Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840103 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORiIl ~~ C. F. H OECKEL B. B. I> L. co. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt and Paul Sheldon present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS David White opened the discussion with a complaint on off street park- ing by buses. What can be done to alleviate the problem? Who can one talk to? Perry Harvey said he is sympathetic to the problem but there is no specific parking provided. Jay Hammond responded that if the parking in the area is controlled with a time limitation, or if the area is residential, and if buses park there for more than a few days, then one should contact the police. The police should ticket the bus to be moved within a certain period of time. Other than that, there is no specific control or specific area within the city for buses and trucks. Hammond encouraged the vehicles to park in the Rio Grande parking lot. Parking on the streets is generally open. Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of November 29, 1983; seconded by David White. All in favor, motion carried. Approval of minutes from December 6 and December 13, 1983, postponed until next meeting. Perry Harvey proceeded to the issue of the "Pitkin County Guard House." Sunny Vann, Planning Director, concurred that the packet on this issue is for the commissioners' information, not an item for discussion. Vann requested that this issue be placed on the agenda for discussion at a future date. Harvey voiced his doubts. Harvey understood that one story is one floor. The guard house is currently almost 25 feet above Willoughby Way, which is near legal limit with a five foot setback. That is not how the original application was presented. Har- vey cautioned the commissioners that he could not rely on the applicant's statement about the one story. And there is no condition of approval. Harvey said-this:does.notcneed to come back to P&Z. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE-REZONING Harvey asked Vann if there was continued public hearing on the rezoning. He said yes. And continued public hearing on the resolution. Vann said no. Vann stated that this meeting is continued from November 29th. Vann asked if the applicant's request for rezoning R6-RVO parcel on Ute Avenue would be further tabled to February 7, 1984. The applicant needs additional time to address the Planning Office's concerns as well as to work with the neighborhood groups toward better solutions of their problems. The applicant is also requesting a work session with the P&Z next Tuesday, January 10, to discuss the employee housing solution with respect to this hotel project. The commissioners agreed. After Kathryn Koch, City Clerk, clarified a point of order, Harvey opened the continued hearing to the public. Welton Anderson moved to table until February 7, 1984, the rezoning to R6-RVO of the Ute Avenue property for the Aspen Mountain PUD and to continue public hearings at that time; Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PH reiterated that the public hearing this evening is not considering discussion on the rezoning issue until February 7; a response to a question from the audience. Harvey did entertain public comment on the table. Wright Hugus, attorney for the Lodge at Aspen, noted that the rezoning Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 issue previously was tabled with three conditions. The first condition wasthat an attempt be made by the developer to negotiate with the neighborhood groups. To his knowledge there had been no meetings. Secondly, there was to be additional notice given at Mr. Vann's suggestion. He did not know if that notice had been issued. Thirdly, there was to be some action taken on the table. That has been done at this meeting. Mr. Hugus stated that a Mr. Curtis had called him. Mr. Curtis informed him that several neighborhood groups had been formed and that each one had to be dealt with. Vann responded that there is no requirement in the code for renoti- fication of the adjacent owners. The Planning Office, as a courtesy, at such time as the rezoning issue was to be actually considered, would notify the public. Harvey again verified that the public hearing would be held February 7; he would take any comments now from anyone who would not be able to attend. Norma Dolle, who lives on Waters Avenue and whose property backs the ute Avenue parcel, said that she and others (Suzann Resnick) have a post office box number and they did not receive any notices in the mail. What could she do to rectify this? Vann again said that the only requirement is to notify people within a certain distance of the project itself. However, if she would supply the Planning Office with the proper mailing addresses, notices would be mailed. The notice of the public hearing will be published in the Aspen Times. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE-RESOLUTION Vann addressed the mathematical miscalculatIons on the figures for the Lodge Development Quota with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Vann said that he has a problem with and a concern about the P&Z recommendation for quota allocated. The problems fall into three areas. First, the Planning Office has represented throughout this process that the unallocated quota of the prior years was 50 units. In actuality it is only 32 units. A mistake was made in a memo issued by the City Attorney's office by Ron Stock in 1980 regarding the available quota for the 1980 competition. Planning Office re- searched the record. Their conclusions are explained in a memo, "Available Lodge Quota," dated December 29, 1983. Planning Office arrived at 32 units. Since there has been no applicant who has been disenfranchised as a result of the mistake in the quota in the com- petitions held since 1980, it has no real significance in terms of the prior competitions. It does mean that with respect to this year's competition, that if P&Z is inclined to award a multi-year allocation, then a larger allocation will have to be awarded to achieve the same results because of the loss of the 18 units. The quota will be adjusted accordingly from now on. Also, this is a 1983 competition; not a 1984 competition. This problem only exists with the lodge competition. The annual competition will be held for the year within which it was held. Second, there is a lack of specificity with respect to the recommend- ation regarding the quota. Vann did not incorporate a fixed number of existing lodge units in Section 1. During the last P&Z meeting, there wasatie or split vote with respect to what should be allocated in terms of a multi-year allocation. The results were a compromise of somewhere between 450 and 464. The "464" was obtained by the applicant's action to remove a tower off an alternate conceptual drawing. Vann asked for a more specific number. He would later present a proposal to P&Z which might help them to make a decision. P&Z would have to reconsider the motion that was made at the last meeting. Third, there was no action taken on the Alpina Haus. P&Z had con- ceptually agreed to the change in use and to recommend to: Council that the 44 units be placed in the LI-L2 quota as opposed to the L3 or other category. No formal action however was taken on this issue. / ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~O C. F. HOECKEL B. B. 1.1 LCD. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission January 3, 1984 -2- P&Z deferred it because there were some outstanding concerns regarding the parking issue. Vann was unable to reference the 44 units in this quota and in this resolution. Vann proceeded to address the problem of the multi-year recommendation. The Planning Office, P&Z, and many outspoken sectors of the public have expressed concern over the size and bulk of this facility. Size and bulk is a PUD design related issue within the context of this project. The applicant has stated that both in his application and in subsequent discussions, that the 480 units were derived on the basis of the requirement necessary to make the project work financially. "480" represents revenue generation; the number is necessary to buy a certain level of guest amenities. The Planning Office argues that to achieve a meaningful reduction in the size of the hotel, would mean a reduction in the number of units to be recommended for con- struction in the multi-year allocation. This would require a substantial reduction in the number of units. Simply removing 16 units off the tower does not address the problem of bulk and size. This directly affects the financial feasiblity for the applicant; the additional marginal units are necessary for the revenue generation to be successful. To compound the problem, P&Z has stated general support of the project. The proposal scored well in the GMP competition and won the unit allocation competition. P&Z wants to make sure that the number of units per se that are allocated to this project are sufficient to insure a reasonable chance of the project working financially. On the other hand, P&Z continues to state their concern about the size and bulk of the project. In Vann's opinion, unless P&Z is prepared to make a substantial reduction in the number of units, i.e., a quota somewhere around 350-400 (which would be a very small quota allocation); simply re- ducing the number of units would not insure a major reduction in the size of the facility. A substantial portion of the project is in non-revenue generating space, either in subgrade, in corridors, in guest amenities, etc. Vann suggested that the P&Z reconsider weighing the pros and cons outlined by the Planning Office of awarding a multi-year quota within the framework of growth. Make a decision from a growth point of view as to the appropriateness of the multi-year quota and how many years should be included. Continue to assert concerns about the size of the project in thec:onceptual PUD recommendations. Put the applicant on notice. State that regardless of the quota recommendation, that unless the applicant can make the units work from a size and bulk point of view at the preliminary plat, that P&Z would reserve the right to reduce the number of units in order to reduce the size of the building. And that the applicant would have to be prepared to address this issue at preliminary PUD. It is appropriate to pass on the size and bulk concerns to Council. Note that the applicant has demonstrated some flexibility in working with the size of the project. Again, make a decision on allocation based on what the growth implications are in awarding a quota for multiple years. Harvey asked what the growth impact would be. Vann answered that depending on how one views the pros and cons prepared by the Planning Office it is a draw. 32 units remain from the prior years which Council has the discretion to award or not award. The applicant won . .d Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 the competition, therefore, is entitled to 1983 quotas which is 35. If the Alpina Haus is changed to the LI-L2 status, that is an additional 44. The total is Ill. To date, 269 units have been verified by the Building