HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850305
-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5,1985
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with
commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Helton Anderson.. David
\'!hite, Roger Hunt (arrived at 5:15 p.m.), f.~ari peyton, and
al ternate Ramona narkal unas present.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Fallin complained the sidewalk at the Aspen Villa's is never
cleared and is dangerous. She understood that access was an
extension of the trail easement and vias a part of the approval
for construction. Alan Richman. planning office. asked is the
sidel~alk publicly dedicated. If an easement ,Ias granted to the
city, inform Jay !Iammond. If the access is only a sidewalk, the
owner is responsible. Fallin understood a city ordinance requires
s i dewal k s be cl eaned and maintained. Richrc1an noted the pol ice
enforce the sidewalk ordinance in the downtown area.
\lhite presented for the Commission's a reviel'l quality of life survey
from Fort Collins, dated 1979. Second, Honday at 4:00 p.m. the
traffic committee and Council have scheduled a work session.
Third, Thursday, Harch 14th at 5:00 p.m.. a public hearing is
scheduled on the entrance to Aspen. Fourth, he complained about
the sidewalks also. Ricl'111an repeated the planning office is not
responsible for enforcing the maintenance of the sidewalks.
Direct street complaints to the streets depurtment. The direct
contuct is Jay Hal1mond. parking problems direct to engineering
or the police. The planning office is a planning agency not af:
enforcement agency.
Suzanne Caskey, representative and chai rperson or the County
Planning and Zoning Commission. reported the county P;:,Z met this
morning for the first time on the Aspen tlountain l~aster Plan.
The planning office had e:{pressed and shared one of the city i s
main concerns, parking. The county commissioners generally
concl uded the two entities shared ,-,13ny s imil ar concerns.
Ce rtai n ent i ties are arguing parking is the city's problem not
the county's. Some are arguing that the ci ty has to deal Hi th
that portion of the mountain I,ithin the municipal boundaries, and
the county with the portion within the county's jurisdiction. That
attitude is reminiscent of attitudes prevailing during the
highHay pli'mning process. Recall the county did not consult the
city on the highHay issue and the city felt blackmailed.
The county and city fuce the same scenario \'lith the Aspen t10untain
,.laster Plan. Her commissioners generally are comfortable \dth
the 2\.spen I:1ountain Easter Plan~ but c not about the impacts.
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
The ski company has expressed urgency in progressing forward \lith
the approval process. The ski company believes the issues Hill
work themselves out. The ski company has suggested it will work
out the parking issue; for example; with the traffic committee
later. One question is should the master plan involve parking.
Another issue is lift ii4, \~hich r.lay be a gondola. The maps
on the lClaster plan only illustrate the location of the lift, not
the housing for the structures. That structurE is in the city's
jurisdiction.
Caskey invited the City Planning and Zoning Commission to a joint
meeting with the County Planning and Zoning Commission next
Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. The ski company may want the county
to only deal with the county issues and the city to only deal
with the city issues. But, that is not to the community's
advantage. Parking has to be addressed jointly. The ilc1pacts of
the ski master plan have to be dealt with sensibly now as a part
of good planning. There must be some creative liay for the two
boards to cooperate.
Harvey suggested two or three city cor..missioners represent and
attend the neeting: Hurvey, Fallin, Hunt, and \'lhite. ;1arvey
encouraged the other members to attend also.
Caskey also suggested the city and county Planning and
Commissions meet occasionally, for example; quarterly.
agreed.
Zoning
Harvey
RESOLUTION
SPA CODE AMENDMENT
RicThl1an summarized the changes. On page two, item one of the
recommended changes deals with the intent and purpose section of
the regulation. The section [24-7.1 (b) (1)] is strengthened and
clarified. Language on the historical significance is added.
Second, he had realized after the last meeting the proposal did
not require the conceptual plan be submitted for SPA designation.
The proposal only talked about the meaning of a conce~tual plan.
the proposal did not include the reason for submitting a conceptual
plan. The reason for the conceptual submission has been added
(item two). The Commission had identified in the original
resolution the purposes for the existing SPA designations. The
Existing SPA parcels already have established the intents and
purposes; the conceptual plan is nothing more than that. An SPA
conceptual plan is not defined as a conceptual plan according to
PUD or generul submission guidelines. The SPA conceptual plan is
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
less. The SPA conceptual plan does not detuil vlater,. sewer,
etc. Item three identifies the requirements of the conceptual
submission: a statement of intent. conceptual description of
development type, use categories, densities, and design techniques.
Harvey requested a memo that outlines the Commission' s thinking.
Unlike a PUD, Council does not identify and detail all its
concerns at the conceptual. During the SPA process Council will
see the preliminury submission. Prelilainary is the final SPA
review process.
John Doremus. representative for the Institute property, said
item three is too vague. Perhaps. that which is not to be
included in the conceptual submission should be stated. Add that
it is not the intent of the applicution to do the following.
Explain the principal of conceptual SPA. Conceptual SPA does not
deal with adequacy of utilities, trafric; it does not deal with
possible geologic hazards, etc.
Gideon Kaufman. representative for Little Nell, suggested deleting
"including but not limited to." The phrase is too open ended.
