 3ft below and this is 4ft. It is really not that big of a deal. Mari: The other thing I am concerned about is the size of the potential restaurant. Parry: What we have talked about is anything from a popcorn wagon--to something that is about 65 to 70 seats with probably outside dining in the summer time. And it would have cafeteria portion to it with a walk-through so people on skates can walk through and get served and could sit and watch the skating. Too big a restaurant could become a white elephant. What we are looking for is the concept of a food service outlet for food and beverage and how that sits with this commission and with city council and if there are caveats about it if it is too big. Mari: I am telling you at this stage that I would not look favorably on a restaurant type restaurant--meaning a large restaurant. It was represented originally as a concession which would be an accessory use to the ice rink--not a free standing restaurant. ""'."-~ Leslie: They are asking for GMQS exemption for essential public services. And what goes along with that are support services for your rink if you determine that a rink is an essential public service. staff still has not made that determination that a restaurant is an essential support service of the rink. We have not discussed it a lot. A restaurant, to my mind, is not essential to the rink. A concession stand maybe, but a restaurant not. And they have 115,OOOsqft of FAR to build and if they build it all up on the Grande Aspen site-- Parry: No. That is specifically exclusive of any FAR that is buil t on the rink. Leslie: But what the rink is being exempted for is an essential pUblic service. Mari: My question is if you have a cap on your FAR but it doesn't include any FAR on the rink, what control is there on FAR on the rink site? Parry: The review that you guys go through. Mari: So in other words whatever city Council ultimately decides. Parry: Currently we have in essence no FAR because nothing is above grade. ,d'~' - 23 PZM4.3.90 Mari: there there And that is what concerns me. It concerns me that because is nothing in the agreement that limits what you can do because it is under grade that it might get out of hand. Parry: What it said was that we had to apply for GMQS exemption for whatever we wanted to put on the rink. Now a restaurant I don't think we need a GMQS exemption for because if we come in-- In our application on Phase II, there is no restaurant. So we are eliminating this restaurant and bar and catering service. In essence we have that as a use and to reconstruct it on another portion of the same site doesn't require either a GMQS allocation or a GMQS exemption. Mari: If it is rezoned though. Parry: Rezoning is a condition of everything we go through. Leslie: Again, our initial reading on this was you have 115,OOOsqft to work with. If you want to use some of that and replace the restaurant on site and use some of that FAR, that is one thing. But if you are going to use all of that on something else, yes, you can replace the restaurant but our initial reading is that you have to compete for that floor area if it was found that the restaurant was not considered a support service of the essential public service that got a GMQS exemption for. That is why there is no mention of a restaurant in this. The first plans that I saw it was "Well, we are thinking of a restaurant in the future". I am sure it wouldn't--you see the final plans with a restaurant drawn in there. Parry: No. One of the things I wanted to do and the reason I wanted conceptual and conceptual and a 4 step review was to get a discussion before P&Z and Council of the concept of food service on the site so that I would know how to approach that. Mari: Isn't this the time to give you that direction? That is why I said that. Jasmine: As far as direction what do you want to hear now? Leslie,: I think Roger was clear on the reduction of Durant Street and the elimination of parking. Bonnie said that they are working with us on keeping the 3 Spruce trees and that they are going to work on the ramp situation. All we are asking for is the conceptual PUD and if you have any other thoughts on the rezoning. /"""'"" Richard: When this was first proposed as an ice rink immediately - 24 PZM4.3.90 idea of having a capaccino as an amenity. I think that is an absolute amenity and an important part of this. I understand Mari's concern that this not be the largest restaurant in town. But I think it is very important that there be restaurant facilities there so that people can sit outside. Bruce: I share some of the same concerns about the lack of an open feel on the north. Perhaps another entrance on that northwest corner with the same sort of treatment that you have at the northeast corner. I understand the concern about having people come across the middle of the street--come straight across from the bus stop and I am not too anxious to see that happen. But I am concerned about the lack of openness. I also would be concerned about something more than just a refreshments kind of restaurant. Perhaps you can go a step beyond what is in the arena in Vail. You can barely get a bag of popcorn and a Coke over there. It needs to be more than that. I wouldn't envision a full blown, sit down, order from the menu with waiters and waitresses kind of restaurant. I don't think that is necessary. More of a bakery servicelcoffee shop type of service with stools you can sit on. Michael: You mentioned a popcorn wagon. If there was a way to do it inside so that you are not sitting outside in the middle of the winter would be a perfect kind of solution. Mari: I think it would be great if you could incorporate a fountain in the summer time. Roger: Specifically I think the extension into Durant should not exceed the width of parallel parking that exists there right now. One way we may be able to somewhat improve the openness and at the same time reduce J walking on Durant to come over to this attractive thing, is possibly internalize the sidewalk along Durant Ave. Move your planter out by the street and have your walk closer to the ice rink so you can look down directly from the sidewalk into the rink. That might also help as far as the dust. Jasmine: I like the idea of the screening on the north side. And I would not necessarily like to see it open up. I do share Mari's concern about the size of the restaurant facility. I would like to see perhaps the restaurant facility rather than being in its own little rectangl--if there is a way of incorporating it with the other services--the skate rental, skate sharpening in that other part of the building because many rinks have all these functions fairly close together. 26 PZM4.3.90 we all get our own concept of what that means as a public amenity. I saw it as being a lot more open on the north side to public access than what you have come up with here. This seems to be more oriented towards the Ritz Carlton and particularly the new Phase II building on the Grande ASpen site. I think of the rink in Rockefeller Center in New York where you walk right up to the railing and there are benches there and you look down on the rink. The landscaping that you have done there seems to prevent that kind of public view and access on that side. Especially if you are going to be piling snow up around the rink. It makes the only public access around the restaurant area. I agree with Roger on the extension of the sidewalk into Durant Avenue. I think it should be kept where it is. Maybe we have no parking there just to keep it open. I would rather see you tuck it back in more under Dean street if possible. - Michael: I agree with Richard's comments about the openness. Everybody had a different concept when this was first proposed. I think this is a great amenity to that part of Aspen which is really our high tourist aspect and I envision kind of an ice rink from Rockefeller Center something that would draw people to it. I don't think that a design like this does that. I think a design that is much more open would do it and Then I listen to Parry's comment about it being an attractive nuisance. I can understand that being a concern except that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is really only available to children. It is not available to drunks. So if somebody gets drunk and comes out of a bar and breaks his neck on that I don't think that is a real concern. And I would be willing to risk a few drunks breaking their neck and keeping that as an open amenity. Along with that also eliminating parking along that street. I don't care whether you go out 11ft or you come back into Dean, that is not as much of a concern to me. I think that if you leave the street the way it is and you have parking there, people are going to drop kids off. People are going to drop off no matter whether it is a 9ft street or a 90ft street. I think it is much more important insofar as what that means to Aspen that that becomes really open. I think those trees and the way you have designed it kind of stops that. Again, as Richard said, everybody had a different concept of what that was when it was first proposed. My concept of it was to be a great feature to Aspen--kind of a Rockefeller Center thing. A restaurant is an important part of that because I think there are lots of people who come to our town today who don't particularly ski or come with children who would come to the ice rink and the -...." 25 ~-- PZM4.3.90 Then also if people can skate in Rockefeller Center between 50th and 51st St--the kind of pollution that is coming along Durant Ave is nothina compared to what is coming down there so I think we can do it here. It was then decided for this hearing to be continued May 1, 1990. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:35pm. 27