HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19901106
#WI"'''....
RECORD OF .PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6. 1990
vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara
Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre.
Welton Anderson were excused.
Garton, Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr,
Mari Peyton, Richard Compton and
MINUTES
OCTOBER 2. OCTOBER 9 & OCTOBER 16. 1990
Roger made a motion to approve minutes of October 2, 1990.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Roger made a motion to approve minutes of October 9, 1990 with
minor fill-in-the-blanks corrections.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Roger made a motion to approve minutes of October 16, 1990 with
fill-in-the-blanks corrections.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: What is the status of the trash yard behind the Hotel
Aspen on the Bleeker ROW?
Kim: The Engineering Dept is processing whatever needed to be
processed on that.
Roger: I walked by Little Nell Hotel the other day and there
were some workmen up there painting the exposed exhaust fans
which are at the very least supposed to be hidden behind some
sheet metal on the chimneys.
It is the exhaust fans over Shlomo' s up on the chimneys. The
condition of approval was that all the works were supposed to be
under the roof. That was the logic for getting the higher
roofline at that point. And then they did not show these on
their drawing representations to us. They did show some sort of
farring things there and of course neglected to tell us that they
were hiding fans. If they had been a little more straight
forward I would have taken care of it right there. But at the
very least they better get those farrings up there. It is over a
year now.
/'",,'--....
Then the Caribou Club Restaurant is without direct access to the
alley. And the reason I am pointing it out right now is that in
this 409 East Hopkins, I don't see where they have negotiated a
direct access to the alley for that restaurant. And now what do
we do?
.-.-
,
STAFF COMMENTS
PZMll. 6.90
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
PUBLIC HEARING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Kim: The applicant has requested an indefinite tabling of this
hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move we table this hearing indefinitely per the
applicant's request.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine asked if there was any public comment.
and she closed the public hearing.
There was none
409 EAST HOPKINS SPECIAL REVIEW
REOUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMOS PROCEDURES
REOUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie: This applicant is requesting a GMQS allocation of
6,823sqft of net leasable. The project is located on East
Hopkins Street between the Collins Block and the Brand Bldg. They
propose to demolish the existing bank building on site and
reconstruct a new commercial retail building with a gross square
footage of 19,253sqft.
The applicant also requests a growth management exemption for
reconstruction of the existing commercial space. That existing
building represents 2, 375sqft of net leasable and that square
footage is eligible for a growth management exemption for
reconstruction for commercial space provided that employee
parking impacts are mitigated.
The applicant is also requesting
in trash utilities service area.
reduction in the on site parking
special review for the reduction
A reduction in open space and a
that is required.
Given the size of this parcel there is 1,938sqft of open space
that is required. During conceptual HPC review the applicant
2
PZM11.6.90
worked very closely with the HpC to develop a site design that
was compatible with that street and especially the 2 buildings on
either side.
They have pulled the building forward up to the sidewalk and
therefore they do not have any open space by our definition of
open space. So they are requesting special review to reduce the
required amount of open space within the commercial core. Any
reduction of open space must be accompanied by payment-in-lieu
and that money goes into a separate open space fund. That money
is only used for projects within the commercial core or adjacent
to the commercial core. It is estimated that $387,600 would be
the open space dedication.
They are also requesting a reduction in off street parking. Due
to the size of this building 18 spaces would be required and this
may also be reduced accompanied by a cash-in-lieu. At $15,000 a
space the proposed cash-in-lieu will be $270,000.
There is virtually no room to put parking on site.
Then they are requiring a reduction in the trash and service
utility area. According to the application in the site plan they
need 23ft in length along the alley to comply with the
dimensional requirement of a trash service area. And there is a
transformer easement that takes out 3ft of that. So they only
have 20ft in length. However they have twice as much square
footage of the trash service area that they are required to have.
Staff supports all 3 special reviews. And the applicant has in
his application included code amendments which today we received
a letter and the applicant is requesting tabling of discussion of
the code amendments until such time as they can work with staff
and try and figure out a better way to present the code
amendments.
The only difference that that code amendment makes is in the
reduction of parking and the open space. It just reflects the
size of money to be paid in the cash-in-lieu.
I also want to add that the GMQS exemption for reconstruction
requires that parking and employees be mitigated for that space
that is reconstructed and another code amendment was to eliminate
that requirement.
Jasmine: But that is not relevant at this point.
Sara: I am concerned about building in that the sun is so low in
the winter and we have these icy canyons along Durant st and now
on parts of the mall. Mass is wonderful in the historic cities.