He agreed 1 ist a few items not to be incl uded in the conceptual
submission. Richman elabraced the idea of listing what the
conceptual does not refer to, but._ not to deleting "but not
limited to." The city is not omniscient. That phrase accommodates
future ideas.
Harvey asked for clarification of the intent of "design techni-
ques." Rid~l1an replied general massing. Harvey suggested design
schematics. Technique is inappropriate. Kaufman asked for
clarification of "design schematics." Harvey replied a site
design. Hunt disagreed with the term "design schematic."
Schematic is a description and is inappropriate. Dunavlay suggested
"design concepts."
Anderson advised the negative statement for the conceptual
submission be generic. The conceptual submission is not expccted
to meet all the detailed requirements of PUD or subdivision. The
later submissions involve a great deal of specificity and detail.
Harvey clarified "conceptual " is a title for a step in the SPA
process. Differentiate conceptual SPA from the conceptual PUD.
Richman included in the resolution: "conceptual SPA does not
include the detail required of conceptual subdivision or PUD."
Ricbnan continued Ivith item four. Four originally did not define
the revi2w procedure for the conceptual plan revievl. The section
now reads that the Con:nission will revie\tl the conceotual submission
c
ut a reJular IJceting, Vlill recor.1mend approval or denial, and \~ill
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
recommend conditions. Council will review the plan upon receipt
of the Commission's recommendations at u regular meeting and will
gra:1t or deny final approval lvith revisions or conditions.
Heavey clarified the system involves final approval of the
conceptual plan, which in fact is the final review. Preliminary
review is eliminated. Richman suggested the addition:
"Council. . . shall grant concel?tual approval or deny the plan."
The city attorney had advised the Commission to review the precise
plan in a public hearing. Conceptual plans are reviewed in
regular meetings for both Council and the Commission.
Item five. Richman deleted the reference to five to ten years.
He \'li11 submit a memo to Council articulating the Commission i s
position.
Iter:) six. Rich.l1an eliminated the expiration of the SPA overlay.
If a precise plan is not submitted within two years of the
conceptual approval. the conceptual plan approval will expire.
The terms for the SPA process are "ccnceptual" and "precise."
The SPA process does not involve "preliminary" or "final." Doremus
corrected line two, delete the word "final." Seco:1d. no applicant
can process a precise plan without a conceptual plun. The conceptuul
process is essential for everyone. Harvey asked is an existing
SPA subject to the conceptual step. Richman noted there are only
three existing SPA sites. The conceptual process \lill confirm
the original intent for the existing SPA designation. The
precise must be consistent with the conceptual plan, and in order
to be consistent with a conceptual plan the applicant must
present a conceptual plan. Harvey said the Comnission should not
review conceptual plans for existing SPA designated sites.
Undcor the terms of the present SPA process, an existing site,
Rio Grande, the Institute; and Little IJell should not be subjected
to the conceptual step.
Kaufraan understood if Little Nell c=~{pandSr then. yes, subject
it to the conceptual process. But, if it does not expand and
maintains the same parameters, then no. Richman suggested identify-
ing the properties that should be designated SPA through the present
process, submitting to the record the intents and purposes of the
SPl', designations, and approving the intents. l'.t that point, the
city should ask for a plan. If a plan is not submitted. the
approval sits in a vacuum. The continuity of the SPA process is
lost when new sites are required to submit a conceptual plan and
the others are not.
Harvey understood the Commission has already compiled statements
of intent and purpose for the already designated SPA sites. The
Cor.mission has al ready interpreted the community' s conceptual
4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
:Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5, 1985
plan for those sites. An applicant with an already designated
SPA site will have to conform Ivith the already existing concept
for the site. An applicant with no e;;isting SPA designation must
present a description on development uses density. etc for
the new site. Richraan argued if everyone were to agree \"lith this
position then section seven IVould either r'2ad conformance Ylith
conceptual plan approval (as is written) or read conformance
"lith that v,hich the Commission and Council hilve adopted as the
intent and purpose for the SPA. Section seven has to state one
or the other. An applicant should not be ullowec to approach the
process for the first time vlith a precise plan. The applicant
has to conform with something at precise plan either the appli-
cant's already approved conceptual plan or the Commission's
conceptual plan.
!Iarvey understood conceptual plans for existing SPA parcels
alreildyexisted. Anderson anSl~ered no. There must be a preliminary
review before the precise plan. !Iarvey discouraged another level
of review. Richman reasoned an applicant Ylould not create a
precise plan for a property l'lithout cealing with concepts.
There is no additional burden. Conformance is necessary between
the tvlO levels of SPA review, conceptual and precise. The
Comr~ission has created the intent and purpose for the three
parcels. And yet, Harvey's proposal permits an applicant to
present a plan that may oppose the intent and purpose. The
original intents and purposes are not identified in this regula-
tion. The code neither requires nor gives credence to those
established intents and purposes.
Doremus understood last Yleek the Commission hud agreed that
parcels with existing SPl\ designations would be subject to the
conceptual process. An upplicunt will not allocate funds for a
plan Ylithout some sense of Vlhat the community considers acceptable.
