HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900703
"'u
P\
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 3. 1990
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce
Kerr, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton
was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Wel ton: Concerning the Shadow Mountain Trail: Apparently a
recommendation to preserve the railroad ROW didn I t quite get
across to the County Commissioners and they approved the
development to happen on the old Midland ROW.
I would support a motion that we send directly to the County
Commissioners to have them reconsider relocating development up
higher in order to preserve the historic railroad ROW.
MOTION
Roger:
I move to have the Planning Office create a resolution
for us to pass on
City Council of
location that the
valley ROW.
to the county Commissioners directly informing
our dismay in allowing a development in a
community has identified as a potential down
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Graeme:
think a
order.
The trail has been roped off by a property owner and I
broader motion that attacks the whole problem might be in
Welton:
I think they are two separate issues.
Roger: And basically the end result is to request procedure that
they reconsider that action.
Baker: P&Z has amended the plan to include them in the ROW. They
didn't like that so I requested to table the item and come back
to them.
Roger: So it is still in the air at this point?
Baker: The terms of the plan are still up in the air.
Roger: Here is one of our problems. It is County right adjacent
to the city and it certainly seems to me that the city should
progress to annexing the Shadow/Aspen Mountain area where there
is any potential development involved so that the City can
PZM7.3.90
address these issues as the ci ty should. Maybe . we need a
separate resolution to City Council recommending that as well.
Welton: Does anyone feel uncomfortable starting discussion on
annexation of County areas immediately adjacent to the City line
and Shadow/Aspen Mountain area?
Roger: I am concerned developable areas up to the 8040 line
along the Shadow Mountain/Aspen Mountain, even up to Difficult
Creek to wherever the City hits it. The County is making
decisions that impact the city very adversely. It has happened in
the past that the city ends up just being a party submitting
information to the County in their decision making and many times
they don't heed it.
Jasmine: I agree with Roger.
Richard: Likewise.
MOTION
Roger: I move to request the Planning Office draft a resolution
to the City Council requesting they immediately look into
annexation of potential developable properties adj acent tot he
City limit on the south side east of Castle Creek and west of the
eastern City limits.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: As far as the roping off of the trail, I have had
discussion with the Sheriff and the County Attorney and everybody
else I could think of to talk to about it. Basically the owner
is trying to preserve his property. He traded for that land 4
years ago. The Sheriff assures me that if any pedestrians think
that they have access rights, they are welcome to exercise those
rights without a Sheriff taking any action against people
exercising those rights across that land. I have been doing that
myself and encourage anybody else who has been using that for a
long period of time to preserve their rights as well.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
2
PZM7.3.90
MINUTES
JUNE 5. & JUNE 19. 1990
Jasmine made a motion to approve these minutes.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION. CONCEPTUAL PUD AND REZONING
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson made presentation.
(attached in record)
This is the first affordable housing project that we have
able to process so far. It is a private sector development
mix of affordable housing units and free market units.
breakdown is 7 free market and 16 deed restricted.
been
of a
The
Tom Stevens, architect for applicant:
regarding the placement of the buildings
danger, architecture, vegetation impact
and the neighborhood.
There was discussion
with regard to avalanche
of the plan on the site
We do not have room for surface parking. We will have
underground parking for the units. As we get deeper into the
'-0'" hillside with the parking garage we cut it off at 20 underground
parking spaces for the deed restricted units with the remaining
12 on surface.
One of the recommendations of the Planning Staff is that we re-
work the surface parking. I agree with them. I can do a better
job with the design of that parking so that it does not back
right out onto Ute Avenue.
20 is a realistic number because what it does is anything past 20
we get into structural gymnastics on the parking structure itself
and gets beyond the point to where it is economically feasible.
20 provides 1 space per unit for each one of the deed restricted
units and there are 4 they can fight over for a second car. All
of the parking for the free market units has been designed in the
parking garage. And we have now added 6 guest spaces.
The free market element of this is now designated for 7 3,OOOsqft
units. They are now in a 3 bedroom configuration. The deed
restricted units will need to be in the upper end of the middle
income classification which right not is $124sqft which comes out
at $136,000 per unit.
3
PZM7.3.90
without the free market element in this
restricted units do not get built. They
There is no way that we can provide a parking
of structure that we need to provide for this
free market units.
project, the deed
require a subsidy.
garage and the type
project without the
Public improvements: Right now.one of the big concerns is ute
Avenue. It is substandard prior to the development of this
project and will be even more substandard upon the development of
this project. Some of the areas of concern are pavement width
and drainage. What it is really going to come down to is we are
going to have to participate on a pro rata share. The extent of
the design, the extent of the costs that are implied by that
design have not been identified yet. We are going to take it
upon ourselves to proceed so that we know internally
approximately what those costs are so that we are prepared to
participate in the upgrading of ute Avenue.
We see those upgrades right now revolving primarily around
pavement width and drainage improvements. We will probably have
to be looking at culverts along driveways down to at least the
Children's Park prior to reaching ute Avenue. In terms of
pavement width there seems to be a lot of different measurements
floating around right now. But we recognize we will have to
participate in upgrading ute Avenue and we don't have a problem
with participating in that to accomplish what we can.
All utilities are either on site or adjacent to site--city water,
sanitary, sewer, cable, gas and electric. It will be on our
shoulders to negotiate an easement to pick up the 18 feet to get
to the sewer. Everything else is fairly simple as far as
servicing the project.