3
PZM11. 6.90
But we also are an alpine climate and I feel there needs to be
relief as I walk along high buildings on a dark afternoon. We
have short days here. The sun needs to do some work on these
sidewalks and streets.
I know it makes a more historic corridor. I know what you are
trying to achieve. But I don't like the feel of it and I don't
like the way it looks. I would like to see more open space. I
would like to see something more like the Sardy House.
Roger: My concern about giving up this open space is #1 I don't
understand the site plan that is in the book. I understand the
service yard and the transformer but what is this blocked space
here?
There is a problem with the Caribou Restaurant in that they don't
have direct access to the alley. And they have been holding me
off because they say they were under negotiations with one of the
property owners here to acquire a direct access to the alley and
I am not seeing it here.
Joe Wells: (Sara, this is for you) Using site plan--This is the
street side. This is Hopkins here with the alley here. The
Collins Block project is here but Harley also owns this out
parcel fronting on the alley here. That leaves us with this
amount of alley exposure here in this area.
You can see from that relationship that unless we had a parking
ramp off of the street which would be opposed by HPC we had to
make a conscious choice as to whether to address the trash
storage problem in this area or provide parking off the alley
because that is our only alley frontage.
with regard to the question that Roger is raising. To my
knowledge no such agreement has been finalized with Harley to
provide that direct connection. I know that Harley eliminated
retail space over on Mill Street and provided an egress to the
alley on that side of the building.
Roger: No. That is not to the alley.
That crosses the old Sabbatini.
That is to the street.
Joe: To answer your question--to my knowledge there is no
agreement with regard to Harley's rights to use any portion of
this property.
Leslie: As I remember it was something that Harley said that he
would like the opportunity to work out with the owner of this
parcel to try and work in both things--one common trash entrance
and service entrance and also the employee housing on site. He
4
PZMll . 6 . 90
wanted the P&Z to give him some latitude so he could work that
out.
P&Z did not give him that latitude as far as the employee housing
and as far as the service access. The Council in their approval
of the Collins Block project strongly suggested and recommended
that Harley continue to work with the adjacent land owner to work
out these problems.
Then when we were faced with dealing with the non-direct access
for the restaurant staff and the Zoning Dept interpreted that he
has that entrance that is close to the alley and there is the
caveat on there that delivery trucks still have to pull in to the
alley, remain in the alley and service from off of the alley to
that door. We are trying to watch it pretty closely but that was
one of those things that an entrance--it was in the definition
section of the code and nobody caught it until after it came
totally through.
Roger: I am not happy with this solution. I don't want to hold
this up much longer. But that means that that restaurant has to
carry it's trash on the street in front of another business which
fronts on the street. That is in direct opposition as to what
was intended by the code. And I don't like it.
Leslie: We have worked with Harley and Joe. They flipflopped
their trash area. It is now on the other end of the Lane parcel
in the event that there was re-development on 409 East Hopkins,
they could take advantage of that. This project doesn't reflect
that and I don't know what happened between that. But there was
that kind of accommodation with the Collins Block at one point.
Roger: Yes. But right now there is no accommodation
access to that restaurant and I say therefore it
compliance with the code. What do we do about it?
for direct
is not in
Jasmine: Applications have been made which represented that when
the future applications were made for additional development on
the adjacent parcel that these things were going to be addressed.
Obviously they are not being addressed. That was part of the
discussion--"Well we are kind of putting this off until now
because there is going to be an application for re-development of
the adjacent parcel and at that point all of these things are
going to be addressed".
Well, here we have before us the application for the adjacent
parcel for the re-development of the adjacent parcel and, in
fact, these things are not being addressed. And I have to say
that I absolutely share Roger's concerns about this because these
5
PZM11. 6.90
things get put off with the idea that they are going to be dealt
with at a future time.
This is the future time and they are not being addressed. And I
am really not sure what mechanism we have to deal with this sort
of thing. But I know that Roger and I who have been on
Commission for 2,000 years have seen more than enough of this
stuff. And we really don't want to see any more of it.
Roger: My major point at this point concerning open space is
that somehow or another we didn't get what I expected and it
certainly didn't come out of open space.
Graeme: In reading over this I have some of the same feelings
that Sara did in terms of the HPC sort of requiring the building
could be close to the property line, close to the sidewalk and
the shading problems. I think that probably in those days there
were a lot of different scale of buildings. There were some big
buildings. There were some little buildings and that helped.