Department and by the Planning Office as eligible for recon- struction. Of the remaining 8 requested by the applicant, 6 may at some point between now and preliminary plat be authorized for reconstruction. This brings the total to 386. (Harvey interrupted and asked that how is P&Z expected to evaluate the numbers for the future year allocation if there is no solution to how to reconcile how many units are to be reconstructed.) Vann answered that he is talking about 6 questionable units. He suggested that P&Z recom- mend a maximum quota, not to exceed "x" number of years. If the recon- struction number is agreed to be 386 (or 380, minus the questioned 6 units), if the applicant requests to construct 480 units; then the quota required would be 94 (or 100, minus the 6 units) from future years, or approximately 2-2/3 years of future quota. That is the 1984, 1985 and 2/3 of the 1986 competition. P&Z's decision will not hinge on 6 unverified units. Vann's suggestion is that if the applicant can solve the bulk and size concerns, if P&Z does not have a problem with the impact of the multi-year allocation concept on future years allocation and growth, then 480 should be a satisfactory number. Do not approach the issue by simply saying that 480 units is too big. Deal with the size and bulk problem through the PUD. Deal with the quota purely on the basis of whether or not P&Z thinks the multi- year allocation is appropriate with its implications on the growth management policies. Do not use the quota as a mechanism to arrive at some arbitrary size forthe hotel. Address the bulk of the building through the PUD process, not through the quota process, because, the applicant could easily argue that he could build 480 units and eliminate 50,000 or 100,000 square feet by simply removing corridors, amenities, etc. The applicant also feels that there is a certain size of the number of units necessary for revenue practicality. Since a majority of the commissioners appear to have a problem not with the number of units, but with the number and the implication to the size of the hotel (although two of you have talked about the number of units and the implication to the number of people), deal with the bulk and quota issue as previously suggested. Lee Pardee commented that the commissioners rather unanimously agreed with the architect to consider increase height and increase massing to enhance the lodge's visible acceptability. This implies an acceptance to a principal which Vann is rejecting. He noted that the applicant was not starting construction in 1984. Con- struction begins in 1985. The applicant is only asking for a 1986 allocation. By the time construction is completed, no future allocation will have been used. To evaluate the quota from a growth point of view is very academic. Pardee views the project from what massing is acceptable to the town and what amenities can be approved within the massing issue. The number of units is a function of acceptable bulk, size, height requirements. If the project requires 2~ or 2-3/4 years quota that is irrelevant. Vann disagreed. He did not feel that making a finding that growth management was or was not a problem with respect to this project was irrelevant. Alan Novak, applicant, spoke. The appplicant filed with both the Conceptual PUD and Growth Management Plan requesting allotment and allocation. There are two considerations. It is inevitable to deal with numbers when dealing with allocation of GMP; that is what the process is about, number of units, future years, future allocations. The most important consideration in conceptual PUD is appearance. With respect to this project, the applicant has to deal with the number of units and the mass of the project. There is almost as much support square footage as there is room square footage. It is not appropriate to focus on number of units if the issue is mass. Mass can be handled in a variety of ways. Future year alloca- tion can be dealt with now. The applicant agrees with Pardee, no future allocation will have been used. The project will take several years from now to complete. It is 1984 already, the 1984-85 allocations ,,, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM'~ C. F. HOECK Eel B. B. III l. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -3- do not cover the construction phases. It will be the end of 1986 before completion. The applicant requests some units from the 1986 quota. With respect to Conceptual PUD portion of the application, the applicant feels that whatever P&Z and City Council approve is conditional. The applicant understands that the city is saying to us that you can have this approval if the applicant can prove that the project can be done properly. The applicant understands that it has to do that before it gets final PUD approval. The process is a question of taking the mass that the project implies and seeing how it can be dealt with. The applicant might very well come back at preliminary and have reduced the number of rooms, the size of the rooms, the support spaces, etc. Obviously, the focus is on the number of rooms because that represents the revenue producing side of the project. The design is the mixture of all those elements. The design will be presented in an acceptable format. In the last analysis, the city can accept or reject the project. The advantage of discussing these issues now is that it keeps the process going. The applicant is now in the process of creating a nice design. We still have several months until preliminary. Harvey stated the concern of the commissioners is that if we were to recommend