The conceptual stage saves time and money. The conceptual stage
provides guidance for a parcel not presently zoned. The conceptual
stage relates the uses Lind the expected zoning overlays. The
applicant subsequent to the conceptual stage can detail the
project, the precise plan. This approach is helpful to any large
development. The SPA process is simil ar to the zoning request.
The rezoning process is unnecessary and should be cli~inated upon
adoption of the SPA approach. The conceptual application should
address density, zoning, and uses. The applicant has to demonstrate
what is appropriate for the site. The applicant has to prove the
concept works during the more technical format. the precise
plan phase. !Ie supported the proposed SPA approach.
Kaufman agreed development of the Institute and Llajor redevelopment
or Little llell should be subjected to the conceptual process.
"
J
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning commission
March 5, 1985
To subj ect the owner of Li ttle Nell to the enti re SPA proce s s,
both conceptual and precise plan, for ninar changes to an existing
building is inappropriate. Richman noted a minor amendment
claus2 is incorporated in the document. Kaufman asl~ed if his
cli8nt were to locate a liftf a minor change, in the SPA~ would
his client be subject to the conceptual and precise plan. Horn
answered a lift is not a small change.
Harvey asked is the Commission comfortable IJith
process ror existing and neIJ SPA designated parcels.
consensus was yes.
the tHo-step
The general
Hunt asked what route does an applicant take for minor changes
to the Little Nell Building. How is minor modification to the
SPA plan defined? Richman answered the criteriu are codified
according to the PUD criteria. The planning staff can only
authorize very limited modifications. The Co:nmission C2n amend
adopted plans. In the case of a minor modification. the adoptec
plan defines the e:cisting use. The i:linor amendr~ent is to t~1e
e;:isting use. L~n e~~isting building in an existing SPll area can
be changed to a minor degree without being subjected to the
conceptuul und precise plan. Hajor development involves the tIVO-
part process. Kaufman asked where is tnis intent codified.
Richl1an ansIJered this interpretation is not codified, the minor
a:nendfi.1ent procedure is codLE ied. Kaufman urged the cadif ication
of this intent for the protection of the public.
I:aufm.:.n cited the attempt by Shlomo's Deli to enclose the outside
deck. There was no mechanism to enclose the decJ;, there was no
adopted precise plan, the precise plan could not be amended, and no
change Vias possible to the existing building. Richman repeated
the minor iliaendment procedure and the inclusion of the discussed
intent \~ill be the mechanisms.
Richman continued. Should the following language be included in
item seven: "Conforming with the approval granted to the conceptual
plan or to the Commission-Council designation of the site?"
Harvey noted that language is already included in item seven.
Perhaps the city's intent of the original SPA designation should
not be articulated in the ordinance because the conceptual Drocess
IVill address the intent. The issue is conformance to t11e con~eptual
plan.
Richman continued. The "resolved" section addresses the conformance
of SPA and growth management. The maj or change: g rOl'lth manage;;]ent
is processed in conj unction \'Ii th the preci se pI an. Other areas
of the SPA regulation are not changed. A final (precise) SPl',
approval is necessary for an Qllotrnent.. Hnrvey clarified the
6
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
term for "final" SPA approval is prccis~, the term for "fin&l" PUD
and subdivision approval is final.
Riclnan continued. The final addition to the "resolved" section
clarifies and specifies the competition for the 35 lodge unit
allotment is for all districts excluding L-3. The revision is to
Section 24-22.I(b).
Richman advised the Commission to approve the resolution and to
direct Harvey to review and authorize the changes.
Kauf,rrun quoted from the "be it resolved section":
"No allotments shall be granted to any project which has not
received...final SPA...," and
"No project shall receive final SPA or other approval until
the applicant shall have been aVlarded a development allot-
ment... II
\lhat happens to a project which involves phasing over a couple of
years? The applicant wants to build in phases but the applicant
cannot receive the final SPA until he receives the entire allot-
ment. Richman understood that someone who is not able to receive
their allotment at one time will only receive an approval for a
portion of the SPA. Uarvey agreed the language is u "catch-22."
An applicant cannot receive final subdivision or precise SPA
approval until he is awarded the full developmental allotment,
but the applicant cannot receive an allotment without a PUD,
precise SPl'T or zoning approval. Kaufman suggested the languuge
state an applicant can receive a partial SPA approval. Harvey
directed Richnan to clarify the language.
Motion:
Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #05-2 as amended; und moved
the chairman review and authorize the changes and sign; seconded
by Jasmine Tygre.
Di scuss ion. uhi te di sapproved the absence of the flexibil i ty to
vary above or belm., the zone requirements. Peyton agreed with
\'!hi te. Richman suggested a whereas that notif ies Council that
the Commission perceives this an important issue. Harvey suggested
this be a separate motion.
!Iarvey called for a vote. All in favor; motion carried.
Kaufman understood the concern.
But the city attorney has
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Re9ular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
determined that clause should not be included in the ordinance.
1'7hy make a .i-dotion to put in a whereas \Vhen the city attorney hac
determined it inappropriate? Richman said the action puts the
Co:nmission's position on record.
