HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19811103
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM" C.F.HOECKELD.B.Rcl.CJ.
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 3, 1981
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 3, 1981 at 5:00PM
in the Cith Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt,
Welton Anderson, Alan Bloomquist, Perry Harvey, Lee Pardee and Pat Fallin.
Approval of
Minutes
Minutes will be reviewed at the next regular meeting.
Commissioners
Comments
Lee Pardee feels that Sunny Vann of the Planning Dept. should be
commended for surpassing all of the past Planning Directors in
avoiding the Commissions copies of the Code... it has been a
year and 1/2 or two now.
Sunny commented that there is a new code that is being reviewed by
the Attorneys office and should be out to P&Z in the near future.
Alan Richman has four comments to make:
1) To switch the meeting dates in Dec. to the 8th and 22nd.
Perry Harvey makes a motion to change th~meeting dates in Dec.
to the 8th and the 22nd. Lee Pardee seconds the motion.
Those that cannot make the meetings are automatically excused.
All in favor. Motion is carried.
2) The Planning Office received a notice that on Nov. 10, 1981
in the Council Chambers at noon and at 5:00 pm the consultants on
the Busway Feasibility Study will be making a presentation.
3) Alan distributes a copy of the Executive Study of The Airport
Master Plan to each Commission member.
4) There will be a Study Session for the members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission on Nov. 10, 1981 at 4:00 pm in the Mayors
Off ice.
Jerry Wood of the Transportation Dept. would like to comment on the
design for Bus Maintenance facility. He feels it is important to
get imput from P&Z to the architects before the design process is
started.
Al Bloomquist asked if the Transportation facility bought the 10
acres right next to McBride?
Jerry Wood said they have not bought aqything. He said the County
Commissioners have authorized them to proceed to negotiate with
the th e Paecke Estate. The exact configuration of the parcel
is not def ined.
Al Bloomquist said that he looked at the proposed parcel and the
way it relates to the Airport Master Plan indicates that the P&Z
should study both the Transportation Facility and the Airport Maste
Plan next Tues. They are intimately related.
Olof Hedstrom said that this is not on the Agenda and the Board
does not have time to get into this detail at this time.
Olof said that to include both of these items in the special meetin
is an excellent idea.
Glen Horn of the Planning Office makes an announcement about the
Public Hearing for the Master Plan. Nov. 11th, 1981 at 5:00pm.
New Business
A. Pitkin County Bank Exemption - Verification of Exception from
GMP.
Alice Davis of the Planning Office presents this item as a request
by William Clark of the Pitkin County Bank for a verification of
exception from the GMP. The site consists of Lots O,P,Q,R,S, Block
94, Original Aspen Townsite; Hyman Street and S. Hunter, S.W.
The Zoning is Commercial Core
Lot Siz is 15,050 square feet.
The applicant is requesting verification that if a portion of the
Pitkin Center commercial space is demolished in the Spring of 1982
the quantity of square footage not immediately rebuilt will again
be available for development in three to five years when the
I111 ill
.,_11I
.. ',_~'."'I''',I'~'''''''~
.~~-~
'Ill
- 2 -
remainder ofthe:_buildiilg3J.s:.demoUshed =fo~:xedevelopmen t.
The City Attorney suggested that administrative guidelines be
established for property owners who demolish existing structures on
a parcel and delay reconstruction on that property. These guide-
lines would govern such recnstruction and provide a means of main-
taining an accurate inventory of such space in order to anticipate
future reconstruction ~rtd development.
The Engineering Dept. is consistent with Section 24-3.5 and
24-3.7(h) (4) of the Code, the engineering office commented that tho
owner should be required to include a utility/trash area as part
of reconstruction as well as be responsible for the relocation of
all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestal, vaults and
transformers in the protected trash/utility area.
The Planning Office review: typically, the demolition and recon.
struction of dwelling units and commercial space outside of the GMP
has proceeded as a staff level review. However, this applicant
felt that it was important that this item be placed on the public
record in that the bank does not plan to immediately rebuild
the entire 5700 square feet which is to be demolished in the spring
of 1982.
