Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19831220 fORM" C- f.HOHKEL B.B.1i L LJ. j{egu.Lar Meetlng RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves p.Lannlng and Zonlng Commlsslon vecember LU, .L~~j Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 with David White, Paul Sheldon, Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre and Roger Hunt present. Commissioner Comments Minutes Stevenson Building Co. Redevelopment of Agate Property Karen Smith, representing the Aspen Chance subdivision, said this is on the agenda for January 3, and they would like to have P & Z come to a site inspection at 4:15 at Ute avenue and Aspen Alps road. Ms. Smith said they will have the property staked out so the Commission can see what is relative to their review. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes of November 22, 1983; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, planning office, said this is a conceptual PUD and subdivision review. When the site plan was submitted, the engineering department had problems with it. The appli- cants would like to readdress the site plan. At this meeting, they would like to introduce themselves and talk about their plan, essentially a pre-application conference. Ms. Penne said the plan is to level the Agate lodge of 24 units, 8 of which are in the lodge. There are 12 units that can be verified, and the applicants plan is to build six duplexes. There are some concerns with this block, the alley is not vacated throughout the block. There are large trees on the property that will have to be dealt with, and the six duplexes will exceed the FAR. Walt Warnicke presented a booklet of other projects their company has done. The approach is to build and offer turnkey fully furnished houses for living. Warnicke said they would like to discuss this site with P & Z because it is on the entrance to Aspen. Ms. Penne said when the conceptual plan was done, the applicant was operating with the set back of R-6 zone, not realizing in a PUD they could be varied. The staff feels the plans can be changed. The engineering depart- ment has problems with the curb cuts and with the vacation of the alley. Harvey asked the size of the property. Jon Siegle said it is 54,000 square feet not including the alley. Siegle said they anticipate an FAR of 31,200 square feet. Siegle said the applicant is acknowledging displacing employee bedrooms and is committed to replacing these bedrooms in the community but not on site. The expenses of doing that is tied into the concept of having 31,200 square feet. These will be 12 free market units. The applicant will replace 11 bedrooms, not units. Ms. Penne said if the alley is vacated, probably the square footage would go into the project area. Hunt said these are residential units, and the applicant would have to present good arguments for vacating the alley, like how the trash will be removed. Hunt said he is not disposed to giving up alleys, especially from a service view point. Siegle said he looked into why this has been zoned PUD and one reason may be the view plane coming into Aspen. Ms. Penne said the applicant would like some reaction to removing the trees or designing around them, and the question of excess FAR, should it be lenient because of the PUD. Harvey said he would like the trees preserved, if possible, and the plan designed around the existing trees. Sheldon agreed it is easy to build a building and hard to build a tree. Regular Meeting -......"........->< Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1983 Hunt said he does not see any advantage to the city in having six duplexes with a larger than average FAR, and the applicant is not putting any employee housing on site. Hunt said he is not terribly disposed to an increased FAR. Siegle said with the employee housing regulations and the cost of doing business in Aspen, the applicant feels in order to do this project and meet the employee housing commitment, they need the extra square footage. Siegle said there are some design considerations which dictate the size. Harvey pointed out the FAR ordinance was written because of the perceived massing of duplexes and single family dwellings. Harvey said he does not know if the applicant can deal with the perceived size, or can deal with them so that they do not look like mammoth buildings. Harvey said he is not inclined to say right now the Commission will vary the FAR. The FAR is a way to control the visual impact. Harvey said if the applicant can handle the visual impact, he would be willing to look at it. Siegle said with the square footage and the PUD, the applicant can mitigate the visual massing. Sheldon asked the height limitation. Ms. Penne said it is 25 to 28 feet. One of the applicants said the highest ridge is 31-32 feet. Sheldon asked if they planned to underground the utilities. Warnicke answered yes. Anderson pointed out a PUD designation is not meant as a benefit for the property owner but to allow the P & Z to say there are reasons certain things should be varied if there is a benefit to the entire community. Anderson said he would hesitate to increase the FAR just because this is a PUD. Anderson said he would like to reduce the number of curb cuts wherever possible. Anderson said he would like the trash access to be handled on site. Warnicke said the only feedback they have received on the alley is about access for fire fighting equipment. Ms. Penne