Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19821005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 c. f. HO~CK[l B. B. II: L. co. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 1982 Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with Commissioners Welton Anderson, Al Blomqu~st, Lee Pardee, Pat Fallin, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre Present. Comm~ssioners' Comments Lee Pardee asked the status of the Code Books promised to the Commission 6 months ago. Welton asked about the resoultion comending Olof Hedstrom for his contribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Alan Richman, Planning Office, said that Olof was thrilled to receive the resolution. Roger Hunt commented on the Golf Course situation. He felt that the Commission should go on record and indicate to City Council the Commission's displeasure with the type of planning used in this situat~on. Roger thought it was a disgrace that the Pro Shop building could be built without a P.U.D. review. Roger thought that the Commission's displeasure could be indicated to Council with a resolution. Perry Harvey sa~d that he would like see how the Council handled the Commission's recommendations concerning the Golf Course. Perry felt that the Comm~ssion's recommendations would have been substantially different than what Council decided to do. Al Blomquist felt that the iMqrehouse pl~n, coming up for review, would automatically receive high scores. However, it is not consistent with the Land Use plan or the Roaring Fork greenway. Al has prepared a resoultion which anticipates problems coming up on the Shapery scoring. Gideon Kaufman, Attorney, has written a letter to the City Attorney asking that Al not be allowed to score on this because he has been involved in prior activities to protect the Roar~ng Fork Greenway and the trail system. Al asked the Commiss~on to consider the resolution before scoring. Al said he would be willing to step down when the plan for the "Wa>-Il:!house, wh~ch will be placed right on the river, is considered. Al felt that there was a problem with procedure. Th~s application is being considered under the GMP before it ~s being considered as a Stream Margin Review. It is also not consistent w~th the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. Al thought that these inconsistencies should be forced out into the open and should be corrected. Sunny Vann, Planning Director, told the Commission that the Planning Off~ces' processes were set up specifically such that the applicant must have the right to construct prior to any subsequent review. In this particular case, the only th~ng before the Commission with respect to this project is: can the project score sufficiently high enough under the GMP process to obtain a right to build. The exercise of that right to build is subject, in th~s case, to a number of additional reviews. When these reviews are looked at they are rev~ewed consistant with other adopted plans and policies. There ~s no inherent right to bu~ld as a result of the GMP allocation. The allocation is earmarked in the project assuming that the subsequent processes are approved. This particular case ~s consistent with regulations that apply in terms of submission of an application. -1- Commissioners' Comments (cont. ) Potvin/Doremus Subdivision Exception Lot Split Thomas Annexation Zoning and Subdivision Public Hearing .._w,"'"'~_'~" _~._. '.., .,~.._~,,,__"__~~ -2- Roger reminded the Commission that this was part of the Trueman property and that the P&Z's recommendation was that no major fixed facility be placed on this property as it could prevent its future use for a transportation system. Roger did not agree with the challenge of Al's vote. Perry thought that there would be some serious legal problems with the resolution as Al was asking the Commiss~on to act on it prior to scoring Alan Richman requested a special meeting. The Commission decided on October 12, 1985. Alice Davis, Planning Office, said that there had been some problems the last time the Commission reviewed this application. The property had been encroaching into the side yard setback. The applicant has received a variance from the board of adjustment for the decking encroach~ng ~nto the side yard set back. Alice reminded the Commission that there had been some concern as to whether the variance covered the diagnols out from the corner of the deck. These are now covered. The Plann~ng Off~ce recommends approval of the lot split subject to the requirements of the variance being met and that the recommendations made by the Engineering Dept. and listed in the memo dated October 5, 1982 also be met. These recommendations are minor plat changes. Roger confirmed that the closest point of approach between the two structures would be 10 feet. Alice said that there was also 10 feet added to the length of the deck. Roger Hunt moved to approve the