Sometimes there would be a little shack or an empty lot next to a
big building and that would help to break things up. But now
that we are going to bigger and bigger buildings I don't think
that it is a good idea to create a canyon effect. No matter how
gook-looking the building might be I just don't think it is a
good idea.
I don't know as it is fair to hold this applicant up because they
got pushed into this through the process. But I am not convinced
that it is a good idea to set that kind of standard.
Roxanne: The applicant has pulled out the language of the
guidelines which specifically talks about the need in the
commercial core and historic district to bring buildings out to
more of the site. Not necessarily completely up to the sidewalk
street edge to provide more of a victorian streetscape and not
the mote effect that we have been witnessing all throughout
downtown commercial core for the past 10 years.
As an example of an entire block that does not work well in the
opinion of the HPC, myself and staff is the block on Hyman Ave
between the Elk's Bldg and the Pitkin County Bank where all of
the buildings have been set back. That is a really good block to
walk along and really understand the intent of the guideline.
And it is HPC's very strong opinion that the sidewalk street edge
is very important to maintain. HPC worked very closely with this
applicant for many hours to finally reach the right setback that
they were dealing with.
Amy: The pocket parks and the little nitches and the areas in
the downtown commercial core we still feel that they are
6
PZM11. 6.90
valuable. We would not necessarily want to see every place in
town filled up wall to wall street fronts.
Sara: I don't like the moat effect either.
if Joe and the applicant have settled on a
little park.
And I wanted to ask
price for that that
Joe: No. We haven't settled on a price. The issue is on the
table if there is serious interest in purchasing. We stated that
in the application. There is no figure. If there were an
interest shown by anyone a figure could be developed.
Jasmine: That is where the fountain is?
Sara: Yes. That is the parcel that the City could purchase.
Joe: We also will offer to donate those elements. Apparently
Parks doesn't see any benefit in that. There really is a very
strong conflict between the historic guidelines which really has
dictated this particular solution. We have definitely been
instructed by HPC to pull the building out to the front. And
also to try to keep it to 2 stories. So we have responded to HPC
and now we are faced with a new set of criteria.
Bill Poss: If P&Z and the HPC were ever to develop a plan, they
actually will be on opposite sides of the street so that they got
the sun. And that is what happened on the Hyman Ave project that
Roxanne was relating to.
On the side of the street where this is you may
back but you would always be in the shadow.
back far enough. There would be no building.
step the building
You couldn't get
Graeme: Has the applicant agreed to pay the open space cash-in-
lieu?
Leslie: Staff interpretation of the application was that it
wasn't very clear. I was going to let the applicant during their
presentation before the scoring commit one way or the other.
That will reflect on their score on the application. If the
Commission votes to reduce the open space requirement it
automatically is in the code that it goes with the payment-in-
lieu.
Jasmine:
written.
applicant
changed.
That is a requirement in the code as the code is now
So that granting the special review would require the
to make this payment until or unless that amendment is
Leslie:
Right.
7
PZM11.6.90
Jasmine: So in other words the way the code is now written if
the applicant receives the special review at this point in time
as we sit here at this particular day, the applicant would be
required to pay the cash-in-lieu for the open space. Is that
correct?
Leslie: Right.
Joe: Let me say for the record that was exactly our assumption
when we wrote the application. We didn't realize that we had to
say that we agreed to comply with the code provision that is in
the code. We didn't specifically say we agree to pay the open
space payment-in-lieu under the present rules and regulations
because obviously we don't have a project if we don't maintain
that commitment. We did file a code amendment which mayor may
not be approved.
But to the extent that there is any confusion about our
commitment we certainly anticipate being obligated to pay the
payment-in-lieu as expressly written in the code unless the City
should agree to modify the provision.
Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none and she
closed the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Graeme: I make a motion to approve the special review for
reduction of the required open space.
Bruce seconded the motion.
Roger: I would like to make that conditioned on the pursuing
with the adjacent property owner--the Collins Block--for some
sort of alley access for that Collins Block.
Graeme: I don't see that that
That is somebody else's problem.
these guys with somebody else's
tough with them, go after who has
guys.
has anything to do with this.
I don't see how you can saddle
problem. If you want to get
got the problem. But not these
Jasmine: So you do not wish to amend your motion.
Graeme: No. The reason why I am making the motion is that I
feel that the whole process has led these people to this
solution. While I am still not totally convinced of where
everything got to, I do think that there is a larger thing with a
lot more input than what I think right now and that led to this
8
PZMll . 6 . 90
solution. I don't think it would be fair to deny them after the
city giving them this solution.