The exception being used is under Section 24-ll.2(a) of the Code
which allows exception from GMP competition for the remodeling,
restoration or reconstruction of any existing building provided
there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor the creation of
additional residential units. This has normally been been inter-
preted to allow reconstruction under the same general building
configuration that existed prior to to the demolition. The review
of this application is deemed necessary by the Planning Office
since(l) the reconstruction will be delayed until some time in the f
future and (2) there is no known configuation for the new structure.
The Building inventory finds the most imfortant feature of this
review for the applicant is the inventory of existing square footagE
which is to be demolished. The building to be demolished consists
of two residential units of 887 square feet and 4,813 square feet
of commercial space for a total of 5,700 square feet. The two
residential units fall within the housing price guidelines of
Resolution 18, series of 1980, as they have been leased for $.58
and $.61 per square foot during the past 18 months.
If the applicant competes for additional space in the GMP process
to be competitive these units will need to be replaced in addition
to those employee units normally required. Also, this residential
square footage cannot be used for the redevelopment of additional c,
commercial space. This results from Sec. 24-ll.2(a) which state
that reconstruction can only be exempted from GMP process if no
expansion of commercial floor area is made.
Since this request has been made, the Planning Office feels
this is a good time for administrative guidelines to be established
regarding reconstruction exceptions. It is recommended that these
guidelines encompass the following constraints:
1. A property owner involved in a demolition that occured before
the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct the
building. This will prevent demolitions that occured long ago from
obtaining exception from GMP competition for new development.
2. A time period should be established to limit the length of
time reconstruction can be delayed. A five year period is recommend,
ed as a reasonable time limit. A longer period may adversely affect
the Planning process by preventing the anticipation of future
growth and development. A five year period will also prevent an
imbalance in the market resulting from an unforseen oversupply of
commercial space.
3. At the time of reconstruction, development plans must be pre-
sented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is of tho
same general configuration as the demolished structure or if any
further review by the Plannig and Zoning Commission or City Council ,
are necessary.
The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion reccommend to City Council the approval for the request for ex-,
ception from GMP competition for the portion of commercial space
in the Pitkin Center which will be demolished in the Spring of 1982,
but will not be immediately rebuilt. The delay in reconstruction
will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the fol-
lowing conditions are met:
, ,
..,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM \0 C. F. WIEC~H a. B.!Ie L. C~.
Regular Metting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 3, 1981
- 3 -
1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be
presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is
of the same general configuration as the demolished structure
or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or
City Council are necessary.
2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of
demolition.
3. There is no expansion of the couuuercial floor area that existed
prior to demolition.
4. the owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and
proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in this
area at the time of reconstruction.
Alice was just notified by Bill Clark that he may be interested
including the 2426 squar feet Cheap Shots, just to put it on the
record, that he may want to demolish that too.
Olof Hedstrom raises a general queation; why is it necessary and
desireable at all to demolish five years before reconstruction.
Alice Davis responded by saying that they want to use that space
for parking for the bank.
Sunny Vann stated that at the moment the Pitkin County Bank has
the right to go to the Building Department and obtain a demolish-
sion permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission cannot regulate his
right to demolish the structure. There was an existing Residential
use there such that when this comes up in the future for a GMP appli-
cation you will have some understanding of it. As far as the uses
on the property, he is regulated by those uses which are permited
in the zone district. Sunny siad that a parking lot is permited.
Lee Pardee said that he thinks a fifth point should be added to the
administrative guideline. This should indicate that if there any
employee units or any residential employee unitsthat the same square
footage must be included in the rebuilding and it should fall in the
same rental or sales category. The same amount of commercial space
must be built or cannot be increased upon. Lee said he thinks P&Z
should be very sure to isolate and identify employee units.
Sunny Vann asked if Lee wanted it to be required that the applicant
replace the minimum of employee square footage. Sunny said that in
many cases it is going to be substandard and it will have to brought
up to the minimum standard of GMP.