Potvin/Doremus Lot Spl~t, Lots N, 0, P, & Q of Block 43 of Aspen Townsite , otherwise known as the Potvin/Doremus Subd~vision Exception. Cond~tions 1 and 2 are the same as in the Planning Office memo dated October 5, 1982. Condition 3 reiterates that the closest po~nt of approach between two structures shall not be less than 10 feet. Pat Fallin seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Alan Richman, Plann~ng Office, informed the Commission that when the Thomas Property was annexed and zoned several years ago a small parcel, part of that acquisition at the time of annexation was missed. The City has gohe ahead with a resolution/to annex and is asking the P & Z's recommendation with regard to the zoning of the parcel. Most of the land around the parcel in question is zoned C, Conservation. The Conservation zone ~s/in th~s case a non-development zone. There is no proposed devlo~ment for this parcel. It is simply open space for the purpose of open space. Alan felt that the most positive signal the Commission could make ~n ~esignating that the parcel be open space woul~to place C, Conservation zoning, on this parcel. Perry opened the public hearing. Bill Dunaway, Aspen Times, didn't understand why, just because the City owned the property, that it had to be annexed. The parcel would become a tiny enclave of City land in a large sect~on of County land. Alan Richman said that is was his understanding that the City was about to proceed with subdivision activity in relationship to Castle Ridge Apartments. It would not be possible to proceed with that activity without having the entire parcel inside of the City. Jay Hammond said that this parcel was part of the same ownership and thi~ parcel was a part of the Thomas ownership -- J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.CQ. October 5, 1982 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Thomas Annexation (cont. ) Potvin/Doremus Lot Split Commercial GMP Scoring when the City purchased it. The problem is that in the process of subdividing out the Castle R~dge parcel for the purpose of selling those apartments the property comes under two jurisdictions. This is an effort to clean up the boundry and reflect single ownership. Roger Hunt stated that he was comfortable with the C designation but added that the reason for this was because this parcel was contiguous with that on the other side of the highway. However, in the future it may be beneficial to the community to have a designation placed on the parcel that is related to transportation. Bill Dunaway noted that because this parcel was purchased as open space approval must be obtained from the voters before it can be used as anyth~ng but open space. Perry Harvey closed the Public Hearing. Roger Hunt moved to recommend that the Thomas Property 7 acre parcel of land/which was inadvertently not annexed to the C~tYlbe zoned C Conservation. Recognizing the limitations of the Conservation and the purpose for which this property was purchased, as open space, that that parcel ~n the future may be beneficial to the commun~ty for purposes other than C conservation, for example, transportation. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All ~n favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt withdrew his last mot~on on the Potvin/Doremus Lot spl~t and moved to reconsider th~s prev~ous motion. Lee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt moved to approve the Potvin/Doremus Subd~vision Exception Lot Split of Lots N, 0, P, & Q, of Block 43, Original Aspen Townsite with the following conditions: Condition 1 is the same as Condition 1 of the Engineering Departments' comments on the Planning Office memo dated gctober 5, 1982. Condition 2 is the same Condition 2 of the Engineering Departments' Comments on the Planning Office memo dated October 5, 1982. Cond~tion 3 is also the same as Condition 3 under Engineering Departments' comments on the memo referenced above. Condition 4 states that the requirements of the Board of Adjustment be met. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Perry Harvey opened the Public Hearing. Colette Penne, Planning Office, informed the Commission that there were 3 commercial GMP projects before the P&Z for review; two in the commercial core and one in the SCI zone. The three applications are The wale of a Wash, The Rubey Park Visitor's Center and Aspen Downtown Storage on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center. The quota available th~s year ~s affected by Resolution 58, series of 1981. City Council eliminated the quota for commercial development for previous years, which was unallocated. By Ordinance 26, series of 1982 City Council establ~shed the following new quotas for commerc~al development: CC/C-l 10,000 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 square feet Office 4,000 square feet CL and Other 3,000 square feet -3- Commercial GMP (cont.) .,......