and award "x" number of units, and assuming Council were to concur, that that number is a given in the process of dealing with mass and bulk, and in dealing with a scaling down of common area, support services, room sizes, etc. The applicant relies on t~e number of rooms. The applicant down the line will have to decide whether he can work with the "x" number of rooms, there will be a trade off. It is a difficult situation. Harvey asked if the commissioners want to see the 44 Alpina Haus units included in the LI-L2 allocation. Vann said he wants to deal with it separately because it is a separate problem. Harvey noted that it is going to affect the decision in terms of the quota. Vann suggested that if P&Z feels that the units should be in the LI-L2 quota, and the units are germaine to the decision about the recommendation to multi-year quota, they should be contained within the resolution. Without any action on P&Z's part, it is difficult to do that. What Vann suggests is that since P&Z is inclined to approve this project, P&Z could recommend approval on the change in use subject to conditions, i.e., parking issues be mitigated by the applicant and alternatives be submitted at preliminary plat. Take action on the change in use of the Alpina Haus formally tonight. Create a Section 4 in the resolution: a change in use exemption, pursuant to the municipal code, for the Alpina Haus, conditioned upon that the use of the Alpina Haus be restricted to employee housing as the code ordinance dictates and as the Housing Authority approves; and that the potential impact resulting from the non-conforming status of the parking be mitigated by the applicant or the appropriate alternatives submitted to the department of preliminary PUD for sub- mission of P&Z consideration. That way P&Z would be able to refer action in the resolution and we could include a comment that P&Z's suggestion or recommendation of quota includes the 44 units: that the quota takes into consideration the change in use and the 44 units be credited to the LI-L2 quota. Vann said that he would take into account in Section 1 that P&Z recommends a certain total, and recommends the allocation of the Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission January 3, 1984 1983 lodge quota of 35 units, the 32 lodge quota carried over from unallocated prior years, 44 units that are returned to the LI-L2 quota as a result in the change in use, and whatever number is decided upon with respect to future years. Vann said that he has no problem with the prior years allocation, but the future years raises questions. P&Z needs to make a decision about the trade offs between upgrading the facility and obtaining the necessary tourist benefits v.s. the impacts discussed of allocating a maximum of two and two-thirds years quota. Whatever the trade offs,the language Vann suggesmfor Section 1 is: Council award a multi-year allocation, if it is so inclined, not to exceed the amounts for 1984, 1985, and 24 units from the 1986 quota. Pardee asked if "depending on the acceptability of height, bulk at preliminary" could be added. Vann suggested that either Section 2 be modified, or state in Section 1 that P&Z has some major concerns regarding the bulk, which would be addressed at PUD. Harvey asked the commissioners if there is any problem with the addition of Section 4, the change in use of the Alpina Haus subject to restrictions. Vann indicated that this does not require public hearing, but does require formal motion. Harvey asked if this could be moved when the resolution is approved. Harvey addressed a second issue. Does the commission feel that it should reconsider the language in the recommendation of the award in Section 1. The commissioners did vote unanimously for the present wording. A motion needs to be made to reconsider the language. Hunt requested that it be placed in the record that Alan Novak understands that this is conditional and understands what he earlier stated. Hunt also said that he stills has a problem with the number of people reflected by the number of units. pedestrians are still a concern. Novak said he understands what he said and stands behind it. He never believed he would get final PUD approval without satisfying the PUD requirements, which is to satisfy the public bodies with respect to size and bulk. The "480" is thoroughly conditional. Hunt said one of his problems with the "480" is that it is based on the acquisition cost of the property. In effect, the applicant is asking the city to confirm an acquisition cost greater than Hunt believes belongs on that property. This disturbs him. Novak said price was not negotiated. He would have preferred to have a land cost lower than that. It was a bankruptcy in which the secured creditors could not be satisfied. The twenty various parcels on the site are fragmented and he could not put together the kind of facility which would be an economic success and would be a desirable addition to community to replace what is currently there. Hunt said he does consider the facility desirable. But in effect, the process is affirming that the creditor gambled and won. It is the community that has to take the medicine. The secured creditor did come out well; not the unsecured creditor. Hunt happens to be one but that is not upsetting his attitude about this project. Novak said the community does not have to accept the design. The fact is, the opportunity to do a first class project on that site, so the base of Aspen Mountain could be properly developed, only existed if the applicant could provide enough money to take out the secured creditors. The banks lent money to Cantrup to buy property from some prior owner. It is hard to go back and find out where the inflation occurred; some of it was a passage of time. Vann said the Planning Office is taking the position that the fundamental concern is the size of the project. The lodge zones operate a little differently than the residential zones. Within the maximum allowable FAR, which in this case P&Z is going to be asked to determine at preliminary plat, any number of units can be constructed given the size of the units to be built. There is a point where it is too large to rent, or a point where is is too small to rent. The number of units , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F_HOECKE;lR.B.6:L.