Paul Taddune said that isn't reallysomething that is being brought
to P&Z for the terms of placement of terms and conditions, they
have a right to demolish and reconstruct. This prooedure is being
brought to you at the suggestion of myself and Sunny because we
don't have any formal manner of inventory demolished units.
Paul said that the former Attorney had set up an informal procedure
with the building department, whereby someone would propose to
demolish something the inspector would verify that the units had
been demolished. We are bringing this before you to give the
applicant some kind of protection and that it is a matter of public
record that he would have the right to reconstruct. Paul said
the P&Z's focus should be inventoring what is there
Lee Pardee said that this does not satisfy him.
Roger Hunt said that it does not satisfy him. He said that the name
of the game is to try and same employee housing and this leads him
to suspect that an outfit that comes in under the GMP and obligates
itself to create employee housing down the line then in effect
demolish that employee housing.
Alan Richman said that these are not deed restricted units and that
they just happen to fall within the guidelines.
^"'--~"';'""-""">>""''-
Public Hearings
~...
I tJ.
-
11 .....
- 4-
Jasmine Tygre asked if this means that if the applicant ~as not
getting exemption from mw could they then at any time get a permit
to demolish the existing structure and then with in whatever time
period they could build the 4800 square feet of commercial space
they have now?
Paul said that they could reconstruc that the space that is th..;:e
now without expanding commercial space. So long as they meet the
underlying zone requirements.
Ted Mularz architect representing Bill ~ark said that what he would
like to do is !:calle down any partof all of the buildings on the three
lots that are adjacent to the bank. We have documented the square
footage , it has been surveyed, its been photographed, he is willing
to not confuse the issue with growth management by simply saying
I will replace sometime between the time it is demolished and five
years after exactly the same square footage that is there, he
will not exceed the commercial square footage and he will replace
the 870 sq. ft. of employee housing units. If in fact he
wants to expand on that he understands that time he would have to go
through GMP and he also understand to get additional bonus points
going for the GMP he would have to have employee housing.
The applicant would like to be able to rplace some of that space
that would be demolished in encrements, not necessarily all at once,
within this five year period. We are here to document on public
record exactly the square footage that is there.
Chuck Brandt said there is a worg reconstruction of the existing
square footage in the same configuatioB' In other words new commer-
cial square footage may not be in the same configuration as existing
now.
Paul Taddune said that was correct and that the City has not been
requiring that the reconstructed space be limited to the footprint
of the prior structure.
Roger Hunt asked if he was talking "Use Configuration"as opposed
to "Form Configuration".
Paul said that the sq. ft. was the same but the use of the space
is different.
Olof Hedstrom said that condition #1 says the same general config
uration. Olof said this wording should be clarified.
Sunny Vann said that it should read " It must be presented to the
Planning Office to determine if the proposed structure is consistent
with the underlying zoning requirements and or if further review
by Planning and Zoning or City Council is necessary.
Sunny said that the Planning and Zoning commission has no ability
to regulate or to require the applicant to require employee housing
or the replacement building. The way our Codes are currently
written he can build anything that he wants to build wihin that com-
mercial space as long as it is consitent with underlying area and
bulk requirements and the use of the building is permitted in the
zone district. The fact that he may generate 200 employees or
whatever, the P&Z has no ability at this time.
Olof Hedstrom asked if someone was prepared to make a motion.
Welton Anderson moves to verify the section under GMP for
demolishsion of existing structures Lots O,P,Q,R,S Block 94, for th,
purposes of future rebuilding conditioned upon the Planning Office
recommendations 1 thru 4 at the time of the structure development
plans must be presented to Planning Office and is consistent with
underlying bulk requirements and further review by Planning and
Zoning Cmmission or City Council as necessary, and that construction
occur within five years and bears noexpansion of the commercial
floor area of the existing prior to demolishion and yet provides
utility and trash area for existing and proposed utilities etc.
Perry harvey seconds the motion.
All in favor. Motion carried.