Roger: At this point it appears to me that ute Avenue is
substandard. I don't like the concept of adding on top of a
problem without a solution in the works. That solution is
incumbent a lot upon the City in this case. Along with the
improvements along ute Avenue we must include attention to the
needs of the pedestrians in that area. Whether it is some
sidewalks to the point where they cross over to the trail--
something has to be done along that line.
I think it is necessary by separate resolution to city Council to
point this problem out and as much as you can be in favor of an
AH project can you live with it without the satisfactory service
to it? We should recommend that they immediately either budget
improvements to ute Avenue as necessary or implement an
improvement district basically to dovetail with this project.
4
PZM7.3.90
Kim: Tom said it would probably be best to develop
first so that during the construction process
improvement to ute Avenue doesn't get torn up.
the project
any recent
Roger: We just need to know how these will be staged and meshed
and that it is going to be within a reasonable time of this
project coming on line.
Kim: staff does recommend approval of this conceptual PUD plan
with 9 conditions. (attached in record)
Roger: #1 I recommend the inclusion of a program for widening
and grading ute Avenue and inserting "including pedestrian ways
must be developed in order to provide safety for current and
projected traffic loads".
Richard: How far does that go? Does that go all the way out to
Durant or just out to original?
Jim Gibbard, Engineering: The area we are most concerned with
was the curve just east of 1010 ute on up to the proposed
development. There are problems further on down. The drainage--
very serious drainage problems all along ute Avenue. The width
in that area is adequate. Chuck Roth has been trying to
establish some kind of improvement district in that portion of
ute Avenue but has not had a lot of luck in getting this thing
going. There has been a lot of resistance from some of the
residents along that area to do anything.
We thought we would concentrate on this area since this area has
substandard widths. We have no areas for snow storage on the
sides of the street and when we have a high snow year that
essentially becomes a one lane street. So we not only have to
address the width of the street but the width of the shoulders
which may include pedestrian walkways too.
Richard: In general as an AH plan, I like it.
with this particular site with this density.
I am concerned
Graeme: I agree with Kim in that it is important to see the
resul ts of the avalanche survey. We are not avalanche experts
and we think we are going to be starting to see very many
developments in avalanche zones it would be a good idea for the
city to determine what kind of avalanche zones we should be even
considering. Somebody could tell me a lot about avalanche and I
still wouldn't understand it but I am being asked to approve a
building in an avalanche zone and I don't feel comfortable
approving buildings in avalanche zones. I don't have the
expertise to say OK.
5
PZM7.3.90
Bruce: I am curious as to why it is necessary to divide this
into 2 lots.
Tom: We wanted to establish 2 different homeowner's
associations. What the free market homeowners want they may be
able to afford whereas the deed restricted units might not. They
are 2 completely economic portions of the project and therefore
we wanted them to be ruled by different agencies.
Bruce: Is there a possibility that this project could be a
phased construction so perhaps the free market could be built and
somehow the affordable housing not be built?
Baker: That is a good point.
Bruce: I can see the developer could say "Well conditions have
changed. It is no longer economically feasible to build the 16
affordable units".
Baker: That would clearly violate the zone district.
Tom: Right now we are looking at a
schedule. The subdivision improvements
down what is getting built and when.
one shot
agreement
construction
really ties
Welton asked for public comment.
Fritz Benedict: I would like to support the project. I think
the AH Zone is very exciting. with the City buying these very
expensive lots at $2 million an acre--that is not going to go
very far and I think it is pretty remarkable--I own land next
door. You would think I would be against it because it is very
pretty with the trees there. But I have been observing the
avalanche slides for the last 30 years. I used to own that
property. I live across the river from that land. And I don't
think there has ever been any avalanches during that time either
here or here. About 20 years ago there was a wet slide that came
down all the way across the road into here. There have been some
other spring-time avalanches that were short right here.
I have seen the model of this in Dick Fallen's office. I think
the fact that the free markets are going to look the same as the
restricted units I think is good.
Bill Dunaway: Regarding the avalanche dangers: In the past few
years there has been 1 death in Crested Butte and 2 or 3 injuries
outside of Vale from avalanches hurting people just outside their
condominiums--not in the condominiums. They didn't damage the
buildings but the people outside the buildings. So you need more
6
PZM7.3.90
than just strong walls in the building. You have to be sure the
surrounding play areas and access areas are protected too.
Welton: I agree with what Graeme said. Those concerns are
shared by me that we don't know enough or have enough experience
regarding avalanche problems. Can you have alarms that are
tripped off when an avalanche happens that people know enough to
go for cover? What is the technology?
Tom: You can effectively control an avalanche in an avalanche
zone.
Graeme: I have heard at every avalanche seminar I have been to
the lead speaker has always said "All the experts are dead.
Nobody is an expert in avalanches". I have also been in Europe
and I have seen the snow fencing carried thousands of feet and
just in a tangled mess in the valleys. I caution you not to--and
I don't think if Art Meiers were here he would be as positive as
you seem to be that you can control or deflect it. In Europe
they have many, many deaths each year and they don't have the
liabilities and the kinds of things we have here.