Motion:
David \-Jhite moved to include a whereas that states the COTc1Dission
feels the concept of imposing limitations below that of the
standards of the zone is as important as granting variations
above the standards of the zone; seconded by Roger Hunt.
Discussion. Harvey questioned the motion. Is the motion requesting
the Commission's position be inserted in the ordinance, \'1~1ich is
not acceptable to the city attorney, or is the motion reflecting
the Coramission' s position on the importance of the issue? The
~otion should read:
"That whereas the Commission realizes the city attornev
adv i se s that this issue not be J?art of the ordinance that
the muj ori ty of the Comh1ission still feels the concept of
imposing limitations below that of the standards of the zone
is as important as granting variations above the standards
of the zone."
Hunt requested this be in the form of a resolution.
David Ilhite amended his r:lotion as suggested by Harvey and to
present the motion in the form of a resolution; seconded by Roger
Bunt. Motion carried; with Anderson opposed.
RESOLUTION
~PEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN
Harvey encouraged a vote on this resolution tonight. Fallin
preferred delaying the vote until the parlcing and transit issues
Ilere discussed further. The ski company should participate in the
discussion. She replaced tlle ",yord t1join" \'lith "comr.1itll in
"require the Aspen Sl~iing Company to ~om~it to actions_" IIarvey
recommended the resolution reud that Pitkin County should explore
51(i co~pany participation.
Hunt remarked the ski company and the city share mutuul problems.
The current procedure does not satisfactorily address those
problems, particularly, parking and transit. Ho\'! will th2
county planning and zoning cO:--.1mi 38ion address the city' 3 tran si t
and parking problems? !larvey replied parking and transit are the
city's problems. The city :nust take a leudership role. I:Z the
"
C'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
, -"-
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
ski company and CCLC \'lere to cooperate, fine. Cooperation could
resul t in further development of parking on the master plan.
Hunt said the process encourages the county to grant the ski
company approval of a master plan without addressing the city's
problems. There is no impetus in the process to solve the
municipal problems. Tile master plan does not indicate that the
developer is obligated to handle the future problems. The master
plan only identifies the problems. 11;10 \Vill solve the problems?
Ricrr.lan repeated the ci ty and county planning and zoning commissions
Hill jointly address these problems ne;{t Tuesday. The county
\'li11 not grant approval until the problems are solved.
~7hit2 requested the ski company commit to be involved with a.
parking district. Strengthen the language. Obligate the ski
company like the Hotel Jerome to an agreement on parking.
Harvey said one reason for the joint meeting with the county~
city. and s]~i comDanv is to determine ho\; to resolve this iSSUGa
Richman suggested L th~ resol ution articulate the Commi ssion \~ant s
to neet with the county to formulate solutions to the critical
issues. Hunt supported formalizing the liason behleen the city
and county. Rich,Clan further suggested the resol ution articulate
that the county not take action until the city's concerns have
been solved.
Horn drafted language:
"Be it resolved that the issues of parking and transit are
of such importance in the City of Aspen that the City
Plunning and Zoning Commission wishes to actively participate
in the County Planning and Zoning Crnomission review process
from this point forward to develop solutions that address
county concerns uS \'lell as city concerns."
Harvey drafted language to be included in the first "be it
resolved" section:"
"Tne City Planning and Zoning Commission will attend meetings
and work in cooperation with the county in the countyls
revie\'l of the !I.spen r;ountain 1:aster plan to help deal \'Iith
the vital concerns of the city (listed on through six)."
Motion:
Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution 185-3 as amended and moved
to direct the chairman to review 2nd to sign the resolution;
seconded by David lihite. All in favor; motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reaular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 5. 1985
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
pRELIMINARY PUD. SUBDIVISION. AND ASSOCIATED REVIEWS
FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
P.ichma;l introduced the application. The project is composed 0:;;
free market proj8cts: residential units \lit:lin the, hotel, Top of
nill, Summit place, and 700 South Galena. The Ute City place
proj ect will also be reviewed. The residential proj ect involves
40 reconstructed units, 12 GrIP allotments, 2 units Ylith GNP
8;:emption at Summit Place, and 22 units with GriP exemption at Ute
City Place. The housing proposal involves lIlpina Ilaus, the
Copper Horse, the l\irport Business Center, and Ute City Place.
The r,lajor concerns are employee housing, architectural site
design, the circulution, and naturul hazards.
He has not received comments from the engineering department or tho
state geological survey department. When he receives the: engineer-
ing comments he will develop a second rnemo tllat deals specifically
with ellgineering concerns, wIliell are @ininal. TIle hazard issues
uiIl t:l.l~e tiIL10 to revie~1.
The COlTlI;\ission will deal Ilith this application for the ne;:t four
weeks. This schedule responds to the applicant's and the City
Council's desi re to move the proj ect forward as quickly as
possible. RichDan has also received an amended GrIP application,
the COLlmission Hill score the lodge ugain. The scoring is
tenatively scheduled for April 16th.
First deal with architecture, site design, and circulation.
IIarvcy opened the public hearing.