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -4- is not a very good indicator in dealing with the maximum size of the project. There is a feeling that a project of this nature is appropriate for the community, but at a reduced size. The PUD process gives P&Z an opportunity to deal with that, without concluding the eventuality of the project by arbitrarily selecting a total number of units which mayor may not make the project feasible, and assuming P&Z can solve the growth impacts associated with the multi- year allocation. That is a trade off issue which P&Z has to make a value judgement on. Hunt indicated that the least problem that he has with the project conceptually is the multi-year allocation. He is willing to say if the town needs the project, then obviously the only way to achieve it is through a multi-year allocation. Jasmine Tygre said she understands what is being said about bulk and size. She can not help but feel that if there is a reduction of even 20-30 rooms, that has to result in a scaling down of the project's size. She admits that from the outset that she would be more com- fortable with a more modest proposal; something in the 350-400 room area, an objective concept of what would be appropriate in that location. She thinks that the number of rooms cannot be divorced from the size of the project; it is a problem. She really is concerned about the number of bodies that are generated by the rooms. She understands the applicant's need to generate revenue but she cannot help but think that there has to be some kind of compromise somewhere that allows this project to be built, and still provide the amenities, and yet reduce the size. She wants that done at the outset. The first thing that happened with Marolt Ranch, the number of units and density of the project was deferred to conceptual PUD and it was there that there were many problems. The issue of bigness surfaced. How does one decide what is too big? Is P&Z going to o.k. the project on the basis of liking the building. That is poor planning. Vann said he was misquoted. If one wants to deal with bulk problems through the number of units, removing sixteen units off the top story is not going to solve the problem. If there is a consensus of people that feel that a substantial reduction in bulk is appropriate, then the way to do that is through an allowance of quota of 350-400 units. It appeared however at the last session, that the consensus was that if that is the approach, one precludes the ability to view the project based on the recommendation of the applicant. He is not recommending that the applicant be allocated two and two-thirds years quota, it is only a way to approach the problem. Tygre understood. She thinks, however, the number of rooms is a significant factor. Sixteen may not be it, but whatever the agreed upon number, it will affect the size. The issue of massing cannot be divorced from the number of rooms. The number of people again is a great concern. She cannot imagine an 88% occupancy of 480 rooms. John Doremus, representing the applicant, said the total numbers are frightening. The projects that already exist there include 269-270 units which have for years generated people on that six acres. However, based on the experts projections, the average occupancy in the fifth year in the hotel is 713 guests. That is 1.9 persons per room. The existing 270 units generate already 526 people coming and going from that site. This project is adding 187. Focus on the net increase, that is not so horrendous in a tourist community which beds down 5000 people without any difficulty. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 Novak said if one takes the daily occupancy as it is, keeps the units that exist, and sold the vacant land to different buyers who would come in the next few years asking for allocations, one would arrive where things are now. The exception is that there would be a hOdgepodge of old units and not a coordinated program at the base of the mountain. The applicant sees finishing off the lodge develop- ment at the base of the mountain forever, having first class hotel with the amenities, and servicing the community. Welton Anderson expressed that he was upset at the arbitrariness of gnawing away at the rooms. This is hard to defend if the concerns are density, massing, bulk, shadows on Durant Street, architectural issues, which all are more appropriately handled in the PUD process. Is there a more appropriate place in the community where the lodge could be sited. Why reserve quotas from future years for sites that have not been identified as being more desirable. He supports the figure 480 and the multi-year allocation. Harvey again addressed the issue: does the commission reopen Section 1 for the opportunity to change the language. Sheldon agreed that there is a need to reopen Section 1 in