Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910402 ~tJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 1991 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson and Richard compton. MINUTES MARCH 12, 1991 Bruce made a motion to approve the minutes of March 12, 1991. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Roger: On this I see there are 2 Lot #2s in the same parcel. Kim: The applicant realizes that extension down there right along ute Avenue is an awkward situation so what they propose is moving the pedestrian access--erasing that little spur off of Lot #2 and making it contiguous to the real Lot #2 which contains the building envelope. Roger: Are these 2 Lot #2s part of the same parcel? Kim: It will end up being all of one Lot #2. What they had to do is provide pedestrian access through here so what was left over was this little thing that they call Lot #2. What they are going to end up doing is move the access so that Lot #2 actually comes around and wraps down around here and then there is not this extra piece of Lot #2. Roger: In other words you are surrounding the tennis courts which I assume is Lot #3. Kim: That will be called Lot #3 and we will have to apply a legal description to it. After discussion with Glenn Horn regarding pedestrian access to tennis courts: Roger: But why have that be a piece of Lot #2? surround Lot #3 with-- Why do you Glenn: All of this is Lot #2. The drive is Lot #2. The lease is restricted to this area right here on the tennis courts. That is Lot #3. Lot #2 includes the drive and all of this land here. We just would like to maintain as much land with Lots #1 and #2 as - PZM4.2.91 possible because the Gant lease is really only for the tennis court area. Welton: That would complicate an already complicated 99 year lease to start adding land at this late date to the tennis court lots because it seems they are on the other side from the house. That is a cleanly delineated piece of property that has been that way for-- Roger: Why not call it a Lot #4 and dedicate it to open space? Welton: If it is part of Lot #2 they can't build a second house on Lot #2. So it is going to be open space. If you call it a Lot #4 then, by God! somebody is going to try to build a house on it! Rick Neiley: One thing it does is provide parking for the residences and by keeping it as part of Lot #2 it provides for maintenance and repair obligations for the owner of that property. This is a simpler way of making sure that things are taken care of down there than by dedicating it as open space and trying to set up a homeowner's association for a lot split. Mari: Does the tennis court lease incorporate that easement or not? Neiley: There is a right of access to the tennis courts. Mari: On this it looks like the boundaries of the lease. Kim: I think that would guarantee frontage on the street for access to the site. Neiley: Part of the rights that go along with tennis courts lease are right of access for the Gant. We didn't want to cut this out of the 3rd parcel. Our original proposal was to simply call it a lot split and have the joint ownership with the tennis courts. That is not consistent with the City Attorney's definition of what constitutes subdivision. This subdivided parcel that constitutes the tennis courts is already defined by the description contained in the lease. We are trying to accommodate that concern. Glenn: The lease is for 3 tennis courts. And it provides for access. It really doesn't matter. We can flip-flop it or do anything you want. Welton: That portion of Lot #2 that has an easement going over it. It doesn't have to be Lot #2 or the easement. It can be Lot #2 and the easement. So that easement can happen anywhere in that little dog leg of Lot #2. "._Co"',,- Glenn: That's right. Just to provide access. That is all we have '~- 2 PZM4.2.91 to do. Kim: Condition #26 describes the tennis court lot being re- configured to remove extraneous areas to the west of the pedestrian accessway. We could add another sentence that said "An access easement shall be included along the entry drive or adjacent to the entry drive". Glenn: That sounds great. Then condition #7--Nick Lampirus, the consulting geologist for us, and he suggested that there be foundation walls that protrude 4ft above finish grade and there be no doors or windows on the up slope side of this house. And that is going to present a problem for us. What we would like to do is try to work with Lampirus to come up with some other way to retain potential rock fall that might come down the hillside into this yard. We are asking for some flexibility to come up with some other recommendation from Lampirus that would take care of this potential rock fall problem. Kim: I would prefer not to see major wall structure. If they are talking about access from the rear of the house perhaps some kind of entry court with a brick wall or something that might look more a part of the structure. Neiley: Our intention is to have the flexibility and it may well be that when they look at it--in the letter from Lampirus it says it is a minimal hazard. He may say if you are 4ft up you can put windows up there. We don't want to preclude the possibility of having ingress and egress back there or having some light come in through the back of the house. We don't mind complying with the engineer's recommendations as far as construction techniques and mitigations but we don't necessarily want to be stuck with one alternative. Sara: I feel strongly about that wall. That would really be unfortunate. look on the retaining Kim: What about just scratching the sentence describing those specific techniques and then Lampirus can submit that to you and you can present it to us. Bruce: So you would add after the word "inspected" add something like "and approved by staff". And eliminate the second sentence and keep in the 3rd sentence about the landscaping. Kim: Right. Shall we change "landscaping" to "drainage"? That wording came right out of Engineering. 3 PZM4.2.91 Glenn: That would be fine. Then condition #8--the avalanche study has come up before when this application was looked at. Nick alludes that the potential for avalanche in his letter and says there is very minor chance for avalanche on this site. He says the avalanche chute is either to the west or east of this property. And there really isn't any avalanche danger right above these building envelopes. If you were to go out there and look--it doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to do an avalanche study when it is obviouse the avalanche chute isn't above this property. Welton: avalanche tell when How does the Commission feel about eliminating study. I don't want to delete it because you never an avalanche is going to prove us to be fools. the can Roger: Not only that. It wouldn't hurt for an avalanche expert to write off on the thing and say there is no avalanche problem. Richard: It is right on the other side of the Hoag log house. So I think it would be worth having somebody inspect it and make a statement about the degree of danger. Welton: I don't hear any strong movement to delete #8. Kim: I would say the avalanche should be done before building permit. Glenn: Item #13--the spar Gulch drainage for the Nordic Trail and the water lines. Is Engineering going to give us the description of what they want? Kim: That would have to be to their satisfaction. You will have to get back with them when you have some conceptual worked out. Glenn: to get we are to 12. Then on item #17. We don't think we are going to be able 14 off-street parking spaces. We can get 12 on there and wondering if it would be all right to change this from 14 Kim: How many bedrooms are there proposed to be? Glenn: Actually 5 and 2 accessory units. That would be 12. That would be 6 each. He then presented evidence of posting of public notice (attached in record) and certificate of notice by mailing. (attached in record) . 