Alan Novak, applicant, announced that Judge Goecl: approved the
plan for reorganization this morning. The applicant anticipates
closing the property around March 18th.
700 South Galena:
John Doremus, representative for the applicant" introduced 700
South GalGl1u. o..nl1 TLTl Hagmanr archi teet. Hagman detailed the
plans for t;1E project. lIe referred to various elevations and plans.
The original proposal included tVlelve units. In response to
concerns from neighbors and the Commission the designer reduced
the density to four units. The reduction is more consistent
"ith tl1e surrounding residential neighborhood. Galena Street has
been straightened. [.lore area is allocated for landscaping. lIe
referred to the first, second, and third level floor plans for
the four units. Parking is subgrace. The design scheme is more
10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reaular ~leeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
residential in character and is reminiscent 0:;: historical l\spen.
The site accommodates on-grade parking and si~teen subgrade
spaces. Landscaping runs across the entire; front3gc. The unit3
are clustered around a courtyard. The materials are shingles and
stones for the roofs and siding. Th'2 basement is stone. The
units comply with the height limits.
Richrnan c;valunted the conditions applied to this project at the
concept ual stage. The concept ual conditions for this proj ect
are: height, which nOH conforms \.,ith the zone district; and the
real ignment of Galena Street, "hich the appl icant has sati sf ied.
The applicant has complied with the previous conditions. Even
though engineering has not commented on this project,. Richwan
understood no neYl conditions have been identificti. This project
is sinple and straightforward.
Harvey welcomed questions from the com:nissioners.
Harvey questioned the intent of the extra parking. Doremus
discouraged above grade parking because it detracts from the
attractiveness of site. The applicant "ill provide the above
grade spaces if needed or required. There are several interpre-
tations about how many spaces per unit are required. The applicant
adhered to the code. Ricrillan clarified the applicant exceeds the
requirement. Joe 'Jells, representative for the applicant,
explained the applicant provided excess spaces. The applicant
was unsure the Corn::nission \1ould accept surface spaces. The
subgrad,~ parking alone meets the code parking requirenent.
Dorcnus further explained the represent2tions on parking give the
applicant the flexibility to revis'2 the bedroom count betwecn
threE and four without aggravating the building depart~ent.
Rich.lrnan did not check. this complex aga.inst the conditions applied
to the recent GHP proposal. He did not check; the proposdl against
Resal ution 84-23 and the employe8 ho using concept ual conditions.
Conditions :Jay be attached to this resolution. Harvey set aside
700 South Galena pendin9 engirH;ering I s rGVieH and pending the
reViC"rl of the Gnp conditions. Richman repeated this project is
consistent with the subr:1ission.
Hunt said the surface parl:ing is important to the visitors of the
complex, not to the residents. Arc th'2 spaces for visitors of
renting guests or for the renting guests? Doremus agreed to
change the language to visitors. Hunt approved the overall
parking design. Limit some on-site parking to the short-tern
visitors.
Top of Mill:
11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
Chris Glaister, architect for the project, proceeded. This
proj ect has not changed substant Ll1ly since conceptual. The
basic plan format rewains the sa'"TIG. rrhc nU?ilber of units remains
the ,sa:-]e. The 3quare footage re:nains the same. The ch2nges
involve slight modifications and improve~ents and the changes
respond to specific conditions imposed by the City Council.
Glaister summarized the project. The project Ilill be situated at
the southern terminus of Hill Street. nill Street presently at
that point consists of an ugly pile of mine tippings, rubbish,.
etc. Fifth Avenue Z\partments, the Hountain f"Jueen.l and other
sDall structures, e. g., the ski club, are situated in the area.
The plan acknowledges the site is u transition zone between Aspen
proper and the mountain. The plan was conceived with the notion
that automobiles vanished at the termination of Hill Street. Much
ti:ne emd considerable expense were spent to eliminate automobiles
f rou this proj ect. Purking is subgrade. A pedestrian-only.
vehicle-free precinct is incorporated in the plun.
The site configuration is quite particular. On the \lest side is
a steep slope. A \~ater tank, visible from the town. is situated
at the top of that slope. The site consists also of a hollow
which is largely invisible from the town. The complex is sited
in that hollow. The e}:tensive sight line examinations indicate
the project is minimally visible from the town. The architectural
design directs the vie',~ froD tOlln up t:le mountain through a group
of trees. The architectural design recognizes the townis e~~tra-
ordinary Victorian grid of streets. The orthogonal quality of
the town reflects a sense of organization. The siting of the units
recognizes that unique character of Aspen.
Another objective is to break down the scale and massing of the
building. The buildings in the area are massive blocks. the
Ilountain Queen, the Fifth Avenue Apartments etc. Those cooplezes
block the view to the mountain from this area.. The scale of tile
current buildings under a lllulti family zoning is large. ~he
original design focused on single fas,lily hOUS2,s. The site: is !10t
large enough to accom:l11odatc 100,000 square feet DE ;;ingle fa~llily
bouses. ?he .site can only aCCOillI:IOdate three or four very large
homes. The applicant did net accept that sCGllario. The designer
pursued the single family concepti the designer joined t\10 single
family hOT~les into i) duple~{ and under onE: single roof. The
reeling is a series of single f2J.1ily residences. In terr.ls of
plallning, this concept is correct for this transition zone. The
design allows Vi~VlS bet\'leen the buildings; even though t:lC:
buildings are tightly clustered together. There are Vie\lS betwe2n
the buildings on site and from the street. The design is a happy
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
marriage bct;;veen the s1 te characteristics ancJ. the prograr,l of
units.