_,~._- ,....-."'''"., d1L .,,- . ... -4- During the past year there has been some construct~on and demol~tion activity as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated October 1, 1985. This activity has changed the quota such that the commercial core has an availabe quota of H,~73 square feet. The NC/SCI zone has 7,000 square feet, the office zone 4,000 square feet, and the CL and others 2,567 square feet. The request for quota this year is as follows: The Wale of a Wash 2,700 square feet Rubey Park Visitor's Center 5,810 square feet Thus, there is a total request, in the CC zone of 8,510 square feet. This is within the limits of the quota available th~s year. There is one application in the SCI zone made by Aspen Downtown Storage. This applicant ~s requesting a total of 24,750 square feet. Th~s request would require several years quota at the rate of 7,000 square feet a year. Bill Dunaway, Aspen T~mes, noted that the Rubey Park Visitor's center was only allocated 5,810 square feet. Bill sa~d that restaurant and other space, called Public Commercial space, was being left out. Bill didn't understand how anyth~ng could classify as Public Commercial. Perry Harvey agreed with B~ll, giv~ng examples of spaces that were designated as public but were being used commercially. Sunny Vann, Planning Director, said that the appl~cant asked what facilit~es could normally be provided with a public transportation facility. The staff's response was those facilities which are customarily support or accesory to a publ~c transportation facil~ty. For example, lockers and restrooms. It was the applicant's understanding that he could make h~s representation as he so chose, compete for the free market square footage that he wished and finally, that ~t is an SPA~appl~cation for which the specific uses for those "public spaces" will have to be reviewed and determined through the SPA process. Perry said that he did not want any tacit approval to be given by the Commission to the list of potential uses that the appl~cant calls "publ~c". Lee Pardee noted that the applicant was asking for 5,810 square feet and that there is a restaurant in the application which is equally as big as the acc~ory commerc~al space. The applicant is not applying for use ~n the GMP under circulation or common space. Lee felt that th~s was a way in which future applicants could avert the GMP. Lee thought that the applicant should be applying for at least 8,500 square feet. Colette Penne entered the planning office memo and the project prof~les on the scoring sheets into the record. Colette explained the scoring sheets saying that there were several seperate categories. The total number of points awarded will be divided to obtain an average ~n each category. There are certain thresholds that the application must meet in order to still be competitive. In catagories 1,2, and 3, as a subtotal, the project has to score 60% of the number of po~nts ava~lable. In this case, the threshold becomes 22.8 points. In catagory 1, which is quality of design,the project needs a minimum of 5.4 points to remain eligible. In catagory 2, which is availability of public fac~lit~es and serv~ces, the project needs 3 points ~n order to remain eligible. In catagory 3, which is employee housing need, the project also needs a minimum of 3 po~nts. Catagory 4 ~s employee housing incentive. If more housing is provided than - "-.--, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. f. HO~CKEL B. a. ft L. CD. October 5, 1982 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Commercial GMP (cont.) that necessary for the project there are additional points available. Catagory 5 is an applicant's previous performance and can affect the total. Catagory 6 is bonus points which is a discresionary item allowing the Commission to award extra points for an exemplary project. The total points is the total of all six catagories. Colette pointed out that the merits of a project will be discussed at a later time. This meeting covers just the GMP competition to see if the project meets the threshold for an allocation and the right to build. It does not const~tute all the approvals that a project will need. Perry wanted to know why the Commiss~on was considering a GMP allocation for the Rubey Park Visitor's Center when the property is not zoned for competition under growth management. Sunny Vann said that the Code is currently set up to allow it to compete under GMP predicated on subsequent decisions. One of the subsequent decisions in the representation of the application is the request for rezoning to allow commercial uses under an SPA designation. Perry Harvey confirmed that the parcel in question was being rezoned from P to SPA. Gary Esary, City Attorney, cited section 20 B5 of the Municipal Code which states that a subdivision can not be granted unless a development allotment is first granted. Roger Hunt was concerned that