I don't feel comfortable giving approvals of
avalanche areas until we have some guidelines.
avalanches and I know you are not going to corral
are not going to stop them.
buildings in
I have seen
them and you
Tom: By the time we make final submission we anticipate
providing essentially construction documents for the structure of
the building as well as all of the reports from Art Miers for the
design of that so that you know that it works. Right now at a
conceptual level the way this building is designed it can
withstand whole hit avalanche. You can go down the corridor,
down the elevator into the parking garage and drive to work.
Fritz: You mentioned a warning system. That slide that occurred
about 25 years ago there was about 3 and 1/2 feet of snow in a 24
hour period and I think if you had a house there that you would
evacuate the building and shoot it down with that snow build up
which was probably a 100 year slide.
Welton: That is in the line of controlling it uphill from the
property. And I don't know what ownerships there are going up to
the very ridge.
Fritz: That is the National Forest.
There was no further public comment and Welton closed the public
portion of the hearing.
7
PZM7.3.90
Welton asked the applicant if they had any concerns with the
conditions of the Planning Office.
Graeme: I think in the future there might be in our packet a
little analysis of whether the project is indeed doing what the
AH Zone is trying to do. That is to relieve these employee
housing situations. Or is it creating more need for employees
and what type of employees are they and are they going to be the
type of employees that can afford the particular types of units
that are going in. I think it ought to be a threshold issue in
these AH Zone applications to try and think about that right out
of the gun.
Tom: The AH Zone specifies a specific mix in bedroom and in unit
mix and we are on the mark with both.
Welton: I just want to remind the Commission that long ago we
had something called REO and it was the same thing as AH. It was
just a different name for it. It allowed for higher density than
the zone district would allow. This is the first AH. We never
had an RSb. It was on the books for 8 or 10 years and it never
got past the first step because every time it was like "Well you
know this is R-6--much lower density" and never had one housing
unit generated or created by R80. I think we at least want to
give it a fighting chance for the first one out of the gate to
see how it does work and if it does accomplish what we wanted to
accomplish 12 years ago with REO and last year with AH.
Jasmine: I wanted to point out that when an AH project comes by
and there is a free market component it is not necessarily
assumed that the employee housing portion of that project goes to
satisfy that specific free market component either but more to
address an employee housing situation in general.
We have to look at what the Housing Authority says in terms of
what is needed generally in the community.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the ute Park Subdivision
Conceptual PUD development plan with the following conditions to
be dealt with prior to final PUD submission:
Condition #l--in the 3rd sentence after ute Avenue add the words
"including pedestrian ways".
I modify my motion to indicate concurrent or prior to final PUD
submission the following conditions will be met:
Condition #1 we have already gone through.
8
PZM7.3.90
Conditions #2 through #9 shall be the same as on Planning Office
memo dated June 22, 1990. (attached in record)
Jasmine seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard.
Richard: I just think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves
wi th having dealt with ute Avenue and haven't figured out on a
city level whether it can take this kind of extra development
that comes in. I think at the end it is going to be kind of run
over. And I am not comfortable with that much up-zoning with
something right on the edge of the forest like that.
801 EAST HYMAN AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne made presentation. Attached in record.
After short discussion:
MOTION
Jasmine: I would like to make a motion that we recommend
landmark designation for the historic outbuilding structure and
portion of the parcel immediately associated with 801 East Hyman
Avenue for the purpose of adapting the ally structure to provide
a deed restricted employee dwelling unit.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY
Welton opened the pUblic hearing.
Roxanne: Main Street Historic District is it's own micro
neighborhood with uses ranging from retail to lodge and
residential and architectural styles represent nearly every
decade of Aspen's history which is very unique. This is the only
area that actually occurs.
For a number of years the district has been neglected and the
property and business owners have been very interested in
improvements to the district.
Baker: We have been talking about pedestrian walkway program,
the Hwy 82 design effort and the guidelines revision which
Roxanne will be undertaking.
9
PZM7.3.90
There have been a number of discussion about the office zones.
Maybe we need 2 office zones. One around the core and the other
out on Main street. It could be provided as an inducement for
locally oriented businesses which is another concern.
Jasmine: It seems all the incentives involve GMQS exemptions.
To me GMQS exemptions are causing a lot of the problems that we
are having in this town because everything is getting exempted.
All of these exemptions are really growth generators and I am
really very much opposed to it. Especially because we have never
ever been able to police locally oriented businesses.
You have somebody who comes in "I am a humble shoemaker. I have
lived here for four years. I am going to get a GMQS exemption to
build a little house on Main street". Then the little shoemaker
sells his business to a boutique. This goes on all the time. We
know it has been going on ever since I have been on P&Z. So what
happens is you give the exemption to this locally oriented
business. It has impact and then it turns into something that
has even greater impacts. And those impacts are never addressed.
Welton: I have heard through the rumor mill that there is going
to be some $5 to $6 million dollar townhouses in the 0 Zone over
here on the east side of town that are going through the works
that are GMQS exempted because they are tear down and rebuild.
When we took the C-1 out of the tear down rebuild--mainly what
was happening and we didn't do it to the 0 Zone because we didn't
want to discourage single families on Main Street. Well, let's
get back on the stick. I don't think we can act fast enough on
this to keep another waive of this bigger glitzier townhouse
duplex mentality from happening but we can try.
I don't agree with Jasmine that GMQS is the cause of our problems
because the kinds of GMQS exemptions that have caused these
problems are the ones that are the most difficult to plug up.
That is the tear down rebuild that is exempt only because it was
a house that is torn down and being replaced by a house of an
entirely different nature. The kind of GMQS exemption that Tom
is talking about is--right now we have a crises with office
space.