The site plan has not changed dramatically since the conceptual
hearing. Council had demanded an additional ten park:ing spaces.
The parking is located within the subgradc parking garages. The
design now accommodates ninety spaces. The comple;:' s height
complies with the height regulation, 33 feet above grade to the
Did point of the roof. All except four units are tucked into the
hill. The 33 feet llOrks Ivell on the dOlll1hill side of the uni t
and the 6 feet on the uphill side. That is ir:1portant. The
project is not seen in its entirety frOG t112 anyuhcre in tOl'ln.
The project is visible from the mount<:lin. That is a concern.
Reducing the scale of the project on the ~ountainside is the
solution. The project I"l1inimally Lnpacts the vie,., of the tOHn
from the mountain.
Another City Council requirement was an east-west trail. DicJ:
iCnecht, Al Blomquist, the landscape architect on the project, and
Glaister made a site visit. The group considered various locatiollS
for.:. trail on the site. The t\vO councilmembcrs directed the
trail as irldicateJ on the map. The location creates endless
problems. But, the applicant can accomDodute the request. The
adopted City Council resolution directed the applicant to provide
ul~ east-west trail within the boundary of the site,., to connect
that trail to the city: s trail system, and to i~rlpleJ1cnt th2
trail \111en the city corapletGd its trail SYSt8I:1. Currently tllC
proposed on-site trail would connect to nothing. It is technically
feasible to locate the trail on the site. But, the probleD is not
\'lithin the sit.2r the problem is off the site" on both3!ids of th~
property. The grades leading out of the site are e::tremely
steep. The grade on the west is 14~ plus. Tile grade makes it
in:l::easible to site a trail. The east side is ~uch stGeper~ nay
be a dog-leg system viII work on a 14% grade.
The proposed location of the trail on th2 site severs tile lower
portion of the site from the upper portion or the site. The
configuration of tlle land makGs that sevcrence logical. But from
th2 point of vievl of architectural design,. operation, etc.." the
trail right-of-'day through the units is damaging. The applicant
pref2rs not locating the trail as intended. The correct location
for an east-west hiking trail should follo\'/ the eL~isting trZlils
running across the slope three hundred feet above. Either
of those two trails would be ideal. The applicant will work with
the city to make a connection from the project site to thos'2
trails.. The location of a trail through the proji:=ct si to does
not provide the e::pericnce the city desires.
13
f"".
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
Hnrvey asked 'i'lhat is the city! s goals. Glaist2r e;;plainecl the?
city requests the trail be designed to the standards of existing
city trails, an eight foot paved surface Ilitll a t\'lelve foot
right-of-I'/UY. The implication is a __',__ road running right through
the project and a ribbon of blacktop across Li ttle n'211. He
delineated the trail system on the map. IIarvey supported a loop
trail systen around the city. He bad not G~pected a ribbo:1 of
blacktop across Little :Jell. Is this proposal part of the
trail's master plan? RiclDl1an did not nOH and committed to r'2search
the issue.
Glaister saiJ the proposal is part of the orbital trail system.
The applicant favors a trail system close to the development.
The guests of the project could utilize the trail. But, it makes
no sense neither from the city'S point of view nor the upplicant's
point of view to site a trail through an urban cluster of houses.
The real goal is to provide an open space and ~ountain experience.
Harvey noted the trail location might be a potenti2r1 ski access
ErOle! lift ll-i.. to the other l:1ulti residential complexes. Glaister
agreed to a right-of-Hay on the project site for a descent ski
Clccess tru.il. ~'Jova]~ agreed to let others U3e the project I s ski
access.
Novak requested including an observation that there is difficulty
from an engineering perspective in i:nplenenting the proposed
trail. Har~Jey asked has the city agreed to the provision that
the: applicant i~nplement the trail \'lhe~l the city implements its
trails.
I-IarVI2'Y asked \lill the trail tunnel under nill Street. Glaister
illustrated on a site plan the route of the trail. He supported
the policy decision. on the trail but not the location of the
trail.
Glaister continued with two other issues. ~Ie had shown ill the
original plans the ski trail continuing to the hotel courtyards,
the private roaC providing access to the underground parking to
the lO\1er portion of thc= site. a t\venty-five foot easement for
the city to cOQplete the link in the road system, the connection
of an eight foot wide pedestrian path. and the path for the fire
trucks. E2 originally and inaccurately had dra\vn ia tIle ski trail.
Glaister continued. Originally the buildings were ofrset. The
plan for single roofs encountered significant construction
problc:ms. A chalet style characterizes the present design of one
rooE vlith no offset. This change increases the size of the
interior spaces and cleans up the roofscapes. The plan is calm2d
down. The roofs are more organized.