4 PZM4.2.91 Welton asked for public comment. There was no public comment and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: I am still unhappy with the amended #26. I would prefer it to be stated that "Easement shall be provided across the northern flag of Lot #2 to provide for access to the tennis courts". Neiley: That is all right with us. MOTION Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve conditional use for one accessory dwelling unit in each residence with the conditions #1 through #3 as listed on the Planning Office memo dated March 22, 1991. Approve 8040 Greenline Review with the conditions #4 through #10 as amended to #7 from the same memo. Approve subdivision with the conditions #11 through #15 from the same memo. Approve PUD development plan with the conditions #16 through #27 with #17 and #26 being revised as amended during this review. (memo attached) Richard: I so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL GMOS, FINAL SPA AND REZONING Welton opened the public hearing. Amy made presentation bringing Commission up to date as to this application. (attached in record) Perry Harvey: In the masterplan with the access into the single families this is from analyzing the perspective of what it is like when you are inside the campus. Keep everything on the bluffs on the edges of the property. Keep this open feeling when you are moving back and forth between the meeting facilities, music tent the lodge facilities. Keep the residential to the edge of the campus to the paved area here and as an attachment maintaining the same architectural style there and the same thing with the new lodging facilities. This meets the conceptual approval and meets the masterplan in that 7th st is now the access. It comes through North st ROW, comes across part of Charlie Marqusee' s land. We will give back to Charlie the required land so that his non-conforming lot doesn't get any more non-conforming, comes up and parallels the row of Cottonwoods. The existing Meadows Rd will be saw-cut and re-into a 12ft wide trail with vegetation on the side of it. These driveways are going ..,........ 5 PZM4.2.91 to be combined so there are fewer driveways coming across that there are currently accessing Meadows Rd. The new road then re-joins the existing Institute and Meadows Rd at this point at the beginning of the property on the west side. The Institute will go through the parking structure and their new buildings will go through to the tennis townhomes. We will give you some site plans and elevations on that. We will go through the additions to the trustee houses and how the parking is laid out in the site plan. This is the area the City is purchasing. The 25 acres referred to as the Conservation land. We are suggesting that we create 4 SPAs. The reason for this is that when you have an SPA you have to have everyone of the land owners in the SPA agreeing to an application for any change. Example: If Physics 5 years down the road wanted to do a research library and they wanted to add a new building and they wanted to come in for an SPA amendment, we don't want them to have to go--they have to go to the MAA and the Institute to get their agreement to make the application. But it shouldn't be the case that anyone of these 14 residential owners can willy-nilly say "No, I don't want you to do it". And that would create the end of the application. What we need is an SPA designation on here because there are variations. The lot sizes are not big enough to accommodate the FAR in all the cases because we didn't want to intrude any more into what the City is getting on the Conservation land. So we need an SPA to accommodate those variations from the code. There is a traffic mitigation plan that goes with this and provides for van service, provides for bike rental and bike storage and provides for bike storage over here to accommodate people who want to ride to the tent so they don't have to chain them to trees or take them with them. There is a bus routing that is included both in our application and there are some comments in Amy's memo addressing that mitigation plan. One of the concerns--this is a trail easement that comes across the Physics property and hooks into the race track. There was a concern from Planning about a connection. We will do a connection that will wind through these trees probably come up on the east side of this irrigation ditch so that there is only one culvert that crosses it. The new 7th St--new Meadows Rd is 22ft in width. It has on each side of it a 3ft shoulder. The reason that there is this amount of land between the road and the property line is a 3ft shoulder, 6 PZM4.2.91 there is 6ft for a ditch swail for snow melt and runoff. Then there is a 10ft planting buffer before Charlie Marqusee's property line which we felt--and part of that land will go to him to make up for what we are taking out of this non-conforming sliver. But we feel for--to give this residence the proper buffer to provide for the shoulder and swail that is why there is 19ft, 22ft of roadway and then there is 6ft over here which is a 3ft shoulder and again an irrigation ditch or the potential down-the-road for sidewalk, curb, gutter whatever. What we have done for these homesites--there are covenants attached to your memo which are going to restrict the 2 concerns. One being that as you enter you didn't have a wall of buildings from the road and you have some visual relief into the track before you got to this point which is the intersection of 8th. The second was when ~ you are back by the tennis courts or in the race track looking this way that you didn't perceive a wall of buildings that it blended into the residential area. This is going to be R-15 zone district. During the masterplanning we agreed that these would be 12,000sqft and have an R-15 for FAR setbacks, height etc. But we reduced them by 3,000sqft just to begin with. That is 20% we lopped off. Then the concern was that ..