Bruce: Graeme' s motion basically is that we are not going to
require the 25% open space on site and that it would be taken
care of in the cash-in-lieu. That is in effect what he is
saying.
Graeme: That is what I thought.
Graeme, Bruce and Sara voted in favor of the motion. Roger and
Jasmine voted against the motion.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION IN OFF STREET
PARKING REOUIREMENT
Leslie: Given their location as to the parking garage, Rubey
Park, several bus routes are within a block and the site's
inability to adequately provide parking--the underground parking
did not work with the size of the parcel. Staff has no problem
recommending approval of reduction in parking with the cash-in-
lieu.
MOTION
Bruce made a motion to approve reduction for off street parking.
Sara seconded the motion.
Roger: I would like to see a reduction in the cash-in-lieu
required in order to help this access problem with the next piece
of property. I think that is within the City's capability of
doing.
They are having to pay for open space not provided, by money.
But if some of that open space or parking area were used to
accommodate a problem with the adjacent property holder why could
not the city in effect negotiate a reduction of that cost on a
more or less square foot basis.
Bruce: But Roger they are going to have to be paid by the
adjacent property owner. There is no point in us reducing the
requirement of this applicant. If there is something that is
going to be worked out it is going to be Harley having to pay
these guys some money so that would be double dipping. You have
got it backwards.
Jasmine: I understand Roger's concern. But I think Bruce is
right in that the onus of the payment should fall upon Harley.
9
PZM11. 6.90
Roger: I agree there.
Jasmine: And that exempting this particular applicant from these
financial provisions is not going to guarantee that this is going
to be done because it is really Harley's business to come up with
that additional money.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion.
REDUCTION OF TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS
Joe: This is the largest trash and utility access area you have
ever seen. The only problem is there is a transformer pad right
in this corner on the alley which effectively reduces the linear
frontage that is available to us to 20ft. It is 3ft short of the
requirement of whatever the number is.
This is in place. We only own to here. We are providing 2 and
1/2 times the required amount of trash and utility access area
but we can't do anything about the fact that this transformer pad
is here for the benefit of the city.
I realize that Engineering says that there is no easement for it
but it is presumed that we will provide an easement for it and
that is where they want it. So we are just 3ft short of the
required distance. This plan illustrates that we can get 5 full
dumpsters lined up across there and we honestly don't believe
there is a problem. But we are happy to discuss alternatives.
Jasmine: There was a suggestion that a compactor system be
included. And the response says that a compactor system s only
feasible if all the owners of the block participate in the cost
of the system. Couldn't each individual tenant be responsible
for a trash compactor? People have them in their houses. It
certainly would help solve the problem.
Joe: CCLC concluded that in order for the system to work very
well it needed to be a block by block or commercial core system
and they pretty much gave up on implementing that system. We
don't believe we need compactors when we can provide 5 dumpsters
for this project.
Jasmine:
everyone
compacts
it.
It just seems to me that in this day and age when
is so concerned about recycling that everybody who
whatever garbage they can compact should certainly do
Roger: I have a question about the service access apparently
through the trash yard. In what I see the alley elevation here
it is just a big open cavern. But now I am looking at this plan
10
PZM11. 6.90
here which
dumpster.
plan?
Bill Poss: We have an elevation of the alley that shows that.
Because we are so large in plan we do have the ability to screen
it with some gates and still give you enough room. In the
elevation you can see that it would be totally screened.
doesn't agree with the book showing doors for the
Is there a door in a suitable service access in this
Roger: How do you identify the service access to that for the
person delivering goods?
Bill: It is a separate gate. In the plan you can see it is
recessed. You can walk in and there is a gate to walk through
and that identifies that. And it keeps it away from the service
and trash area.
Roger: Does that wall for that door go back far enough that the
dumpsters aren't thrown into the service access?
Bill: Actually we could extend that wall back.
absolutely right. That should be back there so that
into the service yard and service the trash this way
take it out that way. We could extend that wall.
You are
you come
and then
?--poss assistant: We will probably lower that area so that area
can be washed and cleaned so there will be a small curb there to
keep the dumpsters from rolling into the service.
Roger: I have no problems in the reduction of the linear
frontage for the service area or whatever square footage area
reduction is necessary to accommodate the transformer easement.
MOTION
Roger: I move to accept the reduction in the trash and utility
area as presented here.
Sara seconded the motion.
Roger: I tied it to the presentation.
better come out as presented.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
Watch out folks.
It
CODE AMENDMENTS
Leslie: The applicant is requesting tabling the code amendments.
