Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850917 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND Z mUNG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17.1985 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Commissioners' Roger Hunt, David white, Jasmine Tygre, Al Blomquist, Mari Peyton, and Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt said, at the request of Tom Baker, he thought the trail section of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed to try to come to only one map. Hunt asked that it be added as an agenda item for tonights meeting. Anderson suggested adding the item to the end of the agenda. MINUTES August 6. 1985: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of August 6, 1985; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING WHALE OF A WASH GMP AMENDMENT WHALE OF A WASH SPECIAL REVIEW - TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Steve Burstein, planner, outlined several changes made to the plan. Due to the changes in the plan the Planning Office is recommending that the proj ect be rescored in the areas of trash and utilities access and employee housing. Burstein said the Planning Office recommends that the Commission concur with their rescoring rather than go through the entire process. Burstein added that the project still meets the threshold and is still scored above its competition. Sunny Vann, applicant, said they would concur with the Planning Office recommendation. Vann said they are also requesting special review approval for the reduced trash access area. The Planning Office is recommending that changes be made to that request. Vann commented on why the trash area was revised. He thought the scoring of 1 in this area was excessive in the sense that if the proposed al ternative under special review was acceptable it would have scored a 2. We still meet the threshold and, therefore, the project is eligible to retain the GMP allocation. However, this does effect the design of the rear of the building under special review. Vann read the requirements from the Municipal Code. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 Vann said the comment under special review was that the local trash collector had indicated given the proposed uses the amount of dumpsters provided might not be enough. Vann said they had met with the trash service and were given standards breaking down the amount of cubic yardage for storage of trash needed for various types of uses. Vann explained the buildings size and uses, stating their reason for coming back before the Commission was to reflect the changed needs of the owner and make the property more compatible with the adjacent Epicure Plaza building. The trash area, however, was sized to meet the specifics of the Whale of a Wash building. Util iz ing the standards given by BFI we would require about 1 cubic yard of dumpster space. The typical dumpster here is 2 cubic yards. The space they have provided would accommodate one 2 cubic yard dumpster which would give them an extra cubic yard if the space is used for restaurant purposes. In addition they have space for 3 1/2 two cubic yard dumpsters behind the Epicure Plaza building. Vann said he believed they have provided adequate space for the uses they propose and in the event there is additional trash generated there is ample space behind their adjacent building. Vann added that he thought a score of 1 on this was inappropriate and thought their request to build less than the maximum required was legitimate. Blomquist asked why this was not being treated as an addition since it is an integral part of the main building. Vann said if they took that position then they would not require any space off of the rear of the building. Hunt commented that it was only integrated at the moment, with the only integration being ownership of the two buildings. There is nothing to prevent the future sale of either of the buildings separately from the other. Hunt said he thought if the applicant wants a limited trash area, less than specifications, then the front end of the business should be cut down to equal the trash area. Anderson asked Mr. Vann what his objection to the Planning Office's recommendation was. Mr. Vann replied they do not want to build more space than the building actually requires. In their opinion the amount of space provided is adequate. If there is a reason to bel ieve they need to prov ide more space they are will ing to do so. Bruce Sutherland, architect for the project, responded to Hunt's issue, regarding the sale of a portion of the building, stating the second floor office space enters from the second floor space of the office above Pour La France, therefore, the two buildings are hooked together automatically by the stairway and exiting system. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 Therefore, if the building was ever sold separately there would have to be access and easement agreements. Mr. Sutherl and thought the same thing could be worked out with the trash issue. Hunt said it should be indicated that if another story goes on the building the trash area has to be reviewed closely. Elyse Elliott, project engineer, commented that BFI had said there was a need for 2 two cubic yard dumpsters in that space and that was how the Engineering Department calculated the dimensions. According to code the applicant can be held only to a 5 by 10 foot space. We are asking them to provide almost twice than amount. Ms. Elliott said she thought the problem was with the code because it does not address the different usages. Ms. Elliott thought the step that should be taken was to amend the code. Anderson said there were two actions needed; III to confirm that the Commission agrees in general with the Planning Office rescoring of the project, and 112 to approve as submitted or approve as recommended by the Planning Office the trash and utility access requirements. Anderson asked the Commissioners for comments. Tygre said she was not convinced because she did not think a more intensive use such as a restaurant would adequately be handled by the appl icants current arrangements. Tygre said she would be more 1 ikely to grant approval if there was something in writing confirming the arrangement with the contiguous building, giving the Commission some control over the situation should the use change. Hunt agreed. White agreed adding that he would rather have more space than less. Markalunas asked about the possibilities of a trash compactor, otherwise she would agree to a condition based on Mr. Vann's representations. Blomquist agreed with Mr. Vann's analysis. Motion: Hunt moved to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Office concerning the rescoring of the Whale of a Wash; Tygre seconded. Discussion: White commented that continually we lose parking spaces in the downtown area and again we are losing spaces. White opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Motion: 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 Blomquist moved to approve the design of the trash area as presented. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Tygre moved to recommend approval of the special review regarding the trash and utility access requirements subject to the applicants providing a trash easement with the Epicure Building or some other such instrument guaranteeing continued access to the adjacent buildings trash facilities; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING VOLK PROPERTY COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING SESSION Anderson opened the publ ic hearing reserving comments for the appropriate time. Hunt asked if scoring and the growth management plan had to be done first and then the trash and utility area. Steve Burstein, planner, replied yes but added that some trash and utility area discussion could be done along with the GMP discussion. Hunt said he had a problem with that because if he had to score the project as is, without adopting a solution to the trash problem, he would have to give them 0 in those categories. Sunny Vann, applicant, said they would like to discuss trash as part of the GMP discussion. Steve Burstein, pI anner, expl ained the req uest for 5,309 additional square feet of commercial space. The Planning Office's recommended scoring is above the threshold for commercial allocation and they recommend approval of the project. Burstein reviewed the positive and negative aspects of the project, access and trash and utility access being the negative. Hunt asked what the applicant was planning on doing as far as limiting the operation of the commercial space to make the trash less undesirable. David White stepped down for conflict of interest. Don Fleisher, applicant, gave a presentation on the project explaining that it is totally different than presented at the preliminary review session due to comments made by this Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17.1985 Bruce Sutherland, architect for the project, explained the changes made to the project based on comments and concerns expressed by this Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee. They feel they created a building based upon maintaining a circulation pattern through the area which has been the pattern for a long period of time. Mr. Sutherland said they have improved the condition in that they have taken the gas pumps and cars out which will make it a nicer experience. In addition there is open area on the site that has been set aside for tables and eating areas. Mr. Sutherland said the building is set up to take advantage of maximum vi sibil ity from the retail viewpoint. The key to a successful siteing of the project is a building that would compliment and be compatible with the 2 adjoining buildings and not bring the mass of the structure out on to the street. Mr. Sutherland added from this site the building does not effect any view plane from anywhere in town. Mr. Sutherland concluded by saying they are still in the conceptual stage and will be coming back before the Commission later to study detail. Don Fleisher commented on the planning office's memorandum recommending scoring on the project, outlining the areas which he disagreed with. Mr. Fleisher disagreed with the recommended scoring on items la, lb, ld, Ie, If, 2c, and 2e. Sunny Vann, appl icant, said one of the most immediate concerns was what to do on a corner when you do not have the ability to get direct alley access. Obviously they do not have the ability to create an off the alley space. After discussion with the Electric Department they determined a transformer would not be needed, because it can be undergrounded within the facility, therefore, not requiring the 15 feet required by code. Mr. Vann said currently there are 2 one cubic yard dumpsters in the alley which serve the buildings and popcorn wagon. There is about 1500 sq. ft. of existing commercial space. The GMP request is for another 5300 sq. ft., resulting in a total building of about 6800 sq. ft.. Going back to the standards obtained from BFI this space would require approximately 4/10 of a yard for the offices uses, if it is picked up on a daily basis. Using department store/retail figures for the 3000 sq. ft. of retail space will req uire another 1. 2 cubic yards f or trash. Theref ore, 2 cubi c yards seems more than adequate for the entire building. Mr. Vann commented that the 1500 feet of existing space is a non-conforming structure with respect to trash access. As long as we do not increase that non-conformity we can still use the 2 dumpsters currently located in the alley. However, we wanted to make sure 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17.1985 we had a long term solution so we negotiated space in the Aspen Arcade building to locate 1 two cubic yard dumpster. We would propose to use the two cubic yard dumpster in the Aspen Arcade and remove the 2 one cubic yard dumpsters in the alley. Mr. Vann addressed problems associated with service vehicle access. They believe the nature of the uses will reduce the number of service vehicles. In addition they do not expect a significant number of deliveries through the front of the retail and commercial space on the ground floor and certainly not for the offices on the second and third floor. Another consideration is that, while it is possible because there is more space there will be impacts, the mere elimination of the curb cuts far outweigh any additional service delivery problems that might occur occasi- onally in the alley. With respect to the lack of the 20 foot se rv ice access point and trash access point on the rear of the building we would suggest the score would not warrant a major design flaw simply because we do not have access to the alley itself. Hunt commented that it would be fine to commit to no restaurants at this point but when the building is finished there is nothing in the code to prevent a restaurant from going in later. Barry Edwards, City attorney, said it could be made a condition of the special review. Mr. Fleisher added that they only have 2400 sq. ft. of useable area on the ground floor which is too small for most moderate size restaurants. Anderson asked for public comments. There were none, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Vann said, assuming they have addressed the access aspect, the elimination of the curb cuts and improvement of the circulation in front of the building