Maybe we do exempt Office on Main street from it for a period of
2 years or something like that to help these local businesses
that are being driven out of the Elk's building and the building
across from Clark's Market. People have been going through a
very traumatic displacement this season. I think we have to not
blanketly say "All GMQS exemptions are the cause of our
problems" .
''''''''.....
10
PZM7.3.90
Doug Allen: Most of the growth generated recently has been
because of the exemptions and the employee housing is as big a
problem as anything because that is growth generator. It is a
huge growth generator and perhaps on the Office space you need to
say that you can't build residences in the Office space unless
they are associated with an office as a GMQS building.
I was responsible for an application in Basalt recently that is
going to be a mixed use development where the Pan and Fork
Trailer Park is. It is amazing the interest we have got from
people in Aspen who are losing a lot of the old local businesses
and going to lose them in Aspen because they don't have any place
to go. They have moved out to the Business Center and now there
is no more room in the Business Center. There is no plan for
expansion out there. I have got a 2 year lease on my law
practice where I am. I don't know where I am going at the end of
2 years. There isn't much choice. Now that Alpine Bank has
taken over what is essentially a professional building over here
all of those accountants and local people that are in that
building--that is going to be Alpine Bank offices. And there
will probably be another boutique going in where Alpine Bank is.
Roger: Regarding our favorite duplexes in the 0 Zone. I haven't
seen a great amount of occupancy there.
.- Welton: Roger, look closely--the best way of telling is whether
or not the fire places have ever been used. Whether they are
still shiny and whether they have soot on them. And most of them
don't have soot on them.
Roger: I am hoping the developers will take a bath on these and
convert them to office space.
Doug Allen: What is happening is I know there are more on the
drawing boards and they are going to be built even though these
aren't sold yet. They are rushing forward to build more.
Roger: What bank are they convincing to finance them?
Doug: Some of these are being done without the benefit of bank
financing. I know that for a fact.
Welton: Some of them are being done with the profits of earlier
sales.
Baker: What I did hear is that you like the split on the 0 Zone.
Welton: And that suggestion of residence over office.
11
PZM7.3.90
Roger: To recap quickly what we are looking at is an 0-1 Zone
where only residences are allowed in the mixed use office.
Baker: Maybe we would make the 0-1 Zone similar to the C-1 Zone
in terms of residential--the mixed use aspect would come into the
0-2 Zone. And that would be basically Main street.
Lodge preservation: We have met with a number of lodge owners
over the last 5 months. It seems like there are 2 things that
are a problem with small lodges. The non-conformities that exist
because the zone district was placed over. And the non-
conforming section of the codes pretty much ties everyone's
hands. Maybe we need to look at loosening that up a little for
specific zone districts. GMQS is another incentive that is
possible that we could allow increases of 10-% or some magic
number.
Again this is going to get fed into the Land Use element as being
exempt--a one shot kind of deal.
Bruce: It may be too late to preserve them. What I am
experiencing right now and a lot of other smaller lodges are
experiencing right now--what is happening in town is that all of
the high-end places are absolutely full but the smaller lodges
are half or less full for the 4th of July. Some of the reasons
for this are that Aspen has presented itself as only high-end and
".,.- the folks that used to come here to stay in the small lodges are
staying somewhere else. They are in Breckenridge or Steamboat or
somewhere. But they are not in Aspen.
Baker: Do you think that is a marketing thing?
Bruce: Some of it is marketing, yes. But it may be a long term
trend that is already here. Maybe we can turn it around.
Baker: That is exactly what the neighborhood group identified.
The Ski Company and whoever else is doing this upscale marketing.
And then there is everyone else down here--that is an integral
part of this community. It is something that we want to market.
Doug: The economic fact at the present time is it made sense for
Savannah to buy the Bavarian and convert it to employee housing
and when you have a code that allows these lodges to be converted
to something else. That is exactly what is going to happen
because the economics dictate it. And as long as that is allowed
they are all going to go.
Baker: That is a good point. The LP Zone district allows
dormitories as permitted uses and that is what is going to happen
at the Bavarian if they don't get to rezone the LP portion, they
12
PZM7.3.90
will just convert it to dorm and so we have got de facto rezoning
anyway for affordable housing. The concern that Savannah has is
they want credits for that and that is up in the air whether they
are going to get credits for it.
Doug: It is going to be employee housing whether you give them
credit or not.
Baker:
and to
use in
That is right. So maybe we need another category here
review the LP zone. Do we want dormitories as an allowed
the LP Zone.
Doug:
If you do you will lose on lodges.
Welton: Dormitories as accessory to the lodge operation, yes.
Dormitories exclusively, maybe.
Baker: That is something we will throw into the pot. I assume
everybody stays the same on the exemption. Jasmine is against
it. Welton is for it. If it is somewhat mixed feelings on it we
are going to keep it in the pot.
Doug: If you allow the lodge to be expanded it will be expanded
then the use will be converted.
-
Welton: Well, I am not going to predict that.
it but--Maybe we allow it to expand--
You can predict
Bruce: One of the conditions of approval for expansion may be a
deed restriction. Also you may want to tie or at least make sure
there is some kind of agreement between the non-conformity part
and the enlargement part so that the non-conformities somehow
don't become a problem to the modest enlargement. In other words
a guy may have the need to do a modest enlargement-say 10%-but if
he has still got those non-conformities it makes no economic
sense to do a 10% enlargement if you are still encumbered by all
these non-conformities.