And staff particularly doesn't like to process code amendments
11
PZM11 . 6 . 90
for specific projects and we would like the ability to work more
on these code amendments.
The question before the Commission is the elimination of the code
amendment. And staff believes that any future review of code
amendments may require re-scoring of an application. We haven't
determine that yet but--
Jasmine:
question
a future
Because it depends on the nature of the amendment. The
then is the applicant then putting themselves at risk of
scoring revision by doing this tabling.
Leslie:
Potentially.
Joe: We always intended our application to be scored as if this
project would be constructed under present rules and regulations
of the city of Aspen.
We included 3 code amendments. One of which is already being
addressed by Roxanne's work. And we simply included a request to
make sure that that issue stayed on the table for further
discussion. It was our intention and including the request to
simply get some issues on the table for you to focus on which we
think are to some degree inequitable.
We have always assumed that the project may face these exactions
as Kim has listed over here. That is what they are under this
project under the present regulations. I don't really understand
how a re-scoring would be necessary but I am happy to discuss
that with the Planning staff at a later date.
Jasmine: I think the point that I think we need to clarify for
ourselves on the Commission is that if you are indeed asking us
to score your application as presented without the necessary code
amendments as presented this is the way it would happen. If in
fact the code amendments which we don't even know what form they
would take, eventually go through that would certainly represent
a substantial change--or could--we just don't know because since
you are tabling the amendments, we don't even really know exactly
what these amendments are going to concern. I want to make sure
that the applicant would understand that based on what form these
code amendments take, if any, that that might in fact subject the
applicant to a review because you would be then--let's say there
were substantial changes based on amendments that we pass
subsequently that you would then apply to have incorporated into
your project if those amendments turned out to be substantial at
that point you would then I think have changed substantially your
project. Do you see what I mean?
12
PZM11. 6.90
We don't know that because we don't--because we are tabling the
amendments we don't know how severe they are going to be. We
don't want to get you into a situation where you do not realize
that you are at risk in certain areas. And I think the members
of the Commission have to be aware of that also. But we can't do
that because we don't know what the amendments are going to be.
Leslie: staff is just taking a conservative approach on that in
saying that--the code says that there are technical and
clarification and there are substantial amendments to development
order and if it is determined that that an amendment to a
development are substantial then you must re-score the
application. I just wanted everybody to know that. That since
we re eliminating a certain review of this proposal and if the
applicant should desire to come back and re-open a discussion on
the code amendments it could--
Jasmine: And it may not.
Bruce: I guess I am not following exactly what a potential re-
scoring may have to do with anything. Once they are scored and
an allocation is given and the exactions are acquired, I don't
see that it makes any difference. Whatever the code amendments
don't affect this application. This application is done and gone
and approved and a million two is already paid and I don't see
that the code amendments have anything to do with this
application.
If we score it based on the
disapprove the allocation then it
future code amendment possibility
application.
present code and approve or
is all done. I don't see why a
might even have to do with this
Leslie: But a future code amendment could affect the final
outcome of the building of this building. And if it does and--
Jasmine: You mean if the applicant applies--
Leslie: No.
Sara: Would he have to re-apply?
Leslie: Yes.
took advantage
you scored on,
If there was a code amendment and the applicant
of it and it changed what you approved and what
it could require re-scoring on the project.
Sara: Joe, aren't you still--even if we score tonight--I mean
when we score tonight--after we score tonight, aren't you still
asking for GMQS exemption from ?
13
PZM11 . 6 . 90
Joe:
A GMQS exemption for the re-construction
mumble
- -
Jasmine: Yes. But that does not--
Sara: That has nothing to do with any of the amendments you are
asking for?
Jasmine: No.
Leslie: Not any longer.
Joe: One of the amendments does.
Sara: One of the amendments does have to do with Amy's
exemption.
Joe: Well, let me add what my view of this is. If someone's
project gets approved and in the meantime the City adopts a new
set of housing guidelines, before that applicant obtains his
building permit then he is most likely going to have to pay--and
he is doing housing by payment-in-lieu--if those guidelines
increase the applicant is obligated to pay the increased payment-
in-lieu under that guideline. Any code change that occurs prior
to the issuance of a building permit affects everyone. It is our
understanding if the code amendment is adopted prior to the
issuance of the building permit for this project it will
certainly in fact the amount of money that has to be paid for
this project our commitment is to house 60% or to make a payment-
in-lieu for 60% of our employee generation, our commitment is to
make a payment-in-lieu of parking under the regulations in effect
at the time of the building permit. That is my view. That may
subsequently be incorrect but--
Jasmine: But this is the representation of the applicant at this
point.