pointed out the engineering department has objected to 15 curb cuts. One of the applicants pointed out there are only six. Sheldon said the alley is also right of way for pedes- trian traffic. In the West End there are no sidewalks and people use the alleys. Sheldon said he would like some pedestrian way through this alley. White said he is not real disposed to increasing the FAR. White said he would like to see something aesthetic at the entrance to town, and would not like to see six buildings all the same. White would like to see what the city would get from the street vacation, and does not generally favor street vacation. White said he would like to keep the trees as much as possible. Siegle said one of the suggestions was to see how the Commission felt about rezoning this parcel to R/MF to allow the square footage they need. Anderson said under PUD, there can be different configurations clusters or row houses without rezoning. Anderson said rezon- ing to R/MF would not get very far. Sheldon asked what is the allowable FAR. Ms. Penne said 27,000 square feet and the applicant is asking for 4,000 above that. Warnicke said they have tried many ways to cut the size down, and losing square footage means losing the project. Warnicke said if the applicant cooperates in every other way, saving trees, moving buildings, keeping the alley open, elevation changes, do they stand a chance of increasing the FAR. Anderson said he is 60 per cent keeping the underlying FAR, and 40 per cent to see if something creative can be developed to mitigate the project. Ms. Tygre said she is 100 per cent opposed to increasing the FAR. The P & Z worked hard on a response to the community that people did not want to see '-J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 c. f. HOECKEL B. B. Ii L. CO. December 20, 1983 Regular Meeting Andrews/Pletts Stream Margin Review and Commercial GMP Exemption Planning and Zoning Commission -3- houses that looked too big for the site. The community wanted smaller houses and more landscaping. Ms. Tygre said the P & Z went to a lot of work on the FAR and unless the applicant can show overwhelming reasons why these structures should be this size, she will not support it. Mr. Tygre noted this site is at the entrance to Aspen, and she would like the project smaller. Hunt said he is 95 per cent for using the underlying zone district FAR. There is a slight chance they can come up with good arguments. Hunt said if the acquisition costs are too high, the project should not be done. White said he is 75 to 80 per cent against changing the FAR. Sheldon agreed with Jasmine and said he feels very strongly about this. If the price of land is too high, it will come down some time. Sheldon said this project is too high, too big and too dense. Harvey said the P & Z are not economic arbitrators in this community for profits of a project. Harvey said anything on that site would be an improvement over the Agate. Harvey said he would like to see the property redeveloped. Harvey said there is a public hearing process for this for the applicant to answer the neighbors and the P & Z's concerns. Harvey said he could not see that 250 square feet per unit will break the project. Colette Penne, planning office, said there are two requests herein; stream margin review and GMP exemption. The buildings are in the S/C/I and are requesting accessory units. Ms. pletts is requesting an increased green house adding 73~ square feet to the interior space. Ms. Penne said this will be an artist's studio, and the applicant feels they need the light. It does increase the FAR and the possibility of this being commercial square footage increased by 73~. Ms. Penne showed the Commission the proposed green house window. There is a loft illegally placed which the applicant proposed to rip out and replace. Ms. Penne said the decks do not count in FAR but are important to the stream margin review. Ms. Penne said she had just received the final product and final numbers. The total expansion of 274.23 square feet is the green house, loft and new stairway. The staff is putting this through the commercial GMP because there is a chance it could be converted to commercial square footage. The staff is recommending approval of this request. In terms of the stream marging review, there are three decks being added. The staff does not feel there is any effect on the stream. The decks are on the second story and on the side of the building nearer the park than the stream. Tom Crews, architect for the applicant, showed plans, showed the river bank. One deck has been constructed and is supported from the ground with a 6 by 6 on a concrete foundation. The deck on the east side of the building would be of similar construction, and the other deck would be cantilevered from the second floor so that there is nothing going into the ground. Hunt asked about the location of the river channel. Crews J:_' Regular Meeting Abetone GMP Exemption Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1983 presented a geological report showing where the majority of the flooding would happen. Harvey asked about the report on the utility and icing problem. Crews told P & Z the applicant would like to extend the awning on the building, it would be a permanent awning and would eliminate icing on utility meters. Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary said he has interpreted this exemption provision of the Code to be a per building exemption. Esary said if the Commission interprets it the same way, he would request a condition to make it clear this 274.25 square foot exemption out of the 500 square feet alloted for this building. Harvey agreed it was on a per building basis so that people do not keep coming in for exemptions. Harvey asked what the existing FAR on this building is. Ms. Penne said the staff is not sure as there is a discrepancy in the ownership ship line. Ms. Penne said if the P & Z grants approval, they should condition all other calculations will have to be done by the building department to make sure they are in compliance. Hunt moved to grant approval of the stream margin review and GMP exemption of approximately 274.25 square feet for the Andrews/Pletts building with conditions 1 and 2 in the plan- ning office memorandum dated 20 December 1983, condition 3 - the project shall comply with zoning and building regulations irrespective of this approval; condition 4 this is a granting of a GMP exemption on a per building basis; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Penne, planning office, said the P & Z had raised concerns at their October 18th meeting on how this area was counted on the original plans; was it open space, was it counted in the FAR, would it be additional FAR if it were to be roofed over as in this application. Ms. Penne pointed out the C-l zone allows a 1:1 FAR; this building is 1.83:1, therefore, it is non-conforming. This building was exempt from the FAR in 1975, Ordinance 11, by Ordinance #25, 1975 and Ordinance #50, 1974. This exemption allowed the building to proceed with construction although it would not have complied with earlier ordinances. Ms. Penne said either because of the exemption or the FAR calculations are not as clear as today, the record is not clear whether the dining area is included in FAR calculations. Ms. Penne said there is evidence the area was included in occupancy load calculations. Ms. Penne said she has not seen plans that conclusively include it or not include it in the calculations. Ms. Penne said the Municipal Code requirements in effect prior to Ordinance 11, 1975, allowed a 2:1 FAR with provisions for additional square footage when a project provided public arcade space at ground level or open space in excess of that required. Ms. Penne told P & Z, the applicant Paul Rubin, has submitted evidence this may be part of the floor area calculation in minutes of May 7, 1974 P & Z minutes. P & Z member Johnson stated he "felt that garden level should be included in the floor area ration". This is unclear as no action was taken and it was just part of the minutes. Ms. Penne said Ordinance 11, 1975, states "in measuring floor area for the purpose of calculating floor area ratio, there shall be included that area within the surrounding exterior walls 1 lIthe floor area of a building or portion thereof not surrounded by exterior walls shall include any usable area under a horizontal projection of a roof or floor above". '- " I ~ORM" C. F. HOECKEl e. B. II l. LJ. , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -5- December 20, 1983 Ms. Penne said on interpretation, one could conclude this area was counted if the wall at the sidewalk was considered to be the exterior wall even when the space was not roofed. Ordinance 11, 1975, also states "for purposes of calculated floor area ratio, there shall be included basement (but not sub basement) areas except any such basement area devoted to underground off street parking". This area could be consid- ered to be surrounded by exterior walls and it does not qualify as open space, it may have been calculated as floor area by being included in the basement - garden level. Ms. Penne said the area cannot be open space for two reasons; it cannot be more than 10 feet below the abutting street. This space is 10.3 feet below the street. Ms. Penne said the open space must be continuous and not obstructed with building appurtenances and appendages. Stairways are considered obstructions. The space is accessed by a stair way which divides it from the sidewalk. Ms. Penne told P & Z the current floor area ordinance includes any area under a horizontal projection of a roof and any question of the inclusion of this space is answered once the roof is placed over it. This area is subgrade; the proposed roof is glass. Ms. Penne said the evaluation of the impact of additional bulk is less than a solid roof above grade. However, there is an open area that is proposed to be closed in. Ms. Penne said based on the present FAR ordinance, the area qould be counted in FAR; however, the past record is inconclusive as to whether this space was included in the FAR. Ms. Penne said the staff feels any growth or servicing impact resulting from glassing in this area would be minimal. Ms. Penne told the Board if they feel the applicant's arguments are strong enouch to justify issuance of a building permit, they could find that this area should have been originally included in the floor area and request issuance of a permit. Ms. Penne said the planning office is reluc- tant to reach that conclusion based on the evidence presented. Under today's regulations, the enclosure of the space would increase the FAR and will increase the non-conformity in terms of the FAR. Ms. Penne recommended P & Z table the applicant and send the applicant to the Board of Adjustment for a variance for this space in the FAR. Ms. Penne said if P & Z feels it is good idea to have this project done, they may send on a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. Harvey recapped this is not open space, it is an open area; it is not clear that it was included in FAR but was mentioned garden level should be included in the FAR. Ms. Penne questioned if it was not open space and was not FAR, what was it. Paul Rubin pointed out not only is this area obstructed by the stairway, but one has to go into the restaurant and through the sliding glass door to get to this area. Rubin said it was always clear this was intended to be used as a restaurant. Rubin pointed out a copy of the building permit and in the calculation for occupancy load, this area was counted. Rubin said the recognition of this being used as '"-.... Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1983 dining space was very clear. Rubin said at no time is there any evident to show that this was not counted as FAR, and it clearly cannot be open space. Hunt asked if this open area is within the walls of the buidling, what would be the FAR. Rubin said there are various ways to calculate the FAR because of planters, over hangs, elevators, etc. Ms. Penne said the issues of GMP exemption and the impacts of using this as commecial space were outlined in an earlier memorandum to P & z. Rubin said they are rearranging the restaurant and there will be less seats than there are now. Hunt said if the walls of the open area are included in the FAR and that comes out to 2:1, that could be an indication it was included in the FAR, which at the time for the zone district was 2:1. Paul Sheldon said when he walks by the building, all he sees is the edge. Sheldon said the addition of a glass roof will not make any impact on the public and he does not oppose it. White agreed with Sheldon. Anderson pointed out this stairway is not covered and is going down into this space. This is not like stairways that are covered and go up on a building. Anderson said he feels this was definitely open space in the beginning and should stay open space. Rubin pointed out that the open space should be continues and not obstructed with building appur- tenances, this area is obstructed and always has been. Ms. Tygre said no one, at this time, can say conclusively what this space is or is not. Ms. Tygre said this request is to cover space that was not previously enclosed and there will be tables there. Ms. Tygre said the applicant should go get a variance. Esary said the Board of Adjustment can smooth out the rough edges of the zoning code, and this is within their jurisdiction. Esary said no one can prove whether this is open space or FAR, the record is not clear. Harvey, White and Sheldon feel the request from the applicant should be approved. Anderson, Ms. Tygre and Hunt feel it should remain open space. Hunt pointed out the building is already over the FAR. Anderson moved to table this application until such time as a variance on floor area limitation is obtained from the Board of Adjustment with no additional comments from P & Z; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Harvey asked the Commission if the applicant does get a variance, would the Commission be willing to short circuit the process and approve a growth management exemption. The Commission said no; the applicant should go to the variance first. All in favor, with the exception of White and Sheldon. Motion carried. Aspen Mountain Lodge - Additional Review Sunny Vann, planning director, said there are some issues on Requirements this project still outstanding. One of these are the conditions of the conceptual PUD/subdivision. The rezoning issues have either been tabled or denied. The employee housing on Ute avenue has been deferred. The change in use for employee housing should have some conditions attached. The P & Z has dealt with the multi year allocation and decided on 464 units. Vann said he would like to go through the conditions so that the staff can prepare a resolution. .." , , , ... - ... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM," C. F. HOHKEL B. B.II L. ~J. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -7- December 20, 1983 Aspen Mountain Lodge continued Vann said the planning office has always had a problem with the facade on Durant avenue and the Mill and Durant intersection. The applicant has continued to review the architecture. The applicant scored low in architecture and any further work would be an improvement in their GMP submission. Vann said this could be accommodated without an amendment to the GMP submission. The appli- cant would like to meet with P & Z and discuss design considerations. Vann said in the resolution one of the conditions should be that the applicant continue to work on design considerations. Harvey said he would like the resolution to indicate to Council the specific areas the P & Z will look closely at, and "surrounding scenic areas" seems vague. Anderson said he would like added the solar problem on Durant street. P & Z okayed condition 1 with the addition of the problem of shading of Durant street. Vann pointed out the fire department commented on whether or not they would be able to get fire equipment into the internal courtyards. The applicant noted state of the art fire techniques will be used. Vann suggested the applicant talk with the fire department to see if the applicant's proposals are sufficient to