the basis of the allocated amount would be related to the available build out in the existing zones. Alan ~nformed Roger that the quotas this year were based on the ab~lty to accomodate growth related to services. Jasmine Tygre asked about the intent of the Park zone. Jasmine felt that this particular project, if it is approved, would necessarily cause a certain influence to be born on the decision about whether or not to rezone. Jasmine would like some clar~fication concerning the original intent of the park zone ~n terms of its future use. Sunny said that the reverse argument could be made. If the parcel was rezoned first the decision to score it highly on a GMP applicaton would also be affected. The basic philosophy behind the process of approval is that it ~s not poss~ble to obtain any type of approval until such time as an allocation has been granted. That allocation stands on its merits on issues that do not relate to landuse ~ssues. An allocat~on cannot be built on a parcel without appropriate zoning. Pat Fallin asked how Rubey Park was acquired. Monroe stated that Rubey Par~~urchased under general obligat~on bonds secured by property taxes in 19"/0 for munic~pal purposes. Colette reviewed the recommended scoring for the following projects: -5- ... _'_,_.,___,~_.- ..." '-"'--'''''~'~''~--'~''''.-' .....~~,~--,"..._... -6- Commercial GMP (cont.) Wale of A Wash: Quality of Design: The design of the proposed building would enhance the Main St. street scape. The plan is to change to facade to brick matching the surround~ng buildings. The Planning office recommends a score of 13. Availabil~ty of Public Facilities and Services: This catagory rece~ved a recommended score of 6 because the fac~lities and services are already in place. The project is not add~ng anything to upgrade the area. Employee Housing Need: This catagory recieved a score of 10 because there are two employee housing units presently owned by the applicant in the Hunter Creek Project which are deed restricted. These un~ts are being used for the employee housing needs of this project. Employee Housing Incentive: This catagory contains no extra points as there is no housing over the need catagory provided. Previous Performance: Not applicable in this case. Bonus Points: The Planning Office does not recommend bonus po~nts in this case. The total points for this application is 29. Rubey Park Visitor's Center: Quality of Design: The Planning Office recommends 16 points here because they felt that a lot of effort was given in order to make this an energy efficient building. There is also a lot of glass thus mainta~ning the view of Aspen Mountain, from the interior, as much as possible. There are a number of amenities in terms of heavy landscaping and open space. Availability of Public Fac~lities and Services: Because the needs of this catagory are currently fulfilled and because the area isn't particularly upgraded by this project, the Plann~ng Office Hecommends a 5. However, the applicant is adding some catch basins which will handle some of the surface drainage. The Planning Office suggested that more of the drainage needed to be handled and if the applicant has done some work ~n this area the score may change. Employee Housing Need: This catagory rece~ved a score of 8 because a 900 square foot unit will be provided in the project. The applicant also proposes buy~ng a 3 bedroom tra~ler. Eight people will be housed or approximately 40% of the Employees generated. Employee Housing Incentive: There are no additional employees ~being housed, resulting in a score of o. Previous Performance: Not applicable in this case. Bonus Points: The Planning Office does not recommend bonus points in this case. The total points for this application ~s 29. Perry Harvey asked how the Planning Office, with regard to scoring, handled the loss of 44 parking spaces. Colette said that the applicant received fewer points. However, they are meeting the park~ng needs of their particular use since most people coming to the Transportation Center are likely to be using the transportation service. , , ..---~._-_._--_.,,~- "..._~._.,..--,-~_._-- " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL8.B.&l.1:0. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 1982 commercial GMP (cont.) Aspen Downtown Storage: Quality of Des~gn: This catagory received a 10 in the Planning Office's recommendations. The site is max~mized and there is little usable open space. The project is also close to the stream. There will a lot of asphalting on the site and some trees may be lost. Availability of Public Facilities and Services: This recieved a Planning Office score of 6. Employee Housing Need: The applicant earned 10 points here as they did in the Employee Housing Incentive catagory. The applicant is planning to use the h~storic Koch Lumber Co. Building as the~r office, housing the manager above it. The applicant will also provide 2 other employee housing units. Employee Housing Incentive: The applicant received 10 points here, as discussed above. Previous Performance: Not applicable. Bonus Points: Not awarded to th~s applicant by the Plann~ng Office. The total number of points for this application is 36. Colette stated that the Plann~ng Office hoped that the Commission concurred with their scoring and that the Commission would effectively approve all three projects for an allocation. Each project in the CC zone would rece~ve their requested square footage allotment which is 2,700 square feet for the Whale of a Wash, and 5,HOO square feet for Rubey Park. Since the request for Aspen Downtown storage is far in excess of the 7,000 square feet allowed this year, the Planning Office recommends that two years of quota be allotted along with two years of bonus quota. This would give the applicant the r~ght to build two of the storage buildings. The 400 square feet proposed for the office in the historic building is exempt because of its placement in an ind~vidually designated historic structure. The employee hous~ng would subsequently be exempted ~n other reviews. The third building that is part of the applicant's proposal would have to compete for another allotment. Perry Harvey asked about the mathmatics used in calculating the development area with regard to the Rubey Park Visitor's Center. Perry pointed out that the Planning Office, because it is City owned land, came up with 1.24 acres by including the Galena St. right of way, the Mill St. right of way, the alley and the Durant Ave.right of way. Perry asked if this was fair in a comparative situation. Colette said that the malls would be extended and become part of the project. The alley is also part of the project. Colette said that the extension of the malls would function as open space. Jasmine thought that mall extension had been put to the voters and had not been approved. Monroe said that if a new ci~aluation pattern for the -7- Commercial GMP (cont. ) ~,._..~-_.......,. -8- the transportation system is instigated, then the applicant would actually be reducing the amount of asphalt in the area by extending the malls. Bruce Sutherland, citizen, pointed out that ~f the malls were extended service access to various commercial establishments would be cut off. He felt that this was a major design flaw in the proposal for the visitor's center. Monroe Sommers, representing the applicant, said that there would still be access for deliveries and trash pick up. Monroe said that the applicant wanted to keep the alley. However, the applicant would also be beautifying the alley. Monroe expla~ned further that the idea for a visitor's center came from a percept~on of a need to do a better jOb of taking care of Aspen's visitors. vis~tors need a place to get informat~on, take care of reservations and find transportation, all in one place. Monroe asked the Commission to judge the project on an academic bas~s and whether or not the project passes the growth management threshold. Follow~ng this action the issues, such as landuse, can be discussed. Bruce Sutherland, Benedict Assoc., described the site plan for the project emphasizing the circulation pattern. Bruce told the commission that the footprint of the building is only 9,500 feet. This is because there is a lot of lower level space. The site slopes from the front to the back, therefore, the front or rental area will be down in a pit. The accessory commercial areas are the areas that are being appl~ed for in the GMP process. These areas are also the areas set aside for free market commercial space. The remainder of the building which would ~nclude the restaurant, coffee shop, restrooms etc., falls into the public use catagory. A lot of care has been g~ven to solar cons~derations in the design of the building. The park has also been carried in, closer to the bu~lding. Thus, there is some interaction between the park and the bu~ld~ng. The bu~ld~ng has been kept within a low scale. Roger Hunt felt that there would be a major conflict concern~ng alley use if the applicant proposed to load people on buses and allow service access from the alley at the same time. Roger felt that th~s was a major design flaw. Monroe sa~d that most of the bus loading would take place around e~ght or nine in the morn~ng. Roger said that it appeared that appl~cant had not done anything to improve circulation. Rather, they had just maintained the existence of the alley. Lee Pardee asked three questions: How is this project going to be financed? Are there any thoughts of or plans to condominiumize ~n the future and is the project contingent on th~s? Monroe said that the project would be privately financed. The applicant ~s not planning to condominiumize. Lee suggested that the Comm~ssion consider the application as having a total of of 10,100 feet. Lee said that future allocations and bonuses could be drawn