Baker: What we were speculating on was--Iet's say you have a
small lodge and are non-conforming in terms of parking or you are
non-conforming in terms of maybe setback or open space. Even
though it is non-conforming in this zone district to open space
for certain things that we still allow an enlargement which isn't
allowed now. We can still allow an enlargement as long as the
non-conforming isn't increased.
Welton: That should also be a factor in a modest enlargement
should be allowed in a non-conforming structure in both lodge
preservation zone and in the historic landmark.
13
PZM7.3.90
I am talking non-conforming use--not a non-conforming structure.
And there are some non-conforming uses on Main street. I am
assuming they can't add a square inch because they are non-
conforming use. They are multi-family in the 0 Zone.
Roger: One thought might be if a lodge came in and got GMQS
exemption and expanded and had non-conformities that were
identified at the time of that expansion and allowed to be done
more or less conforming through that process then maybe if there
is going to be a change in use in that property that that has to
come back for another look. Maybe they have to--then if they
change usage they will have to address those non-conformities.
Jasmine: I like Bruce's idea more. I think back about the Bell
Mountain Lodge and I agree with Doug that once you allow all of
these lodges to become non-lodges then they are going to be
interested in selling. And I think you can't just say that you
can never turn this lodge into something else. That is being
unduly restrictive and really could cause hardship to somebody.
On the other hand if you say in exchange for getting these things
you agree that you are permanent restricted from becoming
anything other than a lodge then they have made a choice where
they have been getting something and they are willing to give
this preservation. I would really like to see that tied to the
commitment. What is the point of granting all of these things if
it is only 5 years from now to become a non-lodge. We did it so
it could stay a lodge.
Welton: But it is a lot simpler to tighten up what the uses are
in the first place. That is lodge preservation is only lodge
preservation. It is not dormitories. And tighten it up right
now. And Bruce's concern about the preservation becomes a mute
point without ever having the condition on any kind of approval.
Who knows whether 1% or 5% or 20% of LP lodges would ever want to
do a 10% increase. If we can tighten it down to primary use,
accessory uses then that is already been taken care of.
Tom: I agree with you except for nothing precludes you from
coming back for rezoning.
Welton: Right. Exactly.
Tom: Except for what he was saying.
Welton: As a stumbling block for rezoning to--
Tom: We aren't inclined to rezone LP anyway.
14
PZM7.3.90
Bruce: I can tell you that 10% carrot is not going to be enough.
It may in a few cases but if you want somebody to keep something
a lodge and allow them to expand, given current econom~c
conditions it is going to take quite a bit more than 10%.
Welton: In the spectrum from 10% let's take it from 10% to the
maximum allowable build out for an LP lodge which in effect would
exempt LP lodges from GMQS exempt competition anyway. I know
from having done that for the Endeavor Lodge that it was a
tremendous expense for a little lodge owner that isn't going to
recoup his investment in this millennium thanks to what is
required by the city.
Doug Alan: A 10% increase in most cases from the ones I have
looked at is a giant step backwards due to the cost involved.
The economics are worse after you give 10% than before.
Baker: street activity issues: In general I think what we are
trying to do ~s preserve or enhance the vitality the local
business nature and the friendliness of Main street. One of the
things we would like to focus on is to encourage street activity.
We were looking at encouraging retail between the downtown area
and Aspen street. And then to have restaurants have the ability
to take the restaurants all the way down. We have got Asia,
HiCkory House, Log Cabin, Charlemagne and encourage the outdoor
seating. We don't want the strip commercial line set either.
..~
Roxanne: Why would anybody want it on Mill street? Or on Main
street with the cantina and Pour L' France right there on the
busiest intersection.
Tom: So it can work.
we do have seating at
work very well.
Although at first I thought "No Way". But
the Bakery, cantina and Asia that seems to
Welton: Friendliness--the most social thing you can do is have
sidewalks.
Doug Alan: The Log Cabin has had significant neighborhood
impacts. In parking primarily. I live at 300 West Bleeker and
people are parking beyond that from the Log Cabin and there is a
lot more noise and pedestrian traffic just as a result of that
little restaurant that is going into a residential neighborhood
behind the Log Cabin.
Roger: That is true of any commercial enterprise on Main street.
The Mesa Store--you wouldn't think Westec or something like that
would have a major impact but when you stick about 13 of their
Blazers along 4th street it becomes a sizeable impact.
15
PZM7.3.90
Welton reminded Tom his 30 minutes is up but he has a 10 minute
reprieve.
Tom: Most of the stuff that is coming out of the study is
indirect implementation that goes to augment the other planning.
This is one that we feel can be a direct implementation technique
and that is the landscaping. Given that Main street is the vital
gateway into town we feel to have an improvement district and
partnership with the city. We don't if the 6th Penny can be
tapped for this or not.
But the general improvement, the landscape, sidewalk improvement
done in partnership with the city is a direction that we are
moving in.
Bruce: I think it would be fantastic to come up with some kind
of gateway or sense of place--something to announce that you have
arrived--this is Aspen.
I was just in Jackson, Wyoming and the fact that they have their
town square with the antlers at all 4 corners of that block, you
know you are in the heart of Jackson. I think it would be great
of we had something like that that announces "I am now in Aspen".