~ we give a naturally vegetated buffer to the race track. The R-15 setback on the rear yard is 10ft and we have done 15ft setback ....,_ which not only is along the rear lot line but then comes up to the mid point on each lot which is covenanted to remain as Sage and natural wild grasses to blend in with that Sage meadow. What we have ended up with in an R-15 zone district is a building envelope in which you put your home, your garage, your manicured yard, swingsets etc--61, 62 hundred square feet is the biggest one. Or 64 hundred from 64 to 61 hundred. So it is quite a reduction from an R-15 lot. The one other thing that we have done is on the eastern and the western lot we are requesting a variation for 0 side yard setback here. The reason we did that is in the R-15 zone district you have a 10ft side yard setback. What we did was to increase the side yard setback over here by to 20 ft and to 20 ft here giving you 30ft between these 2 building envelopes and 30ft here. The reason being as you enter this road you don't get specific 10ft side yards. You get a 30ft view in there--a 30ft separation in there which will add to the separation. We felt that was a good solution because you are not really increasing these lots. Finholm: We set the tennis townhomes back off the road. We start them at the end of the parking lot and they go down the hill. What we have tried to create --this is the existing road--We are keeping all the trees. We have got a 3ft path, walking path. We are doing an earth berm covered parking so that when you are walking along 7 PZM4.2.91 _ it is a very nice approach. Then the houses step down the hill. There is a submission that they are 2,500 FAR. There are 7 units, 3 bedrooms 3 and 1/2 baths. We are not exceeding any height limits except for one little hole that is in the middle. We have a little depression in unit #3-natural grade. And I think it only exceeds it be about a foot. We have 3 parking spots per unit. One is a grassed-in area that we are going to try and landscape in such a way that it will be seldom used. You can drive up, dump off your groceries and suitcases and then you go back over into this covered parking over here. And there is 2 parking spots per unit over here. We drop down 4ft into this area from the existing level try to visually eliminate a tall building. Male Finholm: The existing trustee units--there are presently 8 of them designed by Herbert Beyer. We are planning on adding 3 units exactly the same architectural style. 1 on the south and 2 on the north. And they each take the same configuration as Herbert Beyer did. Each building steps down and moves over and so that same relationship has been maintained. We are actually doing some remodeling inside the building and adding 1 bedroom suite below the present deck that is now there. -- As we do though the 5 just landscaping and basically working the bench that already exists we feel that we have minimized any kind of impact from across the hill and from the campus looking this way we really haven't changed a thing. We do add a super insulated roof which is going to add about 1ft to the structure. We have gone through the HPC process preliminarily and as far as our integration of international style architecture and the work that we have done we have gotten approval on that part. What we would like to do is eliminate this little kind of a carport. We are keeping the carport look in tact but that would become more of an entry court. Then we propose to still provide for one car to park along here. The remainder of them will be done in earth covered or some sort of covered parking built into this bank. We have also manipulated this area with landscaping so that we can get service vehicles into this building and create an entrance that is nicer than coming through a parking lot for the trustee units. The trustee units will be 2,500sqft when they are completed. And will be 3 bedrooms and 3 and 1/2 baths. Richard: On the addition under the deck, will that be within the 8 PZM4.2.91 current envelope or will that be an extension to the west? Finholm: To the west. The unit itself is within the envelope of the existing building. We are moving this existing building out I think 8ft. The original Herbert Beyer building is being extended 8ft this way. What you see here is an indication of--for instance here would be a patio and the center here it is more of an on- grade outside area. Richard: So that is the building itself or just a patio? Finholm: Well, it is both depending on what happens in grade. In here it is a patio. In here it will actually be a deck and we have proposed that deck go clear to the ground as the original building did. Fred smith: I want to speak very quickly about the site plan. What we have really tried to do is retain the locations of buildings as much as possible around the edges of the manicured areas staying away from any of the historical native grass and sage areas and try to retain all the predominant facades in the way they have been over the years. And also retain every bit of vegetation as we could on site since that is one of the most interesting parts of the Institute's properties. The primary parking location for all automobiles entering into the site will be in the tennis court covered parking area where we will have parking for 97 cars subsurface as well as approximately 50 to 70 bicycles. And some additional undercover locations for landscape machinery and snow removal equipment and equipment that we use to get luggage and the guests of the lodge from this location into their rooms. Buildings #1, #2, the Kresge building and the 300 block building are shown here. The new buildings are building #5, #7, #3 and a small addition to #2. There are 2 types of units. The Chalet units which are #1, #2, #4, #5 and #3. The Kresge type unit which are #6 and #7. The Chalet units are completely through-units with views both north and south and are basically along the same lines as each one of these that I show here on that floor plan. They have a bedroom, a bathroom and separate living room area and a specific study area for the participants who are there for a week or 2 for the Institute's programs. The buildings are 2 stories with 9ft interior ceilings with entry ways into each one of the areas with the actual entries being internal to the building. For building #7 which is the new building has been separated in '<>--- 9 PZM4.2.91 order to decrease the sensation of mass there and has been discussed and reviewed with HPC who are not satisfied with the location and the appearance of that particular building. Building #6 which is the Kresge building has been left pretty much in tact. Although the internals the way the building is worked up is reconfigured so that there are units on both sides. They are not true units like the ones in the chalets. Building #4 and #5 represent the 300 building. A new building has been put in between the Crescent building and the 300 block building and it is separate from the 300 block building in order to preserve the large Conifers that are in between those 2 buildings today. Building #3 is broken up so that there are 2 units and 2 units here, 2 units above and then 2 units turned sideways so as to retain the pond that is on the edge of the escarpment here and still provide us with the 2 units there. There are some specific tree re-Iocations and removal plans. There was some concern by George Robinson as to what exactly was going to happen with those and we are prepared to talk about re- locations and removal of those. The Health Club: Again we have the front of the Health Club with the large gymnasium area. The front part of this building will be left exactly as you see it. The actual materials will be renovated so as to repair some of the deterioration that has occurred in the concrete block. The building will be restored to what it appeared to be in the original pictures after Beyer's construction. The back of the building is where we will concentrate our efforts in terms of additions. We want to split the building in half allowing for a lady's side and a men's side. Relocation of the pool which is currently up by the restaurant to the back side and then hard surface the areas around that. Again the buildings have been located and configured so that they will basically represent the way the building is today as well as to try to preserve as much of the vegetation as currently in place as possible. The parking garage continues to be discussed in the planning staff's memo. Again this is the subsurface view in plan of a parking structure. We have entrances and exits per code. One entry/exit. 97 cars. We also have on this level bicycle storage. The facility is so constructed so that it only sits under 4 of the tennis courts and the other 2 tennis courts are on grade. And approximate location where they are today. 