satisfy the fire department; this will be clarified as part of the prelimin- ary plat. During preliminary stage, the P & Z will see specifics. P & Z okayed condition 2. Vann said the applicant originally represented the hotel did not intrude into the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Subsequent information indicates the project is in the view plane technically, but construction of other buildings in the foreground eliminates the visual impact from the Wheeler. Vann said there is a question as to whether or not mapping the view plane up to the base of the mountain is correctly codified. The engineering department feels there may be an error here, unfortunately there is little information on this. The staff is saying if the project technically intrudes into the view plane, the applicant needs, at preliminary, to state why the waiver should be granted. Vann said there is rationale for this as the building in the foreground already block the view. Vann said further research needs to be done on this and depending on the outcome, the applicant may need to ask for additional review at preliminary PUD. Condition 4 addresses the extent of the various representations from TDA traffic study that the applicant inteded to take. This was clarified at a previous P & Z meeting; however, as part of the preliminary PUD, the staff would like written representation as to exactly what is going to be done. Vann told P & Z, the engineering department in reviewing encroachments and vacations suggested that since some of these benefit the applicant, felt it appropriate the city be reimbursed for these. What was discussed was if the city vacated something, the applicant would redo the intersection of Mill and Durant, curb and gutter. Condition 5 would require the applicant to come back at preliminary plat with a specific proposal in exchange for a recommenda- tion of support from P & Z to Council for the vacation of rights-of-way. Anderson changed the last sentence from "off-street" improvements to "off-site" improvements. White said if the city is going to give a street vacation, the return should be specific. White said he would like the idea of Rubey park and the pedestrian walkway pursued. Novak said a lot of their improvements are tied in the the proposed lodge improvement district. Novak said some of the improvements discussed are undergrounding utilities, unified street scape, street lighting. Harvey said the GMP submission deals with these items. There is also the question of reimbursements for vacated rights-of-way and encroachment. Harvey said he would like it clear what kinds of off-site improvements will be given for the rights-of-way in addition to what was represented in the GMP submission. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1983 Jay Hammond, engineering department, said their conrern is that if the city is giving up public property, to vacations and encroachments, the city will get some in trade to balance that, like a good circulation plan. Hammond said a good example and direct trade might be replatting of the rights-of-way that are old and narrow, like upper Mill street. Sheldon said he would like to see improved access to lift lA. Novak said the applicants will be looking at lift lA as they have an interest in having good access to lift lA. Novak said it is difficult to listen to requests for improvements without knowing what the costs will be. The applicant started out with an assumption, they wanted to make a major contribution to the community and to the lodge district. Novak said the list of items they are proposing is already substantial. Novak questioned where to stop in terms of the vacations and what they are worth. Harvey said he would like to see the condition more clear, as Harvey feels "reimbursement" indicates more to be given to the city than what is already mentioned in the GMP submission. Vann said the staff is looking for a rationale to justify the vacation of the public rights-of-way. Vann said this was not addressed in the GMP application. Vann said the city would like to see a clarification by preliminary plat exactly what the applicant is proposing to do. Ms. Tygre said perhaps there should be some guidance from the Commission on what off-site improvements that might be more valuable to the site and to the community than others. Ms. Tygre said improved access to lA would be quite important but does not have anything specific in mind. Anderson said the P & Z will be meeting in work sessions with the applicant and will be working toward preliminary plat, and the specifics can be developed in that time period. Harvey suggested some language about cooperation between the applicant and the P & Z be added to the resolution. Sheldon suggested two ways to measure the value; reimbursing the city for utilities and to try to measure what that would cost the citizens of Aspen in 1983 or 1984 dollars; or the value of the land on the open market to purchase that much square footage. Vann suggested P & Z recommend to Council in support of the vacations and encroachments is based on the fact that the city is receiving a quid pro quo through the provisions of other off-site services to be provided by the applicant. The applicant will have to make his case between now and preliminary plat exactly what will be done to off-set these trades. Vann said condition 6 is straight forward, the staff is asking for a subidiviso~ plat as it