A. 1982 GMP Commercial and Office Competion.
-The Red Onion Addition (414 E. Cooper Avenue)
- A Garden Office Building (615 E. Hopkins Avenue)
- The City Plaza Building (517 E. Hopkins Avenue)
Alan Richman gives presentationand starts off with the
ofsummariziing the total quota for this year:
Quota unallocated or expired from previous years
Quota available for 1982
Bonus to be offset this year
Total available for 1982
procedure
24,324
24,000
6,000
42,324
, .
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fORM," C. F. HOECKEL 3. B.ll L co.
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Nov. 3, 1981
- 5 -
request for this year:
2,565.5 square feet
9,656 square feet
15,300 square feet
TOTAL 27,521.5 square feet
Alan Richman remind the P&Z members that the applcant needs
60 % of the total points in categories 1& 2, 60% of 24 points would
be 14.4 points, to be eligible to be competitive and you need 30%
of the points available in each of the categories, in other words
bonus points can't get the applicant over that threshold, also note
the additional review proc edures which applicants will be going
through should they receive the development allot from the Board.
Alan proceeds with the Planning Office ratings based on the con--,
sensus on the three projects and are summarized:
1. The Red Onion Addition scored 14 points
2. The Garden Office Building scored 20 points.
3. The City Plaza Building scored 23 points.
On this basistwo of the three projects substantially
mum and would be competitive and the Planning office
that if P&Z ends up concuring with those points that
jects certainly would qualify for quota.
Alan Richman now proceeds with the 1982 Commercial Growth Management
Plan Submission:
The Red Onion Addition is in the Commercial Core has almost
11,000 square feet of existing building on the site.
2.0:1 can build above 18,000 sq. ft. however they are only request
ing to go to 1.5:1 minimual developmental addition of about 2,565sq.
feet. Basicly a second story above the space where ther is construc
tion now. The Red Onion has received conceptural approval from HPC
for the addition. HPC reveirw on architectural style, etc.
occurs through the HPC process and all the Planning Office needs to
know is that they have received conceptual approval.
The Planning Office scored the Red Onion; first on architectural
Design, the Planning Dffice found the building to be generally comp
atable in terms of size and height to the Aspen Sports Building
and it did not overshadow the existing main historic structure.
The Planning Office rated it a TWO.
The site design- The Planning Office comments that open space cannot
be provided at the ground level, but by setting the second story
back from the existing building, a landscaped deck and usable roof
have been created. The Planning Office rated it a TWO
Energy- The Planning Office comment is purely an excellent design
and the Planning Office rated it as Three. Insulation to
exceed the Code provisions, use of insulation glass and skylight
"sunscoop" to provide concentrated heat and diffuse natural light to
the building.
One problem the Engineer found is that the "suns coop" would appear
to encroach into the Wheeler Opera House view plane. The
Planning Office saw that as a design flaw and rated it as & ONE
for Visual Impact.
Amenities, the Planning Office found usable open space for building
residents only provided through the sundeck at the front and the
outdoor roof deck at the rear of the building. The project will
enhance the viability of the Cooper St. Mall.
The Planning office rated this category a TWO.
Trash and Utility Access Areas - The Planning Office rated the
project a ONE. The Engineer states that the "proposed trash/utilit)
area does not comply with current Code wtthin tne zone, and, in
fact, has been further reduced in the size during the course of the
remodel by the architect and the contractor."
Alan Richman stated the total quota
1. The Red Onion Addition
2. A Garden Office Building
3. The City Plaza Building
exceed the m1n1
does recommend
those two pro-
---"".,.."
...________._.._..........1 III
.._""-,.._~.
Alan Richman proceeds with other area of review - Community commerci
al uses, baiscly employee housing and medical and other service
needs.
There is no employee housing on or off the site so it was rated as a
ZERO. Secondly the proposed occupancy of the one addition.
The one occupant will be Reese Henry and Assc. they clearly provide
local service needs and rated them a THREE.
The Total for the Red Onion Addition was 14 points by the Plan-
ning Office review.