Joe: It was my assumption that if the City chooses to amend the
code for all applicants prior to the issuance of a building
permit that it would have affect on the amount of the financial
commitments for the project because when other regulations are
changed prior to the issuance of a building permit for an
approved project it has that same effect.
Sara: I still need
tonight it isn't done.
clarification though. If
You still need exemption.
it
is
scored
Jasmine: GMQS exemption, right.
Sara: Yes. You don't have that exemption unless some of these
amendments--
14
PZM11. 6.90
.,
Leslie: No. He gets that exemption.
The exemption depending upon adoption of a specific code
amendment could go one way or the other. But he still gets the
exemption. It would be the difference of having to mitigate vs
not having to mitigate. And if all we are talking about is this
amount of money vs this amount of money with the code amendment I
doubt that would substantially affect the design of the building
or the project as a whole.
If we are talking this amount of money that then affects all of a
sudden a change in the building because to pay this exaction they
now need more square footage, more net leasable or something like
that then we are talking an amendment to the application.
Jasmine: But that would be up to the applicant to submit the
amendment, would it not?
Leslie: Well, if the applicant submitted plans that were
different than what he got an allocation for then that would be
an amendment to the application which will require re-scoring.
Jasmine: But at this particular point we don't have any reason
to think that that would happen or do we?
Leslie: I just wanted to put it out on the table that there is
this provision within the code that says that if you submit
amendments to development you are opening yourself up for re-
scoring and some code amendments could affect that. And this
applicant has proposed 3 code amendments and could come back
proposing 3 code amendments that specifically affect this
application at a future date.
Roxanne: I also need to say that the code amendment as the
applicant has worded with regard to the exemption for the non-
significant structure for demolition within ____mumble_ is not
accurately worded in here and that the HPC has completely
different language. We will get to the same goal but in a
different way. And I want you to know that and when it comes
time for us to be reviewing that if in fact we ever get to that
point then we will have more information.
Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to table the code amendment.
Sara: One more point of clarification. Laura Donnelly has a
letter that she is the soul owner? Or that she holds the
property. Then there shows a deed to Cunningham. A deed
transfer to Cunningham in July.
15
PZM11. 6.90
Bruce: Title insurance commitment.
Sara: Oh, it is title insurance?
Bruce: It is a commitment letter for title insurance.
MOTION
I will entertain a motion to table the code amendments that were
originally proposed by the applicant.
Graeme: I so move.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine asked if there
on 409 East Hopkins.
hearing.
was public comment on the various reviews
There was none and she closed the public
PITKIN COUNTY BANK SPECIAL REVIEW
Kim Johnson: This specific project for the Pitkin County Bank &
Trust Bldg is requesting 2 special reviews. The special review
requested relating to the proposed addition of 2,240sqft of net
leasable is the reduction of trash and utility service area and
also cash-in-lieu payment for parking reduction. This project is
in the commercial core zone and is specifically requiring these 2
reviews.
Basically the Planning Office recommend approval of these 2
reviews with conditions.
Regarding the parking issue--there is certainly no parking on
site. And the added parking that will result from this expansion
if this project receives it's allocation the parking will take
the form of payment-in-lieu will be for 4 spaces. That
translated at $15,000 a space to $60,000. The point I need to
make a change in my conditions.
There is an error on page 4 in condition #1. Change 4.48 spaces
to 4.0 spaces and the dollar figure is reduced to $60,000.
As the code states the Commission needs to take into
consideration the practicability to place any parking on the
site. And whether parking needs have been adequately met on site
or whether the City has plans for. But in the case now we have
the parking facility which is geared towards meeting their needs
for a facility.
16
PZM11. 6.90
The cash-in-lieu payment would go into the parking fund which in
effect helps re-imburse the cost of the parking garage.
The Planning Office recommends that the Commission approve that
special review as there is no available parking on site and the
applicant proposes to pay the cash-in-lieu of $60,000.
The trash and utility service area special review--the specifics
are that the existing trash and utility service area is 9ft by
21ft on the alley behind the building. The increase of this
building requires an area of 10ft by 21ft. What happened
evidently was that when it was originally constructed it wasn't
to current standards of the 10ft minimum depth. So they are
keeping the exact same trash and utility service area but the
building is expanded not in effecting the length of the trash
service area but because there is a non-conformity already in the
depth they have to go through this special review to allow that
to continue.
BFI doesn't have any apparent problems and feels that their
expansion won't have any affect on trash removal area. The
Planning Office recommends approval of this special review also.