14
Plan~~n:Fz:::::E:::::SSion
I
I
I
Glaistcr located the surface parking. Harvey asked does the city
have: a program for the .outhern portion oE fUll Street. ilill
strC?et parking b'2 cleare? Dore:-.1us a.nsT,>Jered the iuprove.m.ent
district is responsible for examining a parking program. Thu'c
district has not acted. . he situation is frustrating. Glaister
encouraged no parking on i ther side of 11i11. narvey encouraged
the impression of a uider strcetscape. :1e118 cOTamented the city
has suggested it would ~e ina?propriate for the applicant to
eliminate Ill.orc than thirt~ on-street: parking spaces. The appli-
cant's street plan operate!s on that basis. It is unclear Ilhether
or not there is purking ,on one or both sides of the street.
IJovak encouraged the ci tYi to take responsibil i ty for enacting a
parking policy. It is di~ficult for the applicant to accept the
city's continued parking ~equests Ilhen the city does not have a
parking policy. .
Reqular Meeting
March 5. 1985
Glaister commented the 4uestion of off-site drainage will be
adc1ress2d extensively at la future raeeting. He indicated the
location of ti1e retenti't'n pond. This area is the last of a
s'2ries of catch basins. iSe ha.s figured out a complex grading
arrang3ment that alloHs t e hill to go up, hit a contour, drop,
and thei1 go up the steep 1i11 on the other side. The trench is
invisible. The area wi 1 be landsc:iped and protected from
skiers. Considerable dis urbance on the site will result froin
construction of the under round pClrking~ from covering the mine
tailings, etc.
Glaistcr addressed vegeta~iOll. lIe indicated the stands of trees
to be removed and those ~~o remain. Richman noted Jim Holland,
parks department: has rev e\led the level of d.isturbance and has
cor.1Tncnted the planting re lacer.1ent program appears gui tc ade-
quate. '
Doremus clarified th~ fire b.ccess solution has been modified. There
is no cupboard to house' hoses or tanks. There: 'dill b8 dry
standpipes and hydrants ,placed lJithin 150 feet of all outside
\"alls. An automatic sprin~cler system is installec throughout t11e
co~,lplex. This fire nroorlum is beinG reViG~'lCd by a Denver firs
.... ... ...J I ...J
cons ul tant. Fi re trucks ~annot LlCC;2SS the: upper portion of the
project. Harvey requested this issue be set aside until the fire
consultant responds. ]un' Qsked is th:2 sprinklt2r SystCr:l in the
g~rage or all buildings. j DOrCTJU~ cli:lrified. t~.e sp~inkle-,r. sys~em
\'llll be placed on every L1loor of every bUllcang lncluulng \:1'.3
garage throughout the 2ntiFc project.
Ilarvcy questioned
Richr;lun referred
condi ti9n f i V2. the
to a d~scussion on
,
\iLlcation of
page sevetl
llill Street.
of the De~no.
, 0
J.-'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
:Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
~larch 5. 1985
Harvey asked is th8 applicant 8:~tending th2 ITill Street~ 1'There
is the e:,tension? Glaister indicated tile cxtensiOil on a map~ U
small section above the intersection or nill Street and Summit.
Richman reiterated he has not recei?ed IIa.rJ:l1ond~s cO:::-:1ments, but
based on his review of the application the applicant has addressed
the vacation concerns.
Harvey repeated condition s~:.:, starn drainage, Vi/ill be addressed
later. The applicant has complied \'lith condition seven, the 33 foot
tleight limitation. Condition eight, vegetation, has been addressed.
Condition nine, adequate e.J.seIJGnt on Sum:"llit Street" has b2en
met. Richman noted the applicant has granted tilE 25 foot easement
and has move~ the buildings on the lO\'ler portion of th,:=; site:
apart 40 feet. Harvey continued. Condilion te~l requires a
l&ndscaped sidelIalk across the Top of nill 3ite and \'lithin the
SUillIJ.it Street easer:lt2nt. Hotl "lid2 is Su:nnit street '(:lith an eight
foot \1ide pav'2u sidewalk? Glaister ans\'lercd forty feet from
building face to building face, the road surface is 25 feet. The
architect illustrated on the site plan the location of the eicht
root \lide side\'l~lk and the ski trail \'lhich intersects -:':hc sidevlall:.
The area ~ill be landscaped. Harv~y asked does this conflict with
the city engineer~s request for emergency access. Richman
rei.')lied no. Harvey said the trail easement across the Top 0:':
IIill can be attractively landscaped and not necessarily paved.
Glaister requested t~e Commission states tIle trail is not appro-
priate for il bicycle trail and therefore does not have to be
paved or designed to the same standards. Harvey dirf3ct'2c1 niCrl.'1lEU1
to research how the trail whicJ:1 traverses the project fits in
witll the trail1s ~astcr plan.
Harvey continued. Condition twelve requires the applicants
incrC?C!se the parking on the TOD of ElIl site from 80 to 00
spaces. 'The applicant ha.s compli~d. Harvey as~:ed if tbe bedroom.
nUI1ber is determined. Dorer:lus ans\lered no. Harvey not8d the
representations of five-single family units and fourteen duple;:es;
each unit with four bedrooms, total 132 bedrooms.