10 PZM4.2.91 There was concern expressed in the Planning staff's memo about the relocation of the road and how that would effect--we will be able to relocate this road at the beginning of the project and not have to use the existing Meadow Road for construction purposes. The tennis court surfaces are on grade at this point and continue flat where the topography drops away. This area here represents the oval of the race track. It is actually a little bit higher and provides a natural screen. A new berm 6ft high will screen the opening of this side from the existing chalet buildings and along this side we have created rock walls around bicycle storage, the new pro shop, rest rooms, men's and women's, and additional rock walls to soften the edge of the elevation above grade. The structure was lowered in accordance with your request to the degree that it can be and still not be artificially ventilated. When you walk around the building you will either see berm, vegetation, rock wall, pro shop or restaurants. The only location in which you will actually be looking into the underground portion of the facility will be at the entrance of the parking garage. Architectural scale: Again the buildings all approximately look very much the same. They are imitating the scale and the image of what exists there today. The balconies are very light metal rail with concrete edges. A light steel mullions and muttons in the windows and of course you have the clear views. Gideon: The restaurant--when we went through the masterplanning and conceptual SPA it was our intention to keep the restaurant building exactly the way it was. As we got into some more of the details there were a couple of problems with the existing structure. When we are in the summertime and have all of our programs we do not have enough seating for our participants. We have a bar downstairs that has to double as the restaurant as well as one of the rooms upstairs. Also one of the things that happens over the last 10 years is that the management of this particular facility has taken place in other locations. In reviewing everything we realized that we needed a little bit more office space there and we would also like to be able to relocate the bar upstairs so that we can have our functions take place downstairs without having to have people eat on different levels. We were able to accomplish that by enclosing the deck that exists there today. Originally the Institute had intended to build it with that deck enclosed. They ran out of money. The only change therefore that we are proposing to the restaurant is the actual enclosing of the existing deck. That will enable us to move the ...."^..., -"' 11 #- PZM4.2.91 bar upstairs and to have a concierge and an office so that we can be self sufficient in this particular building. It represents about 2, OOOsqft on enclosing. The footprint of the building remains the same. It will be merely enclosing the existing deck. Roger: My major problem is the new North st access. I call it North st access because that is the way you have oriented the egress of Meadows Rd. It doesn't take a genius to see someone driving up Meadows Rd who is already oriented east continuing east on North st and then having to filter through the west end to get out. I don't like that at all. That, to me, is a major flaw. Harvey: Roger, you mean what you think is that when they come to here rather than going into 7th st-- Roger: They are already going east. Harvey: There will be a stop sign there both ways. Roger: That is not going to help much. Where are you going to put your stop signs? Does that explain where you are putting the stop signs? How you are going to direct that flow to 7th st? Harvey: Well, however you feel we need to do it. If you have a concern with that I think we can address it. Roger: Well, I have got a major concern with it. To me it is enough to rate 0 for roads on the scoring. That is my maj or concern with it. And likewise the problem is where you actually finally have attached 8th st to it. Why did you extend it up Y there? Harvey: A.J. can probably address the engineering turning radiuses. You wanted a 90 degree into this street and you didn't want it in the middle of a turn. You wanted clear site lines. And we also did it to preserve-and I think we lose 1 4-inch tree by coming in at this location. Roger: The major problem with that is if you are driving a car up Meadows Rd and if you want to take 8th st it looks better there I have to admit. If you are coming out, where does the car turn? You have tightened everything up so tight there that the natural y reaction will be cutting the corners and you are going to have a major interference problem on the north bound lane of 8th st. Harvey: If that is a concern we will come back and address it. We have not really addressed the signage on that. What we did here was there is a tremendous grove of trees which we always said we would save and to keep this so that we could keep these homesites as much out of the track as possible. 12 PZM4.2.91 A.J. : there curve What you have got to realize is that there is a 9ft drop from 7th st down to here that you just can't make a vertical work. Roger: Then maybe that is an argument that 7th st shouldn't be the access. I am most unhappy with this way of doing it. All you are doing is putting all the egress problems onto the west end. You are filtering them through the west end with this system. Harvey: We will do a "No Entry, One Way Only" st. if that is going to solve the problem. Turn only". for 1 block of North We will do a "Right Roger: All I know is it is a real problem and I don't like it. Harvey: I think it can be solved. And I appreciate your concern. Fred: What we did is we used the parameter--not mechanically ventilating facilities we discussed at conceptual. And we are at this point right at the edge of either having to mechanically ventilate it or not mechanically ventilate it. What it ended up is we were able to drop it about a foot and that is what we got out of it. That is where we went with some of the berms and some of the additional rock wall along the road. Kim: Is the bike storage underground? Or is that at grade? Fred: The bike storage is under the Pro Shop itself. And runs all the way under that walkway from the restrooms all the way down and there is a piece on grade. It is at the very northwest corner of the first set of tennis courts. That would be on grade and it is enclosed with a rock wall. It is used to shield that. Kim: Perry you mentioned a land trade with Charlie Marqusee. Are you actually trading land areas? Harvey: Probably. I think Chick Collins wrote a letter and pointed out that that was a non-conforming lot and if we took some of that land--Charlie's land--if we took a portion of it over here and didn't replace it along in here then we would be increasing the non-conformity. So we intend to do that. It does need a lot line adjustment. Kim: So in requesting for variations for and height. addition to other SPA variations that the single family lots you will also need the RMF lots townhome lots for density or you are specific lot size Harvey: We have 2 little spots in the tennis townhomes. And they ."'