appears the residential will be subdivided out of the lodge. Condition 7 an adequate survey for the site is lacking. The engineering depart- ment has requested the applicant provide a survey clarifying the ownership of the parcel. Ms. Tygre brought up a concern about ownership form of the project. Vann said that condominiumization in the traditional sense is not appropriate for this hotel. Vann pointed out they would have to submit a separate application for condominiumization or condotel, and staff has deferred any decision on this. Vann said the P & Z could approve the project, and deny the condominiumization. Hunt said he feels very strongly against the condominiumization of this project. Hunt said he would like a requirement that the property management and property rental have to be the same entity. Vann said it would be appropriate to address the ownership at the preliminary stage. Further clarification of the ownership regime should be provided as part of preliminary PUD. Vann said in condition 8 the issues raised by the environmental health depart- ment are more appropriately addressed at the preliminary PUD. These issues put the applicant on notice and should be addressed. Condition 9 is the reconstruction issues which requires no action of P & Z. This condition is to state what P & Z is approving as reconstruction of this project. There is a difference between the requested 277 units and the verified 269 units, and this will have to be worked out between staff and the applicant. If the applicant can substantiate the questioned eight units, the number of units to be reconstructed can be changed at preliminarly plat. '-' -.I , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. f. HQECKEL 6, 6. II L CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -9- December 29, 1983 Harvey said that is not what the condition 9 says, the condition as worded limits them to 269 units. Harvey said he would like the recommendation from P & Z to say there is a problem in this area between staff and the applicant and that it will be worked out. Sheldon suggested referring non-specifically to the number of units approved by the building department. Vann said they will try to deal with this issue prior to the award of allocation, if possible. Vann said he will make the language generic. Vann said condition 10 is that the vacation of Dean street between Monarch and Mill that all utility rights be maintained and also public use of the street. Vann said they will ask the applicant to clarify the issues in this vacation and include it in preliminary PUD. Harvey said he would like added that this is conditioned also an agreement between adjacent property owners as to use, specifically the Mountain Chalet. P & Z okayed conditions 11 and 12. Vann said he would like to add a condition saying the approval is conditioned upon the representations contained in the GMP submission and preliminary PUD application. Sheldon said he feels the bridge over Mill street is an imposition in a public right-of-way and public view. Sheldon said this is not approriate in this town. Egress between the parts of the lodge should be done in a private way. Sheldon said access to Rubey park should be addressed; he favors a pedestrian underpass. White said the pedestrian bridge over Mill street is fine. White suggested buses dropping below grade at Rubey park so the street would be for cars. White said he would access to the hotel also underground. Sheldon said if there is an overpass over Mill street, it is inappropriate for it to be a lounge or congregating area. If there must be an overpass, it should only be for circulation. White said he does not want the overpass to be heavily commercial space but could have small seating area. White said there is a need to get between two parts of the lodge. Hunt said the Mill street bridge could be terrible; however, if it is done right, he could be convinced. Hunt said he wanted a minimal bridge rather than restaurant/lounge area. Access to Rubey park should be underground. Ms. Tygre said she is not crazy about the bridge, but it could be handled properly. Ms. Tygre said the bridge should not be too obtrusive. Ms. Tygre said there will be a lot more need for access to Rubey park, and although she does not like underground passages, that may be considered. Ms. Tygre suggested in the general limosine service, service to Snowmass be included which may relieve Rubey park some. Anderson said he does not have a problem with the Mill street bridge, and it should not be a narrow corridor. Anderson said this could be a great element and should be an architectural element. Anderson said undergrounding access to Rubey park may be overkill but may be a reasonable concession to letting the parking ramp go out on Durant street. Harvey said he does not have a problem with the Mill street bridge unless it grows to something that catches the eye. Harvey said people envision the bridge as blocking the view, and from a site visit, it actually does not. Harvey said deal with the issue of Rubey park is something the applicant will have to do for their guests, and rather than deal with the specific solution, the applicant should deal with it. Vann said the whole Commission has raised concerns about the relationship between the hotel and Rubey park, and this is not addressed in the application. There could be a condition requesting the applicant to address the problem and come back during preliminary PUD. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, told P & Z one of the reasons the applicant did not address the Rubey park Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1983 was the Council was changing its mind on the Rubey park SPA. Vann said the concern is that there is a substantial number of people occupying the hotel who will have to move into the commercial core, and P & Z would like consider- ation on how the applicant will handle that. Hunt reiterated his warning about the service areas on Monarch and Dean streets and this is not specific- ally covered, and the applicant will have to find a way to make this work. Wells said the applicants have transportation planners looking at this and they will address it in more detail. Vann said at this point the P & Z is approving the application as submitted with the exception of 16 rooms that were removed. The next issue is the GMP exemptions. The Cooper Horse is historically designated and does not require a GMP exemption; however rezoning will be required and will be submitted as part of the preliminary PUD. The P & Z has indicated they would give this rezoning favorable consideration. The Alpina Haus will require a change in use, the planning office has recommended approval, with which the P & Z seemed to concur with some conditions. Vann said regarding the parking problem, the applicant needs to address how they will handle this. The P & Z should consider the parking alternatives prior to passing the change in use exemption since it is a one step process. The other exemption on employee housing is on Ute avenue, and the P & Z has tabled this issue until January 3, 1984. Vann said at the last meeting, P & Z arrived at a number of units for this project, eliminated 16 units, and indicated they would recommend sufficient quota to allow the hotel construction. What is not in here is the eight units under discrepancy. At this point P & Z has said they want the project to have 464 units. Vann said he would add to the resolution the termination date provision, and that P & Z recommend that the Alpina Haus units go back into the L-l, L-2 quota. Hunt said he is unhappy with the 464 units as approved at the last meeting. Hunt moved to reconsider the previous motion thinking 464 units are too many units; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Ms. Tygre, Hunt, White, and Sheldon in favor; Anderson and Harvey opposed. Motion carried. Hunt said he feels 464 are too many units for this project. Vann said the numbers are 50 units from back log, this year's quota of 35, 47 from the Alpina Haus, two years quota plus reconstruction is 476 units. The Commission went over their previous voting and the numbers they wanted. Ms. Tygre said she favors 406 units based on reconstruction 50 back log, this years quota, and the Alpina Haus. Ms. Tygre said 464 units is that number of people on that site is too much. Ms. Tygre said she would not like to get into a situation where the applicant cannot build the project. The town has an opportunity to get a good project on that site, so that she would be willing to give one year future quota so that the project could be built. Sheldon said there is not that much possibility of future build out in the lodge zone. Sheldon said the mass of people on the site is too great, but it is the sentiment of the town that a project like this is needed. Sheldon said the difference between 450 units and 464 units will not make a difference in the visibility of the building, the extra 28 people will not make a great difference. Sheldon said he is interested in supporting the applicant and giving them a change to do a good job. Sheldon said one the number is up to 450 units, what difference will 14 units make. ~ ... , ,. .... "\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'G C.F,HOECKELB.B.1i L. CO. Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission -11- December 20, 1983 Vann said the Commission must balance the bulk issue with the desire to see the project built. Vann said if P & Z has a problem with this, then 14 rooms will not make a big change in the project. Hunt said at the last meeting the applicant represented he could live with 450 units. Novak said the applicant genuinely believes the number of units requested, 480 units, is the correct number of being able to do a quality job, address the bulk requirements realistically, finance the project and get it built. Novak said cutting 14 units is not helping the town by lessening the bulk, but this will be hurting the applicant by quality, some amenities, or some things requested by P & z. white wants 450 units; Anderson 464; Ms. Tygre, 440-450; Hunt, 450; Sheldon, 464; Harvey 464. Sheldon suggested not making a recommendation to Council since the Board is divided. Sheldon moved to direct staff to draft a resolution in which this item dealt with, it is the consensus of the Commission that 480 rooms are too many; some members feels 450 was an acceptable number and an equal number of members of the Commission felt that is too few and the P & Z cannot reach a majority; seconded by Harvey. Hunt, White and Ms. Tygre opposed; Sheldon, Anderson and Harvey in favor. Motion NOT carried. Ms. Tygre moved that the multi year allocation issue be phrased that the Commission was equally split between 450 and 464 units; seconded by Sheldon. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. tc~ City Clerk