Gideon: How about fur-lined archways?
Tom: How about our irrigation ditches? There are a lot of
ditches that have been discontinued. I don't know what our water
rights are and I don't know if it is doable but in terms of
amenities throughout the west end redoing those irrigation
ditches is something that was of interest to the people in the
neighborhood.
Richard: I am all in favor of it just because when I get out in
a neighborhood where there is an irrigation ditch immediately it
places me in a western town--a Colorado town. And I think that
in talking about the character of it that is my sentiment.
Graeme: I think you are on the right track as far as planting
trees because Main street you could do all you want to it but if
it is dusty and it is noisy it is not going to be a particularly
comfortable place to be.
Trees are going
street or 2 away
irrigation ditch.
the ditch.
to help at least block noise getting back a
from Main street and for that you may need the
I think it is more than an amenity than just
Roger: Something that can't happen overnight with the way trees
grow--you look at the midwestern town with their Maples and Oaks
16
PZM7.3.90
and Elms--they are a mushroom shaped tree as opposed to a stalk
that just goes up vertically somewhat like the Cottonwoods. I
would like to see a long term program where we start
interspersing some of those trees in the replacement program
because those trees are excellent at filtering dust.
Welton: What about the City taking responsibility for tree and
tree replacement programs and re-institution of the irrigation
ditches which by the way your memo didn't say--in the very
beginning it was also used for drinking water as well as fire
protection. It was used for drinking water before underground
pipes when it was a tent city. And then come up with the plan
like paving plan for lower shrubbery type of recommendation
design standards which also keeps the dust from rolling onto the
sidewalk areas. We are talking low growth hedgerow stuff in the
public ROW. I think when people see the city planting trees they
will say "Well what can we do?".
Baker: The whole traffic transportation situation is a real
overwhelming one for Main street. It is one that probably the
foremost concern is traffic dust. One of the things I hoped was
that they could--if we go to the separate office zoning and more
activity happens on Main street we could get a shuttle dedicated
to Main street corridor that is identifiable.
In the future it could be a way of enhancing the auto
disincentive aspects of what is going on. We have considered not
allowing off street parking on Main street for office uses. We
tried that downtown for a number of years too. We are going to
look at that.
The Hwy 82 design: It is critical for Main street that at some
point somewhere west of Castle Creek that there be this concerted
effort to promote a visual transition to do a number of things.
It will slow traffic down, announce that you are here and then
when you get across the bridge the stuff that we have done along
Main street makes it recognizable.
Welton: I think it may be information more than it is real. I
use the Highlands and Snowbunny buses all the time. They really
work well. That is the Main street transit and it works--as long
as you know about it.
Baker: So maybe we need to augment the--Roxanne has thought
about Main street logo. Maybe some identifiable characteristic
could go along with the Hunter Creek, Snowbunny sign on the bus
that identifies it as a Main Street kind of--
Roger: I have proposed this to RFTA. Having a flag to indicate
17
PZM7.3.90
the free downtown shuttles or something like that on those buses.
But they haven't responded yet.
Welton: As far as the interesting
curves reallv do that beautifully.
turning of that last corner BLAH!
front of you.
gateway is concerned I think S
They slow you down and by the
there is Main street right in
Roxanne: What an idea! Why didn't we think of that?
Welton: I think we need to have another election on that one.
Baker: We probably will.
Richard: On the
explanations posted
kind of thing that
li ttle sign and it
tend not to use it
whatever.
buses I think better bus stops, better
as to when the buses go would augment the
Roger is talking about. Now there is that
doesn't give schedules or anything. People
so I think a real bus stop with a bench or
Baker: User friendliness.
Graeme: I would think that the new bridge coming into town would
be the appropriate place to do something. I think how that
bridge is designed--if that is poorly designed--a basic kind of
highway and then there is something erected a block there, that
is going to read very ticky-tacky. It is the bridge itself that-
-Castle Creek--that is a very powerful place--and maybe some
light standards across the bridge--something over the bridge.
Baker: Right. The bridge has to be part of that transition.
Roger: And the protection of the vegetation just as you get on
this side of the bridge as much as possible because that is old
mature vegetation which gives you that sort of gateway into town.
Welton: That is all going to come down.
Doug Alan: I seems like there ought to be a visitor information
center before you get to the bridge somewhere on that property.
That would be the ideal place to put it.
Baker: We will come back to you with summarization of what we
have tonight and what we hear from the committee and Council as
well.
Welton closed the public hearing.
18
PZM7.3.90
MEZZOLUNA GMOS EXEMPTION
Kim Johnson made presentation.
(attached in record)
Planning Office does recommend approval with conditions.
Welton asked applicant if they had concerns with conditions.
Gideon: I have no problems with
have a problem with conditions
employee housing and parking.
First of all you have regulations that are set up in the Growth
Management Plan when you are going to build something we don't
know what is going to be generated. We don't know the facts. So
what we do is we set up a criteria that says there is going to be
some amount of employees generated from the development and we
set a range. In this case you have a set fact pattern. We have
a restaurant that is in existence. We have 168 feet below grade
that we want to allow the bakery chef to use. Right now what
happens is you have 3 chefs competing for the same space. You
have got the prep chef. You have got your salad chef. You have
got your baker chef all in the same area. There is no new
employees. What we are going to do is we are going to enhance
their working conditions.
the first 2 conditions. We do
3 and 4 which relate to the
What we are doing is we are moving it down--in reality we know
what is going on. We know that the 3 chefs are going to not have
to compete at the same time. The restaurant is not increasing
it's seating. It is not increasing it's employees. It is just
going to make its work situation better.