.... 13 PZM4.2.91 keep pointing out where there is a natural depression where we are a foot or so over the height limit in the RMF zone district and the same thing occurs in the northerly most trustee house in order to maintain the stepping of those land drops away from them. So there are variations for each of those. Kim: You are going to put together maps. Harvey: certainly are. Kim: One other question I had regarding the single family lots and the landscaping limitation. When you dropped off the blue lines it didn't show any proposed vegetation on those lots but my comment in the memo regards keeping the native vegetation in the back and on the side and also restricting irrigation to allow the natural sage meadow vegetation. So my question is--are those trees there are they going to be just extensions of Lilac bushes and Elm trees or are they going to be-- Harvey: This is something we have got to work out. If you go into the racetrack there are naturally occurring clumps of Aspens all around the edges and in the middle. There is a big grove of Aspens here that occur. So this isn't just strictly Sage. One of the major concerns HPC and P&Z and Council was standing out by the tennis courts or in the race tract, what was your view of these. We don't want a wall. We felt that--we put this on here as kind of a teaser to bring the issue out about vegetation here. Vegetation would soften and hide and help that blending into the residential west end of these homes and kind of take them off of the race track. If it is going to be Scrub Oak--if it is going to be something that requires irrigation for one spot--it is going to be natural Sage. That is really something that we are not that concerned about except as P&Z and Council and Planning staff feel we should treat that. Do you want to soften it when you are in the race track and you want to take it out of the track and put it into the west end which has trees or do you want to keep it the Sage. Kim: Getting on to text amendment--on page 33 of the memo it describes the actual language that is a compilation of the applicant's language request with some minor amendments from staff. There are 2 new zones to be created. Those are open space and wildlife preservation. The intent is to maintain open areas with limited development within. The open space area is geared towards those historic site of manicured treatment including Anderson Park the Marble Gardens and what is commonly referred to as the tent _..- meadow south and east of the Music Tent. "- 14 PZM4.2.91 The allowed uses within the proposes the open space district include manicured landscaped areas, sculptures, ponds, descriptive placques, both hard and soft surface and limited development such as that. The Wildlife Preservation is much more restrictive and is geared towards maintaining natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. The allowed uses in there will include trails and benches. staff also wants to make sure that any specifically required drainage and utility easement and facilities can be included in this open space zone. The important thing with the wildlife preservation zone--it has specific prohibition against above grade covered structures and manicured playing fields for active organized type sports. The next text amendment requested is a growth management exemption for essential public service. This is geared specifically to the non-profit uses on the Meadows site. In the Masterplanning process the City Council specified that we come up with a code amendment to allow the uses--first of all they already exist on the site-- to allow for certain development capability of the non-profits for the specific uses such as the lodge expansion and the music expansions proposed. The way the verbiage reads that the city Council may elect to exempt a specific non-profit development from competition as well as mitigation which is what is occurring with the lodge expansion and the MAA and this code amendment seeks to provide a vehicle for that mitigation and competition exemption. staff would like to bring to the table at this point in the Masterplan process this was geared toward the lodge, restaurant and MAA uses. However in the final submission as it was described by Gideon there is supposed to be an expansion of the restaurant. And this is a deviation from the original Masterplan conceptual proposal. The final text amendment is allowing would be for SPA variations to subdivision regulations. Those would be in the case of the Meadows road situation. There are certain pavement width requirements, street lighting requirements, sign requirements and also specific to access and radius. The reason was that staff feels that variations to subdivision requirements would be applicable in the Meadows is because one of the intentions of retaining the campus-like atmosphere would be to limit as much pavement and hard surface as possible. Light would be a major issue too. 15 PZM4.2.91 The academic text amendment proposed would allow for the uses specific to the Meadows SPA and basically what this would be doing would be taking those uses in the Meadows and making them legitimate uses by right rather than have them be non-conforming from now on. Sara: Regarding the wildlife Preservation zone district--I don't think trails should be paved in the Preservation zone district nor should there be decorative fencing. That encourages skate boarding. I don't see why that has to be--in open space you have paved trails but not in a wildlife zone. Kim: Well, there might be a specific area and I am just speculating here whereby because of drainage or erosion issues where you would want to hard surface certain parts of trails. Sara: I think you can do that with grading. Harvey: I think that the city in the agreement on the purchase is constructing all the trails. Welton: Final individual merit as to where they designs are going to and determined whether connect at both ends. be evaluated on their they are paved or unpaved Richard: On both these zone districts I assume these are being proposed by the applicant to zone this area. Does staff feel that these districts are appropriate for incorporation into the City code or is it another thing specific to the Meadows. The reverse to tha--is there any existing zone which would cover these and achieve the purpose? Amy answered something. Gideon: Conservation allows one single family-- Richard: I know. Harvey: And Public and Park allow playing fields--stuff which we just didn't feel was appropriate. STRAW VOTE Welton: Those generally in favor of the text amendments as modified and presented? Everyone voted in favor except Roger. Richard: In section A it says any additional use as approved within the Meadows SPA--are these different uses or additions to 16 PZM4.2.91 the existing uses? Which is essentially what the present SPA calls for. Amy: Say we have to go through an amendment to the SPA and get allowed uses through that vehicle and then approved through that vehicle then it would be allowed---- SUBDIVISION Kim: The final presentation suggests subdivision of the Meadows parcel into 10 lots. Those are 4 single family lots on the south side, 2 mUlti-family lots which include the trustee townhomes and the tennis townhomes. Then individual lots for the non-profit users--the Institute, the Physics and MAA. The last lot would be the 25 acre city Conservation parcel which loops along the river