A Garden Office Building Applicant: Aspen Office Partnership
The Planning Office review shows the development program to be
a little over 10,641 square feet with about 9650 of that being offic
commercial and another approximate 1000 of that being employee
housing as a single two bedroom unit.
The applicant has proposed to put 16 parking spaces underground.
Architectural Design was rated as a TWO by the Planning Office
Site Design was rated as a THREE.
Energy was rated as a THREE.
Amenities were rated as a three by the Planning Office.
Visual Impact was rated as a THREE.
Trash and Utility Access Area was rated as a ONE.
Community commercial uses, EmployeeHousing was rated as a TWO
Medical and Other Serive Needs was rated as a THREE.
The Total Points for the Garden Office Building was 20.
The City Plaza Building Applicant Jerry Michael, Alan Shaffer
Michael Strang.
The Developement Program is a 18,00 square foot lot, including
15,300 square feet of commercial space plus 2700 square feet of
employee housing. The bonus square footage requested is in keeping
with the required ration of 0.2:0.3 between office commercial and err
ployee housing space.
HPC has conceptually approved the Demolishsion of POOr Pauls,
The Building Dept. did an inspection of Poor Pauls " The structural
integrity of the building to be non-existent, the roof assembly
unsafe,the electrical system unsafe, the foundation system
deteriorated, not only is the structure unsuitable to move to anothe
site but should be abated as a dangerous building.
Architectural Design - the Planning Office rated this building
a THREE.
Site Design was rated as a THREE.
Energy was rated a THREE.
Amenities was rated a THREE.
Visual Impact was rated a THREE.
Trash and Utility Access Area was rated a THREE.
ommunity commercial uses, Employee Housing was rated a THREE.
Medical and service needs was rated a TWO.
The Total points for the City Plaza Building was 23.
Olof Hedstrom asked if ther were any questions from the Board member
Lee Pardee stated that he does not think credit should be given for
Employee housing. He feels the Planning Office is rating two on a
number of the applicants where one might be more appropriate.
Alan said that the building would be Deed restricted to continue
with employee housing.
Lee said that is if it had employee housing but he is assuming it
doesn't, but we are in effect giving it credit as if it were.
Lee is suggesting that the Board should look at whatemployee
housing is given not who is the occupant.
ee asked another question under the Garden Office- Was it indicated
whether or not the two employee units would be low income?
Alan said no it wasn't indicated but that the applicant would clarif
that.
Olof Hedstrom opens the Public Hearing.
Red Onion Addition - Jon Siegle representing the project stated
that when this project was first received it was recognized that
there was a problem with GMP, and the GMP doesn't really contemplatE
an addition to the building, it really contemplates taking an
vacant piece of land and doing a structure. This confusion is
apparent in some of the scoring. Jon talks of three areas:
10 Trash and Utility Access Area - The City Code does not provide
that if do an addition for existing building that you must bring
" .F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
F ORM ~O C. F. HOECK EL B. B. II l. C <1.
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Nov. 3, 1981
- 7 -
a trash area up to Code. In a July 29, 1981 memorandum from Jay
Hammond of Engineering Dept,regarding the Red Onion Bldg. says that
that applicant in dealing with the remodel of an existing structure
is really not obligated to provide trash utility area.
The applicant is proposing for 2500 sq. ft. under the code
they would have to provide aprx. a 10 x 10 area for trash, what is
provided for this building is a 10 x 21 area for trash.
Jon Siegle does not feel that a rating of a one is appropriate and
feels they should have been rated a three.
2) The View Plane - Jon said that the view plane in the Mall is
about 14 feet above the Mall but there is a significant difference
between being in the view plane and impeding the view. The view
plane is just a review ordinance, it is just like being in the his-
toric overlay district. The Aspen Sports Building, by which they
geared the height of the Red Onion, they matched and are the same
height as they are. Jon said that from the steps of the l{heeler
Opera House you cannot see the Red Addition. Therefore he feels
that the scoring of the Planning Office is misplaced. Jon feels
that the project should have scored a THREE in this area.