We are even willing to say that if the use ever changes from a
restaurant to some other kind of use then we have to come back in
front of you to discuss at that particular time because then
there could be some kind of employee generation. But given this
fact pattern we know that there will be no new employees
generated. And as long as it stays that way we don't see why we
should have to pay any fee.
In the GMP Regulations itself on page 830 under Commercial Spaces
it talks about that if it is determined that the proposed
development generates no new employees it shall be awarded the
full 15 points available. So even when you compete in the GMP
there is an acknowledgment that if some development doesn't
create employees and it doesn't say you have got to pay X amount
of money to get your points. So to me that is an understanding
that there can be a situation where no new employees are
generated and you shouldn't have to pay for additional employees.
19
PZM7.3.90
The same thing with parking. Giving the bakery chef some kind of
opportunity to have a good working condition I don't see how in
any kind of way incurs any kind of parking increase. So I think
what we have here is an issue of form over substance. I think
the reality here is there are no new employees. There are no new
parking spaces and as long as we are willing to commit that as
long as this use stays that is the way it is going to be it seems
to me, fine, you are protected.
Baker: Gideon always has very good arguments. The bottom line
is that GMQS is imperfect too. I can guarantee that no one is
going to come in here and say "Even though the code doesn't
require it, I am going to give you additional employee housing
mitigation and initial parking mitigation because this is the
fact pattern".
We very clearly and consistently have gotten employee housing
impacts o~ these modest expansions. The last application to come
through ~s the Explore. And they paid something like $23
thousand dollars. So we are being consistent with that in terms
of affordable housing. In terms of the parking mitigation that
section of the code says that they are going to mitigate for the
demand that they are creating. And we could be seeing 168sqft now
but we could see 332sqft in the future and they would still be
allowed to come under this exemption process. The total is
accumulation of 500sqft additional and we will never get any
parking impact mitigations. The whole intent of the cash-in-lieu
was to be put in place so that we could get stuff from the
downtown whether it is fractional or total spaces. We are paying
for the parking structure and the parking structure is a benefit
for the whole community especially for the downtown. So we feel
we are being fair and consistent.
Welton: So your point is that if we would waive the employee
housing impact fee it would be unlike other applicants in similar
situations.
Roger: Isn't a restaurant a conditional use in the C-1 and if so
where is the expansion of the conditional use we have to approve?
Baker: Restaurant is conditional use in the C-1. That is a good
question and I don't have an answer.
Gideon: It is not an expansion.
Roger: It is certainly an expansion of the conditional use if
this is for the restaurant.
Welton: Any time you add a square inch to a conditional use it
takes a conditional use hearing which is a pUblic hearing and
20
PZM7.3.90
this was not noticed as a public hearing so, Roger, I think it is
appropriate to move to table.
Gideon: wait a second. First of all--
Welton: Well, you were the one who created it as a conditional
use in the C-1 Zone.
Gideon: Well, that is the only way you can do a restaurant in
the C-1 Zone.
Welton: Yes. It was not permitted before you did it for the
Japanese restaurant.
Gideon: Roger, give me your site in terms of the reasoning you
think that it has to go through--
Roger: It is my concept that it is
also an expansion of a conditional
expansion of a conditional use we
conditional use hearings.
a conditional use. It is
use. And if it is an
have to go through the
Gideon: There is an insubstantial amendment to conditional uses.
We would argue that this is an insubstantial amendment to a
conditional use. 168sqft in a basement.
Baker: That is correct.
be a Planning Director's
to a conditional use.
public hearing.
I would agree with Gideon that it would
signoff from an insubstantial amendment
So we would not need to notice for a
Roger: Then one of my problems with Mezzaluna is the restaurant
in the C-1 Zone is supposed to be fairly locally oriented and I
don't consider Mezzaluna in its operation locally oriented.
Gideon: It was the P&Z that placed the conditions. We came
before--and you voted for this, Roger, we came before the P&Z
with the conditional use. We had talked about the time period in
which the restaurant was going to stay open and the restaurant
was going to be closed. And we had made an offer to have the
restaurant stay closed no more than 6 weeks out of the year. The
P&Z made the suggestion at that time that it was unfair to treat
one restaurant differently.
For your own information Mezzaluna this year was only closed 3
and 1/2 weeks out of the total year. It was open all of the off
season in the fall and in deference to the employees who worked
that long a time they gave them 3 and 1/2 weeks off in the
spring. They were open again on May 20th which is well before
the season.
21
PZM7.3.90
First of all the P&Z did not place that as a condition and second
of all we feel that it is a locally oriented restaurant. It is
open virtually the year around. It's menu is affordable. And if
you go in there at any particular time to the bar and to the
restaurant you would see numbers of local people. So I think
your whole premiss is incorrect in that particular situation.
But that is not the appropriate time now since we have met every
one of the P&Z conditions related to conditional use.
Welton: Tom has found a provision that allows it to be deemed an
insubstantial Planning Director's signoff. So the conditional
question has been resolved except for the main issues which is
the exactions for employee housing and the parking.