and creek. The proposal complies in general with the subdivision requirements. However it was noted in the staff memo that there were several technical requirements that were not met specific to the subdivision platting requirements--road widths, certain utility locations, etc. I had a meeting with A.J. Zavia today who is doing the engineering, drainage and utility work for the Meadows and he has answered several of my questions regarding locations of the utility lines and he did bring in utility maps to me today. Staff has not had a chance to review them and make specific comments but we will have something ready for the next meeting. As part of the text amendment for SPA variations, subdivision regulations we have asked the applicant to provide an exact list of those variations that they are requesting. The affordable housing requirement within a subdivision section of the code has been dictated by the Masterplan process. The recap to that--there will be a cash mitigation for 16.69 employees and 7 employees will be housed on site within the single family homes as accessory units with full deed restrictions. There is certainly some more information that the applicant will have to provide. But the basic lot configurations and description of the lots as far as what entities and residences that will occupy the lots have been established. The bulk of the parcel will be occupied by the Institute. That will be the Chalets, the open space for the race track area and including Paepcke Auditorium. There is one clarification you could make Perry. Is the restaurant going to be a separate lot or is that included within-- 17 PZM4.2.91 Harvey: That is part of the Institute. There is really these 4 residential lots but it is 1 parcel. There is that residential SPA parcel. The restaurant and all of this is the Aspen Institute. This becomes Physics. The MAA parcel comes up to the edge of that parking lot and includes this parking lot. And then of course the city current conservation to be wildlife Preservation zone land is another parcel. So while it appears that there are 10 lots, 4 of them are really in this one residential parcel. Sara: The 7 that are going to be mitigated affordable housing and the 4 single family, how do you figure that? How do you get 7 out of 4 homes. Harvey: A 1-bedroom unit under the guidelines houses 1.75 people. Bruce: I am curious as to how Lots 5 and 6 are actually going to be split up. Are there going to be lots within those lots? Harvey: 5 and 6 will be a classic condominium situation where there will be limited common elements so that each individual owner will own their unit and then they will own an undivided interest in a general common element. , ""'~"" Bruce: And if all of this is accomplished basically Savannah will end up with Lot 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9 and 10. Is that correct? Harvey: That is correct. Amy: I want to point out that staff is not recommending at this point separating the property into 4 different SPA zones. We feel that the property having an SPA overlay in the first place was to allow for the property to be planned in full. I realize that there is a legitimate concern on the part of the applicant that if these people that buy these lots then protest anything going on in here for any development in the future. However we would like to discuss that further as to specific covenants or something that would go along with the purchase of units which would require them to participate in an approval process in the future as opposed to dividing the land up into 4 specific SPA entities. Welton: We subdivision subdivision tonight. have 2 issues. One is the subdivision and one is of the SPA. And I think we can probably deal with without dealing with the subdivision of the the the SPA Kim: The condominiumization is the subdivision exemption that is determined at Council. So that is why it wasn't mentioned here in regards to subdivision of the entire part of the Meadows parcel. That will be included as part of Council's decision review. 18 PZM4.2.91 Jasmine: In regard to the housing other requirements for the prov~s~on of on site deed restricted units do not also necessarily carry with them the requirement these units be occupied. Now will these units actually have to be occupied? Amy: Yes, they will. Jasmine: And there is a mechanism for doing this. Amy: Yes. Jasmine: OK. Perry: When we went through the conceptual I had one concern and that was that the owner of the residence have the right to determine who goes in there. That they meet the requirements of the low income deed restriction. I didn't want the Housing Authority knocking on the door and saying "This is Sam and he is moving in here". I think it is an accessory unit that doesn't require it to be occupied and these, because they are qualifying for the GMQS, have to meet the standards. I just wanted to make sure I could tell the purchaser of the residence that they will be able to select the renter. Jasmine: I wanted to make sure that these would be occupied units. STRAW VOTE Welton: Let's have a straw vote on generally whether or not the provisions of subdivision as outlined are acceptable. Everyone voted in favor. REZONING Kim: Rezoning constitutes the 2 townhome parcels to be zoned RMF. The 4 single family lots to be R-15. And the MAA, Physics and Institute as Academic. As previously mentioned 2 wildlife Preservation zones proposed. One being the race track area and the other is the Conservation land that the city is purchasing. There are 3 proposed open space zones and those are Anderson Park, The Marble Garden and the tent meadow. The splitting of the SPA into 4 distinct SPA is not favored by staff. Basically those would be 3 residential SPAs and 1 non- ."'. profit SPA. .,,~..~~ 19 PZM4.2.91 staff couldn't find any support for the removal of the SPA status from the City owned wildlife preservation area. Establishing underlying zoning for the entire Meadows which currently has no underlying zoning is just overlaying with SPA. Gideon: Our concern related to the overlay. We think it would be awkward that the City land had an SPA and the city also have to join in any of our applications for changes. All of a sudden the City is now the applicant with us. I think that makes for a very difficult situation. That is why we thought it would be more appropriate for the city to have--which 95% is not under the SPA anyway--it is just a very small area. I think it is very appropriate to discuss the different zone districts but I don't think tonight is an appropriate time to decide which particular site gets designated open space or wildlife Preservation. Kim: Basically the historic overview of the Meadows has been as in one SPA entity to allow for the creative land use involvement of the entire community. And by breaking it down into separate areas we lose the cohesiveness of the Meadows as the historic-- M!