Jon Siegle continued with the area of Architectural Design; The
Planning Office rated this area a TWo. Jon says that architec-
tural design focuses on compatability if proposed buildings
The Facade, Height, Location and building materials. It is without
doubt that the Red Onion Addition has the least impact; visually and
architecturally, compared to the other projects you are
looking at today. The location of the building is on th e Mall and
the applicant thinks they have satisfied all of thoses areas.
Thel~ed Onion investors and Tom Wells wanted to keep the facade and
want to insure that it will be there for generations and generations.
Tom Wells has achieved an excellent architectural design in terms of
compatability with their neighbors. Jon feels they deserve a three
in this area also.
Jon Seighle feels that htis operation deserves a little consid-
eration for bonus points. One of things it deserves bonus for is the
low impact, the applicant did not utilize the full denisity allowed
to them because of their interest in preserving the Facade.
In the renovation in the fall of this year the roof was reinforced,
enhanced the viability of the Mall etc.
Tom Well the architect for the project wants to amplify on two of
the areas he feels are important. To re-emphasize that his is
a Historic Facade and the Addition does not block a view plane.
A suns coop has been used for solar energy to the building and this ._
is the only portion that would be in view plane. Tom Wells feels
that if they were to be criticized for this they co~ld easily change
that portion. The same brick color still remains intact.
The other point is about the trash; he feels that they were severely
downgraded in that area by the Planning Office. lie would like to
point out that that is no trash requirements what-so-ever for exist
ing buildings. The Health Dept. required for the Red Onion to
stay in the restaurant business they needed to have a container for
trash - one container. We created the present space which is about
four times larger than what is required.
Olof asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Lee Pardeeasked if the Board could hear from Jay Hammond of the
Engineering Department.
Jay Hammond would like to clarify what he said regarding the trasb
utility area. He said that the area that they propose may be ade-
quate and never siad that it met the requirement. The requirement is
for a trash utility are and they have utilities that are encroaching
the alley and those utilities would need to be moved to get tothe
area for disposal. The requirement under the code is for a trash
utility area. In the course of the remodel the apllicants came
in askipg to provide a 24 xlO f~t trash utility ar~~
..",..-.,..
......'t>>>..,+illl.I"."......I;..io'w<.,'"
10"".'
,....lIi ,."",.",,..'~'iiotII"."I_.~ .,1 1
In the course of the remodel the applicant s came in.
At that time in view of the fact that it was a remodel and
as stated the applicant is not required to provide this area with
the larger trash utility. In the course of the construction the
contractor has further reduce that area so we are now talking about
21 x 10 feet, again not required. In the course of applying for the
GMP Jay had chosen to view that trash utility area as now apertinent
to the existing structure and is part of the remodel as it exists in
that lowere level. Any addition beyond that it is already under size
o use this as an area suffient to the entire building is not up to
the code and does not meet the requirements.
Leee Pardee asked if he might suggest that a 2000 foot remodel
should have to bring up a trash area for the whole building?
Jay said no I would not, But Jay wants yo point out the minimum
which is a 20 x ]0 foot area.
Jon Siegle asked Jay if he would agree that in light of the under
ground utilities that even for the l3,OOOsquare foot building
that the 10x20 foot space that even if you take the whole buildings
needs it would still service the building.
Roger Hunt has questions for the applicant relating to the solar
scoop and the hall way area. What is the method of distributing that
heat throughout the addition?
Tom Wells states that this is a passive system.. There is a brick
wall that collects through the center. The heat is stored in the
wall.
Roger Hunts asked how this heat is being distributed?
Tom said that it is a forced air system.
Perry Harvey asked the Planning Office in rating of the
space it was indicated that they were not adding anything.
project have been given consideration of open space on the
Sunny Vann said that if you have a 25% requirement ...
For a new Building HPC preferred that there not be a minimum size of
the lot set, for the Pun proces the P&Z traded off a 25%-open space
requirement in exchange for wmployee housing .
open
Other
mall.
,
, ,