Gideon: Under Off Street Parking: The code is clear that there
should be no parking requirement. The code says required number
of spaces with fractional spaces computed when any calculation of
off street parking results in required fractional space such
fractional space shall be rounded off to the next highest number
of spaces. If there is 1/2 or greater it shall be disregarded if
there is less than 1/2 space. We are talking about 1/4 space and
therefore it is disregarded and no fee should be required.
,..."<.'.~
Baker: The C-1 Zone requires 1. 5 spaces per thousand square
- feet. The exemption that Gideon is going under allows an
exemption if you are 500sqft or less. The applicant could come
in and do 3 168sqft exemptions and argue that his fraction is
less than .5 and therefore nothing has to be mitigated. If you
look at the whole 500 in combination it is .75 spaces which then
makes it a full space which is $15,000.
What we are suggesting in order to be fair to the applicant is
that you pay the increment now and you keep paying that increment
and you are paying ultimately about $3,500 less than you would if
you rounded it up. That section of the code that Gideon speaks
to in my determination is geared more towards new development and
redevelopment as opposed to GMQS exemption and that the
fractional application that we have applied is really the most
fair in the long run to everybody--the City and the applicant.
Gideon: I don't see how you can charge us for what mayor may
not happen. We are in front of you with a 168sqft. We have no
intention of coming back. If we come back then you can clearly
say 168 and 168 equals more than a half.
Welton: Does the Planning Office have files where if triggered
over the cumulative half of a space that it would jump up to a
whole space? Do you think we could track that?
22
PZM7.3.90
Baker: Yes. We could track it. We have to keep track of these
files because of the cumulative aspect of the commercial square
footage expansion. So we could also track the parking and we
will create a record for that. We were under the impression that
we were being more equitable in the long run to everybody because
the net result was if Mezzaluna came in for ultimately 500sqft
they would be hit with a 15,OOOsqft parking as opposed to 11,500
if we do a percentage basis. So I can go along with that.
Welton: Does your client understand? I would hate for you to
pay something that could be exempted because of what might happen
in the future. I could see this as perhaps being the end of it
as far as any additional commercial use for you guys. So if you
can be exempted and provisions are there for you to be exempted
then I feel comfortable with it.
Roger: Does this quarter already bump it over to rounding up?
Baker: They get a fresh start. This is the first application
under the GMQS exemption that I am aware of. So they have got
.35 spaces in the hopper. As soon as they go to .16 above this
then it is $15,000 or whatever the new impact fee is going to be.
It just seemed fair to us if they were coming back again in the
future whether it is Mezzaluna or somebody else for 150sqft
expansion that they get hit for a $15,000 parking fee when they
- are saying they are only increasing it by .34. So we wanted to
incrementalize it so it was fair to everybody in the long run but
we do keep records.
Kim: I think Tom hinted at an important consideration that
another user could come by within that building and apply for
GMQS exemption and bring it up to 500sqft. At that point $15,000
would be assessed to that applicant when partial of that 500sqft
is applied for Mezzaluna.
Gideon: The way it works is we are a tenant. We don't own the
space. The landlord gave us permission to do this. When the
next buy that comes along is going to have to take that into
consideration. No one else may ever come back and do it.
Baker: The thing we are concerned about is that Gideon is going
to be here hired by someone else to make a different argument in
the future and he is getting very good at it. But we can keep
track. It was a fairness issue in our mind.
Roger: Maybe for fairness the owner of the building should be
notified of this--that the cumulative effect of this is that the
next expansion any more than--or increase in net leasable space
is likely to bump it to the $15,000 charge for parking on whoever
23
PZM7.3.90
does it. I think the owner of the building whoever has given
Mezzaluna permission to do this should know about that.
Welton:
case for
exaction
Is the Commission in general
rounding down and therefore
is a correct interpretation.
in agreement that Gideon's
exemption from the parking
Does anybody not want to delete condition #4?
Roger voted no.
Welton: Let's argue Condition #3.
Baker: Condition #3 is a standard way we handle this.
handled it in other applications in the past this exact
don't see that it is open to interpretation.
We have
way. I
Graeme: It is clear to me that it is an expansion. You can
argue but there is a rule about it. We can say take out one of
your tables and put the chef there. There is that option. It is
an expansion. I don't see how it can be interpreted any
different.
Roger: To me it is on the basis of square footage and I think it
should stay that way.
..... Bruce: No comment.
Gideon: Reading the hand writing on the wall then I would like
to see the language amended so that it says at the applicant's
option we can either pay $8,750 or restrict some unit to
accommodate that. So we have the option to restrict.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to recommend approval of GMQS
exemption for 168sqft of basement level with the conditions #1
and #2 being the same as the Planning Office memo dated June 22,
1990 and with #3 being the same with the additional language of
an impact fee of $8,750 or restriction of a unit or part of a
uni t to the Housing Authority's satisfaction. And deletion of
condition #4 concerning the cash-in-lieu for parking for 1/4 of a
space is rounded down to 0 and that the applicant's
representative would in written form with a copy to the Planning
Office notify the property owner that the cash-in-lieu for
parking was exempted because it was less than 1/2 space but if
any further increase in net leasable of the building takes it
above 1/2 space then the applicant and/or landowner will be
liable for the cost of the entire space.
24
PZM7.3.90
Bruce: I will make that motion.
Gideon: I don't mind writing a letter and copying the Planning
Office.
Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor except Roger who
voted yes with protest and Richard who voted no.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:25pm.
.".-,..-.~
..,.-
25