^'-"" Welton: I don't know that we need to make a decision on the SPA tonight. But I think the egg has already been broken. I don't think we are going to ever be able to put it all back together again. And having one SPA overlay on top of the whole thing is trying to put a lot of scotch tape over the egg shell. Amy: We feel uncomfortable with it because SPA really gives you a lot in return for your creative design and that sort of thing. And the parcels have gotten the benefit of the SPA overlay through the fact that we have preserved open space and have done some other things on the others. And we are just feeling uncomfortable with maintaining that SPA overlay for those parcels. It may not be a problem. We need to look at it a little more. Welton: I think we all need to think about it in more detail. Roger: One thing we might think about is removal of the City open space portion from that SPA. That will be zoned and deed restricted already. One of the reasons for the SPA overlay was that there was no underlying zoning for the property. Now if we are establishing underlying zoning particularly in the case of the residential areas that might be a reason--maybe it can be done by covenants instead of removing from the SPA. Harvey: I can't very well say to these residential purchasers "You 20 PZM4.2.91 are part of this overall SPA but you can't object to anything that these non-profits want to do". I can't take those rights from them. What I can do is if these are separate SPAs is I can say on the plat you guys got your FAR, you have got your buildout, you have got your units. You can't come back in and get a variation. If you want to apply to cover a dumpster and it is determined by the Planning Director to be a technical amendment that doesn't require to go through he process that is fine. But you have already been restricted. Now you can as neighbors go into a public hearing the same way any neighbor can and protest an application by the 3 non-profits under that SPA if they want to do something. But I don't think I can say in a covenant, Roger, that these guys forever can't exercise their rights as neighbors to obj ect to something that is going on in the neighborhood. STRAW VOTE Welton: All those in favor of accepting the rezoning plan generally on a straw vote level as presented? Everyone voted in favor. Mari: I am just not prepared at this point. SCORING Welton: It is not unusual when there is no competition for the Planning Office to do a pretty heavy duty evaluation and recommend point values for each of the categories in GMP. If there are no strong objections in general the P&Z can accept that and save a lot of time and effort. Roger: Normally I would accept that but unless we can straighten out this 7th st access as opposed to North st access I am not willing to agree with the Planning Office on their scoring for roads. Bruce: will there be a separate scoring for the lodge units at some future time? Are they exempt as part of the essential community facilities? Amy: The applicant will have to come back and apply and receive scoring for the lodge units. Bruce: They would be exempt from growth management because they fall within that essential public facility. Welton: We could do a straw vote to see if commission would accept the Planning Office GMQS scoring. 21 ""io'~.... PZM4.2.91 .- Those in favor on a straw vote basis, the Planning Office's scoring for GMQS signify by saying aye. Everyone voted in favor except Roger. Sara abstained. Perry: In order for us to go through all of these approvals in the land exchange we have to know that the city Councilor the City declares that there is adequate allotment available in the residential competition for us to achieve the 14 units assuming we make the threshold. I need a determination from city council before the scoring by this Board that there is an allotment or this whole thing will be for naught because if there is an excess--there isn't enough allotment available we don't qualify for multi because you have to be able to not phase the project and we can phase obviously the single family homesites. And since the whole point of this and some of the considerations are the transfer of land, I want this commission to know that that is conditioned upon all of the approvals being in place for all the aspects of the project. Amy: What Perry is requesting is very inappropriate. The Planning commission is the body that scores projects in terms of points. The city Council would be the body to make an interpretation on whether it is 25%--20 or 39--and that is going to occur through the process of when they get their final approvals that will be known. But I don't think there is any way of us guaranteeing or saying that we will rescore in order to give them a higher point later on if they don't meet it. Harvey: I am not asking that Amy. I just wanted to alert the Commission that I am going to need an interpretation. Amy: That is going to happen at the City council. Welton then opened the public hearing. Bill Martin: I am concerned about the parking for the chalets. We invite very important people to participate in the programs. We have given them no parking at all. I don't suggest that we create parking for 120 units but I do think that there should be some consideration for parking in the chalet area. Woodward: They can walk from their chalet to the parking garage. The idea is to put the parking underneath the garage and use the vehicles that the Meadows is going to provide to eliminate the cars as much as possible for things in town and back again without having to use their vehicle. That is why when you arrive you go in and register at the central building, you put your car away, the golf cart taking you to the area for your luggage and you come back 22 PZM4.2.91 again and you use the facility vehicle to go downtown. hope that once you park your car, if you bring your car, have to use it the whole time that you are there. We would you don't In fact we are using a disincentive program this year with the MAA and the Aspen Institute with advance information indicating that we are working with the city and the MAA for auto disincentive. That is being done this summer that you do not need an automobile. Transportation is provided, use a bicycle or walk. It is a very pleasant walk through the west end to go downtown. Gideon: There will be a few spaces available for handicapped for the restaurant. We will take care of someone who has problems walking. Chic Collins: I want to comment briefly on the state of the final development plan as submitted. It seems to me that there are a great deal of information that is not in. It is vague. It is not complete. And it doesn't follow the __mumble__ required in the code to be presented to the Planning Commission subsequent to the city Attorney especially with regard to the plat and the amount of detailed information that is required. .,'....",.. And it is rather specific in the code and also in the first resolution. The second resolution in '91 by the City Council they were expressing also that before this final plan into the Planning Commission that it would also meet certain requirements that were established in the code. And I think that what has happened because of this lack of information mumble incorrect information it is very difficult to respond. These things seem to keep changing. And so we don't have a definite plan. For example we have a question of Marqusee's non-conforming lot and now there is going to be a trade there to make up for that. There ought to be a map says a road coming off the new curve road that was going to serve the residences on block 6 which now the access off of the alley because North st doesn't go through. In the application in 2 areas one is the subdivision plat which has got to be less than 5% of the information on it that it should have. They show North st going through 7th and 8th and on over west of 8th. This is the way it shows. The map is obviously incorrect because that North st is not open. The same thing is true in