improves the quality of circulation and the road system in the neighborhood. Similarly, there is no parking requirement in the CC zone district and they have put 4 additional spaces on the street as a result of the elimination of curb cuts. This would appear to be a situation where we have improved the parking in the vicinity of the site and, therefore, should be scored accordingly. Burstein said they were informed by BFI that there was a problem with the intended trash access area, therefore, the Planning Office still feels it is a significant problem that needs to be solved. Blomquist asked if they were saying that compaction does not solve a percentage of the problem. Mr. Vann said a point 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 they did not make is that there is trash storage in the basement, the ability to compact it, and the ability to control the frequency of pick up. Hunt questioned, with compaction in the basement, is there an elevator or some way to get the trash out because when compacted it becomes heavy and hard to handle. Blomquist said he thought it was imperative that it be acknowledged that the City, in allowing the dividing of the properties, was a willing party to the creation of a corner lot without alley access. It seems the City, as a party to that fact, when it comes to reviewing has an obligation to look at this in terms of how you correct the problem. Blomquist felt this applicant had done their best to solve the problems. Mr. Sutherland said one of the advantages of having the storage in the building is that common sense would say that the shop owners are going to take the easiest way which would be to take the cartons within the building instead of going out in the snow. This allows the trash to be assembled and taken out once a day. The whole idea was to provide inside access to the storeroom. Burstein agreed they have produced a solution that has some merits but is not convinced there is no other, better solution to the probl em. Burstein distributed score sheets on the project to the Commissioners. VOLK PROPERTY SPECIAL REVIEW FAR BONUSITRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Steve Burstein, planner, said they feel the main issues are with the service access, the usability of the open space, and site design, as FAR would have impact on these issues. Burstein recommended this be tabled until a later date when the applicant has come up with a better site design. Mr. Vann said they would prefer to talk about the issues tonight because they think they have as much information as they will be able to generate. Mr. Vann said basically the Planning Office's concern falls in two areas; #1 if you have more FAR than the design aspects of the building, and 112 the impacts of additional FAR in terms of trash and service. Regarding concern III the Historic Preservation Committee asked for a perceived bulk larger than was originally submitted because of problems with blank walls surrounding the project. Therefore, we tried to concentrate the building at the back of the lot and raise it. In addition, the footprint on the 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 first floor is dictated by coming up with a rentable space that works. In the event the bonus is eliminated the area will come off of the top of the building. The footprint can not change significantly without impacting the nature of the space. We actually have more usable open space than in the prior solution. Nothing will be lost if the 800 foot bonus is denied with the exception of office space on the top floor which will not change trash or service impacts. By going to the additional FAR we have the opportunity to make a more workable building from an economic point of view which helps defray the costs of the extensive landscaping. We think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Hunt said he had scored the project on the basis of their trash solution and if we choose to deny the special review of the trash then he will have to rescore. Motion: Hunt moved to approve the trash and utility special review as presented conditioned that a restaurant shall not be a use appropriate for this building; Peyton seconded. Discussion: Tygre commented if restaurants are precluded in that location it will not be in the City's best interest, assuming the trash problems could be solved at a later time. She said she felt uncomfortable with that as a restriction. Hunt suggested amending the condition to read "so long as the present trash solution exists a restaurant shall not be an allowed use in the building". Peyton agreed to amend her second. Anderson opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. VOLK PROPERTY SPECIAL REVIEW FAR INCREASE Anderson commented that increase in FAR was proposed at a time when it was not mandatory to provide employee housing in order to get the points needed for GMP scoring. It was then seen as an incentive and now it seems redundant. Tygre said her concern was that the employee housing is not within the city limits. She thought one of the reasons for the bonus was ideally to provide on-site, or at least within the 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 .1985 city limits, employee housing. She was not inclined to grant the bonus. Peyton commented that the model presented on the project considers the bonus as being granted. Vann said if they are denied the bonus the area will be taken from the top floor of the building and the first floor will not change. Mr. Fleisher commented that the reduction to the top floor would be detrimental to the design of the building. Hunt said he did not have a problem with the bonus footage. Motion: Hunt moved to approve the special Volk property; Peyton seconded. favor; motion carried. review of the FAR bonus for the Tygre opposed, all others in Blomquist commented that he thought the bonus should be eliminated if it is not needed for employee housing. ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAIL MAP REVIEW Tom Baker, planner, told the Commissioners that there was a need for clarification on the trails map. Baker reviewed the changes on the map, explaining 4 categories of the changes called for; #1 realignment of the trails that already exist on the map, 112 additional trails primarily on public property, #3 important connections, and 114 additional trails primarily on private land. The changes were reviewed and discussed. Motion: Hunt moved to reconsider the previous motion adopting the trails map; Blomquist seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to adopt the revised single map as amended; Blomquist seconded. All in favor; motion carried. ci~ )(~)~* Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 9