Richman rel112rked the appl icant has cODpl fed very ~'lell Tili th
conceptual 8040 gre(;nline revicI'l. no additional problems at
this point have been identified for Top of !:ill or r 700 South
Galena. However: RichInan is still \Vaiting for sailie technical
responses from engineering and envira:1:-nental health. Drainage
and site suitability are the major questions. Richraan reported
thf2 status of the gi=ological issue. He had a conversation ;'lith
the Colorado Geological Survey but had no "lritten response. lIe
\1il1 not discuss this issue until he receives a ~'lritten response
from the CGS \'lhich should br.= before the Harch 19th meeting.
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
Harvey raised the issue of the city's potential culpability of
approving a project in a knmm geological hazard area. The city
attorney should include language,. mny be a disclaimer" in the
approval. Protect the city 1:rO:-:1 consenting to a development on a
site T,,,hieh subsequently may experience sliding _ F-ichillan noted
Hammond's approach is to deal with the applicant who owns the
property where the proble," exists and to establish mitigation
measures. The; O\n1er is the ski company. The ski company is an
active proponent of the land use proposal. Tllis issue \~ill be
discussed with them" RichDan preferred to defer comments on this
item until he receives comments from CGS.
Novak distinguished between the drainage problernr debris problem!
and landslide problem. His consultants concluded the landslide
danger problem has been over assessed and overblown. nis consul tants
concluded tllcre were no significilnt laIldslide problems.
The Commission deferrccJ discussion 011 0040.
Richman said u. conditional use permit is inappropritlte. The
request is for Zl. lodge use in the R-15 (L) PUD zonc. ThE?: code
defines a lodge as a condi tional use Hi th the at tach'TIent of ItL 11
to RIS. T~lesc units cannot be considered lodges. The units do
llot racet the definition of lodge: buildings containing three or
morc units. This project is composed of single fa-:lily and duplex
units. Lodge units cannot contain a kitchen facility. I~itcJ.H?n
facilities are in each of the proposed units. For tile residential
units situat,;::;d within the lodge, the Commission has granted an
exemption from the six month minimum lease provision because the
units are locuted in L-2. The upplicant has similarly requested
an exemption for other units within this property that fall
within L-2. An e:~tension of the exenption is appropriate. But,
the COD~ission cannot grant a conditional us~ per~it to operate a
lO~'Je [or units at Top of IIill. Harvey noted single raoily units
cannot be condominiuuized. ~'lould the exemption from the si:;: :Jonth
rental restriction apply to the single family units or the
duple~~2s? Rich;lan deferred to Paul Taddune for an oDinion.
The applicant is trying to condominiL::-;1ize th8 entire ;,)rojcct.
Riclll-nan advised the Co!"mlliGsion to deal ~"itl1 this eX81aption during
cOlldoni ni unlza t ion ~
rlarv~y asked should six month rental restrictions apply to Top of
rIill. The general consensus favored the e;{enpticn. The COTnl1ission
uouldaddress the restriction during condouiniumization.
NOVJ.k COIllmcnted RicIT;1an~. s cJistinction bet\'18c:n the Gcfinition of
lodge and the area c1.2signa.ted by t11E zoniilg proc(:du[c:s to b2 ~1
cor.c~itional lodge use is very restrictive. IE a lodS'::; s;?acc is
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular 11eeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 5. 1985
COlTlillitted as a residential space then let the; residential space
be used as a rental rOOD. Harvey clarifieJ L-2 allows siilg1e
fW:lily units and dup12::es as uses in the: lo...:.1.~2 3one" Condominiu-
nization could be intended for that zone. He is unclear about
the meaning of R-15L(PUD). He understood at a minimuD the later
zone is a lodging zone and ulso a buffer zone between the intensity
of the L zone and the mountain. Uunt explained the R-15L(PUD) was
designed to 0.110\; lodges to e::ist. But.. the underlying density
and FAR are controlled by the R-15. The i)rca is designated
as a less dense lodging district. lIe challenged the request for
a conditional use for Top of Mill as a lodge. No lodge facilities
exist on site. Nhere is the main desk? Wells repeated the major
question is \~hat does the L overlay do for the site. Does L
allc';,l for short.-terrl1 accoJ.:tmodations, Hhich is not appropriate for
the R-15? aunt understood :::;hort-terr:J. use \'laS a:)Drooriate. 'rhat
is the intent of the L overlay. Ho ~,.,ould support"- exemption frOi:l
the six mOllth rental r8striction.
IIarvey encouraged the Commission to address SUE1Dit Place and Ute
City place at the next meeting. Harv2Y direct.ed Richman t.o
pressure the referral agencies for conments.
Ha.rvey continued the public hearing to Harch 12, 1985.
housing uill be addressed then. Harvey encouraged
resolution be prepared for March 26th.
Employee
a dra2t
IIarvey adjourned the meetillg at 7:12 p.m.
Darbar~ Norris! Deputy City Clerl~
1 n
_U