the vicinity map. This was prepared in 1988 shows North st going straight through from 6th to 7th and then on over. So I think when these things are tied down they should have been tied down at this point before final approvals. I think it would be a lot of problems and questions that are going to come up that will make it very difficult mumble It is an arrangement that has made private property owners_mumble_ 23 PZM4.2.91 There is a lot of area outside of the boundaries of this application where easements are going to have to be a vote. And nobody seems to know where they are. Property owners should be indicated on the map. We have going down Meadow Lane 3 or 4 cuI de sacs. At least 1 of the older subdivisions has recently been subdivided. And so there is a possibility they are going to generate new lots down there and how are these going to be served? So I guess the information has to come at some time. According to the Council's conditions it should have been at this time according to land use regulations in Chapter 24. It should have been ready at this time. Then when it goes into the next step with city council there are additional items and this application is completely almost complete--it has some nice pictures but fail to tell you how wide, how, where is the easement going to go? What are all the property lines and so on. It is not in the application. So I think at some point there will, it could create problems which some owners _mumble_. The map should equal 1 inch ---- or larger and I think ----I don't know how you can respond to it. '-- Welton: Chic, Amy and Kim have identified a lot of areas where the information is lacking or incorrect. You are talking about where the application is not or doesn't meet standards and regulations. I think rather than going through each of the Short-comings in a public hearing forum in a sort of an overview method like you are doing right now such suggestions that some of the maps are too small to meet the regulations, that the most productive way of making sure that information is included would be to sit down with Kim and compare where she has found short-comings with where you have found Short-comings so that Kim can get back with the applicants and they can correct these. I appreciate what you are saying that this is not covered or that is not covered but to list out the entire litany will take longer than a public forum is appropriate for. Collins: What I am getting at is those are the items that you use to evaluate what the proposal is. If you look at the pictures for instance on this map in here, this is the SPA final. There is a road to an access that is not on the map that was up there earlier. So how can you respond in a responsible way if you don't have the hard map is my question. And when will you get to see that? Welton: Well, if you can help us out and add to the Planning Office's list of data that is missing then we might get a chance to see it at one of the next couple of meetings. But so far between this 1 inch Planning Office memo and the 2 inch Meadows I think--there has been plenty to read. And if something is missing. it sure would be worthwhile to let the Planning Office know so that 24 PZM4.2.91 '''--~ they can make sure that it is included at least by the time we have our final vote on it. Collins: Well, will you continue the public hearing till next week? Welton: Yes, we will. Welton then asked for further public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing for this portion of the meeting. But stated he would re-open it at a subsequent meeting. Bruce: If indeed Chick is correct it is an obligation of Planning staff and the legal staff of the City to determine whether the application is incomplete or not. We review the application but it is not our job to determine whether it is complete. So I think if it is not--then staff and legal counsel have an obligation to let us know that. It looks pretty complete to me. Welton: Are there any closing comments from the Commissioners on the final Aspen Meadows SPA development plan submission. Sara: Asked about the staking of the rehearsal facility. ..~ -.' Amy: It will be ready by Thursday afternoon. Bruce: I am just a little curious as to if Savannah sells out Lots #5, 6 and 7 through 10 and they no longer have an ownership interest except perhaps as a declarant with the condominium docs or whatever, who is going to insure that this van service is going to continue and all the other elements. Is that the Institute? Gideon: The operator. That is going to go with the operation of the lodge. Bruce: speak. Gideon: Right. There will be the Obligated to fill the commitments--the to fill the commitments on the mumble - - So once Savannah sells out, they are out of here so to Institute. They will be Institute will be Obligated parcel, the MAA parcel, Roger: Just information, Perry, who do I get with on this 7th and Meadows Rd and North st intersection and who do I find out which is applicable? The book or the presentation here? Perry: The presentation is applicable I think there is a little change in the road and A.J. is the guy who designed it. Chuck Roth had some input into it. And then we are going to get this Bob 25 PZM4.2.91 Felsburg who is the traffic guy to go over how this all works. We went with the trees. Now if there is a more important--we went with 2 things. The trees and to keep these lots down here. It was determined Roger would meet with the makers of the road. Richard: Quoting from page 3 of the mitigation plan the last 5 lines--" 30% reduction would result in total traffic generation with the expanded facilities equal to that which could be generated by the existing facilities without a mitigation plan, etc. Now the whole reason given for introducing this 7th st or North st extension was the generation of extra traffic. Now we seem to be going in a bit of a circle here. I have been opposed to that 7th st extension all along and I would like to see what reasons there are for building it if the traffic mitigation plan is an excellent one obviates the increase in traffic. And that is a threshold issue for me on approving this plan. Otherwise I don't have a whole lot to object to. I think most of it is very good. Part of that 7th st problem is having a number of driveways crossing the bike trail, the pedestrian trail which is the existing Meadows Rd. Some information I would like to get is I would like to see a schedule for this coming summer's use of the tent and compare that to what you have projected for the tent rehearsal hall combination. '.......- And on GMQS exemption I am generally in favor of it for the lodging areas. I have questions about the restaurant expansion or what happens if commercial use is made of these facilities during the winter and how we deal with that. I would like to have a discussion of that the next time. And when we get to the Music Associates we need to discuss what happens with the lawn seating. How large that will be. Whether it remains free or whether it is charged. Where my feelings are with the input of money and approvals that the City is giving to this land that free public access and plenty of it is a necessity. Welton asked if there were other Commissioner comments. Letters regarding the placement of the rehearsal facility are attached in record. These are from David H. Koch, Carl R. and Katie Bergman, Jessica Catto and Rosemary and Richard Furman. There were none and he adjourned t eeting. ) C'L~ Clerk . , 26