upon. Lee thought that the Commiss~on needed to set a preceedent which established a pro rata share of how the area would be used. Perry did not think that the appl~cant could ammend their application. "'-, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~o C. F. HOECKEL B. B. 8: l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 1985 commercial GMP (cont. ) Sunny Vann explained that the proposal was for a public building with the exception of those spaces that would be leased to anyone that complies with the use determinations. If the City chooses to run an accessory use as part of the transportation center which is geared primarily to the operation of that center then it is exempt from competition. Lee Pardee was concerned about the precedent the Commission was setting. Lee thought that it was transparent logic to say that a 3,000 square foot restaurant ~s accessory to the use of a transport ion center. Perry said that a restaurant was a commerc~al use and that ~t was not listed in the applicant's public uses. Lee noted that the restaurant was not included in the square footage requested by the applicant for an allocat~on. Lee said that he liked the idea of a transporation center but he was concerned that the Commission was being presented with a fallacious number wh~ch they were being asked to approve because an amendment was not possible. Sunny Vann stated that the applicant was only asking for the right to commercially lease 5,800 square feet. He cannot lease any more than that assuming he recieves an allocation from Council. Roger Hunt asked if the p&Z was locked into the 5,800 square feet. Perry said that the P&Z would be giving the applicant approval to lease, and with further approval from the P&Z, to sell 5,800 square feet. Whale of A Wash Bill poss, representing the Whale of a Wash, said that the applicant was requesting the add~tion of 2,700 square feet on a city lot which is 30 feet wide by 100 feet deep. The existing building is out to the front property line. Without ~mitat~ng the surrounding buildings the appl~cant intends to match them by using similar materials on the proposed building. Because of the narrowness of the lot the applicant has attempted to put two stories on the rear portion of the proposed building. The applicant also intends to place solar collectors on the roof. There would also be an attempt to dupl~cate or meet the elevation lines of the Epicure Plaza Building in the rear of the building. The height might be a little higher because of the parapet. The proposed plan indicates that the existing laundry will be on the first floor, office space will be on the second floor and there will be 900 square feet on the th~rd floor. George Perry, applicant, gave some background on the project. The idea behind the application was the desire for an office and a home within the same building. This ~s proposed for the second floor and third floor of the bu~ld~ng. However, the Planning Office felt that there should only be restricted employee housing. It is difficult, with the present employee housing guidelines, to house employers, owners or mangers w~th~n the central core. Ther~tQ%~ the applicant has decided to go through the~ as a commercial area and then go through -9- _..__.--_.......~.,.,..,---_.."""'~ Commercial GMP Whale of A Wash (cont.) Aspen Downtown Storage. -10- the GMP for housing. Allan clarified for the Commission the fact that the applicant, assuming that the P&Z determined this type of use is allowable in the zone at that location, could come in and have the space compete as res~dential. At the time there is enough unclarity in the Code to make it difficult to determine whether a free market res~dence ~s allowable in the CC zone. Perry Harvey gave Welton Anderson permission to step down during cons~deration of an application from Aspen Downtown Storage as he was involved in a portion of the design contained in this application. Gideon Kaufman stated for the record that he had written a letter to the City Attorney and to Al Blomquist asking that Al d~squal~fy himself from voting on this project because of h~s active opposition to the project. His opposition was prior to the hearing and prior to his knowing any particulars of the project. Gideon felt that Al's opposition to the project eliminated any objective or partial scoring. Al said that he would be more than happy to step down. However, Al requested that the board make that determination and stated that his concerns about the project were stated in his memo dated October 5, 1985. The project intrudes upon the integrity of the City's master plan, Al said and this was the basis of his opposition. Al agreed to step down after Gary Esary, City Attorney, informed the Commission that this meeting was quasi- judicial. Gideon Kaufman, the applicants attorney, emphasized the fact that the board was considering GMP scoring in the SCI zone. The zoning has already