So there are 4 conditions of approval including the cash-in-lieu
payment for the parking payment-in-lieu. The other conditions as
you see are related to the project as a whole including housing
mitigation, dry well and easement requirements that the
Engineering Office is looking at.
Jasmine: Does the applicant have any problems with the
conditions of approval?
Sunny Vann: We have no problems with the conditions in general.
I have spoken to Kim in regard to condition #3. And also the
City Engineer regarding #3 and #4 and we have a slightly modified
language which we would like to suggest.
Condition #3, the Engineering Dept wants us to provide them with
existing drywell which is on site which is fine. If there are to
be additional improvements that we will undertake them. The only
problem that we have with the condition is that we cannot make
those improvements prior to issuance of the building permit or
actually subsequent to it. So I would like to suggest the
following language:
Jasmine: Why not?
Sunny: Because we are going to submit plans for the addition
which would include any improvements to drywell to handle the new
addition. Once we got a building permit we would then be
17
PZM11. 6.90
authorized to build the addition and to correct the deficiencies
in the existing system. So what Chuck has suggested was that the
assessment of the capacity and function of the drywell be made
and reviewed by the city Engineering Dept prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
Jasmine:
So the assessment be made prior--OK.
Sunny:
the plan
issuance
And that any required improvements shall be depicted on
submitted for building permit and completed prior to the
of CO.
Jasmine: So condition #3 would read: Assessment of the capacity
and function of the drywell system shall be made and reviewed by
the city Engineering Dept prior to issuance of a building permit.
and the second sentence would say: Any required improvement
shall be made prior to issuance of a CO.
Sunny: Right.
The other condition has to do with a couple of easements which
the City may require. Since there is a very small area in which
we can provide an additional easement. We are happy to do so.
What Chuck and I came up with as a condition reads: In the event
a transformer or pedestal easement is required by the City
Engineering Dept, they shall be conveyed to the city by the
applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. That will
provide the Engineering Dept time to review it and get a feel
whether they really want this easement or not and what shape it
should take. If he decides he wants a 2 by 6 or and 8 by 12 we
will convey that_cough____building permit.
MOTION
Jasmine: Assuming that the amended language has made it into the
tape I would entertain a motion to recommend approval with the
conditions as amended.
Bruce: I so move.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine asked for
special review.
hearing.
public comments on the Pitkin County Bank's
There was none and she closed the pUblic
409 EAST HOPKINS PRESENTATION PRIOR TO SCORING
Jasmine reminded that brevity was important. "The words of
wisdom are more important than the hours it takes to utter them."
18
PZM11.6.90
Bill Poss, Architect: We have worked out with HPC the spacing of
the building. There were several presentations that were made
beforehand to the HPC on open space which required the building
be 3 stories. And in working with the guidelines and moving the
building forward allowed us to put more flurry on the street
front and reduce the height of the building.
What we would like to point out in the architectural design is
that we have a 2 story building of approximately between 27ft and
29ft high. It is 2 story and relates--we tried to keep it lower
and it is set back--stepped back slightly to allow the 2 historic
structures on either corner to have more prominence.
Basically what we are doing is using similar materials that are
downtown that you see around of sandstone and brick in a similar
manner on this building. But you also find details onto historic
structures on either corner.
Basically it has commercial space on the street level. On the
second level because it is a 1 and 1/2 floor area to 1 we have
used an interior courtyard between to either commercial or office
spaces to fill out the building. There is an out parcel here and
limits some of our window exposure so we used the courtyard to
offer window exposure to the other internal uses that will be
used there. Also the basement will be used for tenant storage on
site.
In the site design what we are attempting to do is complete the
streetscape that is started by the Brand Building on the corner
of Galena and Hopkins and the Collins Block which is on Mill and
Hopkins. That way what we do is align the trees out at the
street line incorporating some benches and bike racks that are
typical around the downtown core.
One of the pictures that we wanted to show is that we would have
night time lighting that highlights the streetscape as you walk
by the individual store fronts.
Joe: Went through all of
the various reasons for
Commission.
the categories where he digressed on
obtaining a higher score from the
Leslie: Staff had interpreted that the application be predicated
on the code amendment. Upon clarification with Joe on Friday
Staff did concur with regard to the affordable housing section.
That was very clear that they would commit a full 60%. On the
memo that you got on Friday the applicant had only scored 7.2 in
the Affordable housing section. And so we did re-score the
affordable housing section.
19
PZM11. 6.90
staff does not concur with the applicant that it was absolutely
clear about the parking and the open space and therefore we did
not change our score on the parking and the open space.
Staff I s opinion on the application is that the application is
what we get. We score on what we get. You have the ability to
clarify. You don't really have the ability to change what you
have submitted.
On the trash and utility access areas the gates and entryways and
things like that were not evident on the plans that were
submitted in the application. The score reflects that and again
we feel that this is really a bad alley and to warrant an
excellent design the applicant should go out of their way to
improve the situation. This is an acceptable design. It is a
standard design. We agree with the special review for the trash
reduction area and they have committed to pay the width of Lot F
across the alley to repave that portion. But as far as taking
into account all the other problems within the alley as Roger and
Jasmine have pointed out we don't think they went out of their
way to do that.
And in my discussions with the Engineering Dept whom I rely
heavily on as far as the availability of pUblic services, their
opinion is you identify your problem and you fix the problem.
The committing of money is fine. But we have no way to judge how
far that money is going to go to fixing a certain problem within
the area or right on the parcel. So that is why our scores were
not as high as the applicant desired with them offering to
provide money to certain facilities to upgrade those facilities.
Joe: with regard to the trash and utility access areas: There
is a very clear statement in the application that a gate will be
provided as a screen of the trash area.
PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST
Sunny Vann: This project could be categorized as a very modest
addition to the existing bank. It is only 2, 240sqft of net
leasable. The resulting floor area of the building will still be
less than the 1 and 1/2 to 1 allowable FAR in the zone district.
The applicant is not requesting to use bonus FAR since sufficient
square footage is available to accommodate our needs with this
proposal.
20
PZM11. 6.90
The project is intended to alleviate a serious problem of
overcrowding which currently exists. It is designed to be
occupied solely by the bank personnel and not subleased to other
tenants. We intend to move the loan dept which is currently
sitting on top of each other in the basement to the upper levels
of the structure.
While there is no increase in project employment as a result of
this proposal we do recognize that the additional square footage
does provide the opportunity for additional employees and we have
committed to meet the 60% requirement of the theoretical
generation of this addition.
We are proposing to do that through an affordable housing impact
fee. In this particular case it is not feasible for us to house
the employees that are generated on site. The primary reason for
that are security related issues between the housing that is
there and the bank itself. There are also design considerations.
To achieve the employee housing would require additional FAR
which in this case would require at least a partial other floor.
We have worked with HPC to make this consistent with the
neighboring buildings and in this case a 3rd floor would not be
appropriate.
While the building looks like it is 3 stories in height it is
actually 2. The existing building is I large story with a
mezzanine and a full basement. We are proposing to add a partial
second floor to the existing bank building.
This proposal complies with all the requirements of the
underlying CC zone district. It also complies with all the
provisions of impact mitigations requirements of the City's
Commercial Growth Management process. There are no variances of
any kind to be the dimensional requirements or the impact
mitigation requirements required by this project and none are
being requested.
Dave Gibson, Architect:
project.
Using site sketches described the
Sunny Vann: Made arguments regarding scoring.
Jasmine asked if there were comments from the public. There were
none. She then closed the public hearing on both of the public
hearings.
The Commissioners then did their scoring on the projects.
Jasmine: Both projects have met minimum threshold.
21
PZM11 . 6 . 90
The Pitkin County Bank expansion has a total score of 31.18.
The 409 East Hopkins project has a total score of 28.73.
We will forward these scores to Council. We also have the option
as to whether or not the Council shall allocate future year--
since there are only 8,000sqft of net leasable available, the 2
combined projects have a total of 9,063sqft.
We can either
recommendation.
Commission.
make them a recommendation or not make a
I will leave that up to the members of the
One thing I neglected to do in the 409 East Hopkins proposal was
to--in the special reviews to make sure that the conditions of
approval that were listed in the memo are a part of the special
review approvals. So we need to put that on the record of that.
MOTION
Roger: I make a motion to include all the conditions of approval
for 409 East Hopkins as part of the special review approval.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Roger:
noting
Pitkin
I move to forward the scoring
that both proj ects met minimum
County Bank scored higher.
to the City Council and
thresholds and that the
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Rog~r: Concerning allocation I move to recommend to City Council
see1ng as how there 1,063sqft overage of both projects and given
the closeness of the scoring of both projects that we recommend
that that 1,063 come out of future allocations and both projects
be approved for building. That the allocation come out of 1991
for the 1990 approvals.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:l5pm.
M. Carne , Deputy C' y Clerk
22