been established by the City as he.cently as 1977. The City reviewed ~n great detai~A/SCI plan and approved the site for SCI use. The applicant is before the Commission in compliance with the zoning,and to be scored under the SCI GMP process. Gideon described the background of the project. ~. It was decided by everyone involved ~n the project that the most appropriate SCI use for the site was low impact. A mini-warehouse was designed to meet community needs and to be ,sensitive to the site itself. The Planning Office, in scoring this application, found it to be of high merit. Mr. Shapery recieved support from the Aspen Histor~cal Society by featuring the Koch lumber bu~ld~ng on the property. Tom Wells, architect, sa~d that the applicant planned to remove the mine tailings from the area. Thus, there would only be one story of construct~on above the existing road bed. The walls are blank and composed of barn wood and there is a rusty iron roof. Thus, a low key building is proposed. The proposed building was broken into three parts so that a substantial amount of landscaping could be utilized. The applicant is willing to create any type of screening that might be considered necessary. Perry stated that a self-storage facility is largely composed of doors, and asked what the doors were made of. Tom Wells said that it would be practical to make the doors of aluminum that would be painted a subdued color. To increase the shadow line the lower level would be painted darker. -- , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM ~I C. f. HOECK EL B. B. &: L. CO. October 5, 1982 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Commercial GMP Aspen Downtown Storage (cont.) Tom Wel~added that virtually none of the major stands of trees had been removed. Perry asked Tom to review the existing trail and its relocation. Tom said that the trail "snaked" around the property line. This location is similar to that of the old trail. The entrance to the trail would remain the same. A member of the public/representing Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Enviromental Studies/requested that the City's staff research the number of different easements transversing the property which ~s a part of the Trueman Parcel. The people at ACES feel that the project could b~potential disaster for the wild life sanctuary and to the access of the R~o Grande. The applicant is creating dominant buildings which are likely to be extens~vely lighted at night. It is questionable that this would have a positive effect on the wild life in. the area. It was also felt putting the entrance to a popular trail between a sewer plant and a warehouse was the wrong way to accent the tra~l system. There is also a recommendation currently being considered that the C~ty purchase some of the surrounding property for open space. Perry suggested a resolution to on the project. the Commission be purchased by easements, etc. that the Commission have staff prepare go along with the Commission's scoring The resolution would indicate that thought that this property should the City for open space, trail The Hallam Lake representative emphasized that this project was the type of use that could be located outside the city limits. Steve Schubert, citizen, felt that the proposed site was a perfect location for a low impact commercial venture. Mr. Schubert felt that there was a need for th~s type of project. Tom Cardamone, Director of the Aspen Center for Enviromental Studies/stressed the importance of the river for wild life. The river is a corridor along which wild life species travel. This project would ~nterfere with wild l~fe access to the river. Gideon pointed out that the City Council discussed whether or not this particular piece of property should be allowed to be developed and chose to allow it to be developed. The FAR on the property is 1:1. The applicant is proposing a .5:1 FAR, thus voluntarily reducing it 50%. Gideon also stated that the complex would not be open 24 hours a day. Perry asked about the proposed lighting and fencing saying that chain link fencing and lighting would destroy any of the architectural benefits of the proposal. The applicarr(said that they ~ntended to have the upper level be a drive through, closed off w~th doors in the front and the back. The lower level space -11- Commercial GMP Aspen Downtown Storage (cont.) Resolution to Ammend Article IX, Historic Designation Commercial GMP Aspen Downtown Storage (cont.) ~'~c'_"'_~""""_'_' -12- would not be available after certain hours. Access would be denied by closing off the bridge with a gate. There is no intention of installing massive lighting with the exception of porch lights. Perry Harvey closed the Publ~c Hearing. Lee Pardee confirmed that the parcel was zoned SCI/SPA. Alan Richman said that the parcel is heard and reviewed pursuant to zon~ng act~ons. It is as if the Commission is adopting a zoning act~on for the property. Therefore, all the criteria for rezoning applies. Roger Hunt moved to temporarily table act~on on the growth management plan in order to take up action on Resolution 15, Amendments to article IX, Historic Designation, while the account~ng proce8dures are being completed. Jasmine seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, Planning Office, explained that she included in the resoluion the Commission's suggestion that the ult~mates be reduced to one. Colette also included a change that allowed the appl~cations to or~ginate in the Planning Office rather than the Bu~ld~ng Department. Roger moved to adopt the Resolution calling for ammendments to article IX, Historic Designation. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Roger moved to return for consideration the Growth Management allocat~on. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Perry informed the Commission that they had to decide whether or not to consider a bonus and/or allocat~on of future years for the SCI zone. Th~s does not have to be done for the CC zone. The Planning Office recommends that the Commission allocate 2 years quota and a 2 year bonus. Lee Pardee felt that when the Commission makes such a determination it is in effect saying that the project is of such merit that the Commission is willing to take allocation from future years and thus, future projects. Lee proposed that the Commiss~on allowed one year of allocation w~th no bonus. Roger Hunt said that he saw nothing so notorius in the project that the applicant required allocations for more than one year. The application is also designed so that the project could be completed in stages. Roger saw no reason for allocating more than one year. Roger said that he had allocated some bonus points to the project. Colette Penne explained the Planning Office's recommendation of 2 years allocation and 2 years bonus. Most of the problems with the antic~pated stream margin review could be solved if the back building is not built. It seems sensible to build the office and one or two buildings as well as the employee housing. Alan Richman explained that allocating 2 years did not prevent anyone from competing next year. It just meant that allocations would be borrowed further into the future. Pat Fallin and Jasmine Tygre agreed with Roger and Lee. Rerry disagreed. "-' , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. HOECKEL 8. B.1t L \;0. October 5, 19H2 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commercial GMP Aspen Downtown Storage (cont.) Roger Hunt moved to recommend one years allocation in addition to suff~cient bonus to complete one building in the project before P&Z'-whlel'! has~been:approved. The bonus is ilotcctocexceed" 20!f:c Tll.ec'reason for:this as~ indieate(i b;rthe members of the P&Z, is that at th~s point the Commission wants to hold to the newly adopted allotments for the SCI area. There are other potential applications in the future wh~ch could effectively compete with this project. It is the op~nion of th~s board that this project in and of itself does not merit bonuses above that point. Pat Fallin seconded the motion. Lee Pardee asked if the build~ng permit would be pulled should the buiding not recieve a sufficient allocation. Colette Penne said that the allotment would be given for commerc~al space so the applicant could redesign the building. Perry Harvey said that he was opposed to this application. Lee Pardee: No Pat Fall~n: Yes Perry Harvey: No Jasmine Tygre: Yes Roger Hunt: Yes Three in favor, two opposed, motion carried. Allan informed the Commission of the scores on the follow~ng applications: Aspen Downtown storage: 24.1 before the bonus 30.5 after the bonus. Whale of a Wash: 27.7 before the bonus 29.7 after the bonus. Rubey Park Visitor's Center: 25.9 before the bonus 27.3 after the bonus. Perry entertained a motion to recommend that Council award 2,700 square feet in the CC zone to Whale of a Wash and 5,810 square feet to the Rubey Park Visitor's Center for a total of 8,510 feet. Roger so moved. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All ~n favor, mot~on carried. Roger moved to ask staff to prepare a resolut~on in relation to the company that is Aspen Downtown storage, ask~ng the city Counc~l to explore the purchase of that property for open space or future transportation easements or a wild l~fe buffer zone and corridor and to have Council instruct the city Attorney to conduct independent research on the easments in the area. There should also be a review of the original SPA plan with its intentions to make sure the Commission is compatible therein. Jasmine seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. ~oger Hunt moved to adjourn the meet~ng. Lee Pardee seconded the mot~on. All in favor, motion carried. Meet~ng adjourned. -13- ....-;,...-... ~._,._....._-~_.- -14- r~(Vk-AP'~ lie Mar alunas ity Clerk's Office '-' ,-.1