light of the multi-year quota issue and in light of the difference in the balance of commissioners that are here as compared to last week. There are two considerations. The height, bulk, and mass is one very real consideration. And, as Vann says, it is not directly connected to the number of rooms. The height, bulk, and mass can be varied without changing the number of rooms. That is up to the applicant. The additional consideration is the number of units is directly connected to the number of bodies placed on that site. He feels that 350-400 rooms probably puts too many bodies on the site. And there is trouble in terms of growth management. Average days are fine; but on the peak days, when it is not 713, but 950 or 1100 plus employees, there are going to be some major problems at the corner of Mill and Durant. Nonetheless, the community has agreed that something is needed. This is the best proposal that has been or will have been seen in a long time. Given that 400 rooms is not buildable from the applicant's perspective, there is not that much difference between 400 or 480. If we agree to the project, if we agree to support the applicant, then it is 464 (minus the sixteen rooms in the tower). Sheldon moved to reopen Section 1 for discussion. Seconded by Hunt. All in favor, except Jasmine Tygre. Carolyn Doty, member of the public, said this is an impact issue. At the top of Mill 140 rooms are not even being considered, the Mil~ Street residential section. Doty demonstrated the following: number of units rooms generated lodge rooms 1 bedroom suites 2 bedroom suites lock out rooms from the 2 bedroom suites penthouse suites 250 75 (x2) 50(x2) 250 150 100 50 50 subtotal Mill St. residential units 55(x2) 480 110 660 140 140 Total 2 pillows per room 620 800 x 2 = 800 1600 people/pillows Novak said the applicant is replacing residential units at the top of Mill Street, and he is not asking any allocation for those units. There is no GMP association. The pillows are counted already in the residential units. Theoretically, there are 480 hotel rooms without suites. Suites are not intended to add more people. He believes with this type of luxury hotel, the intent is not to pack in large - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRM<D C.F.HOECHLD.8.1l: L. CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -5- families. Doty said she is not arguing against suites, but impact of people. Doty said several members of this commission have stated concerns about impact and numbers of people, she presented the figures. Marge Riley, member of the public, said the open space committee is still concerned with the vehicle and pedestrian congestion along with the utility problems such as water and sewer problems. The committee feels the Planning Office needs to readdress these issues more thoroughly. There have been no answers. Harvey said all those are conditions in the resolution, and P&Z is in agreement those issues need to be addressed at preliminary. Riley asked if the public will be notified as to how they will be solved. Harvey said yes at a public hearing. Mary Peyton, member of the public, noted that GMP and height limita- tions were created for a purpose, to protect the public. It is inequitable to allow some developers to break these restrictions and to force small developers to abide by them. This is opening the door to lawsuits in the future. John Doremus responded that the applicant is not breaking any regulation of the code. There is no violation of the height limitation. Vann said that in this case no decisions have been made whether to warrant variances of PUD. The applicant will be given an opportunity to demonstrate the need for variances in the PUD regulations if it is necessary. Gus Hallam, member of the public, questioned if the open space is above the 80/40 greenline and if the open space which is part of the hotel is also part of the residential application. Doremus said no. It may appear that the open space is part of the residential application, but it is not. It is in fact a PUD; the open space benefits the entire PUD. Doty asked if there are not some open space requirements on the hotel itself. Harvey answered that it is his understanding that the open space as it is submitted is 27%, the requirement is 25%. Vann said there is a popular misconception about the open space requirements. If one reads the provisions of the code, open space can be used for the public at large or for the occupants of the hotel. A large portion of the open spaces associated with this project is internalized as an amenity for the hotel. It is viewable from the mountain, not from the town. It does meet the minimum requirements for open space under the provision of the code. Doty said the committee to preserve open space wants it on the record that it does not agree with the open space being inside the hotel. Norma Dolle, member of the public, said she is concerned about the mass and bulk of this project. She would like to see the commissioners explore with the developer ways to reduce the bulk; cut down on courtyards, lobby space, conference rooms, parking areas, etc. She would also like the commissioners to address the floor area patio problem. The floor area for this project is 284,246 square feet. The proposed floor area is 377,150 square feet; this is almost 100,000 square feet over FAR restrictions. Granted a hotel project of this magnitude happens only once in twenty-five years, but for the last two weeks it has been bad in town with the snow, the roads, the cars, the traffic. She has not been able to drive for three days because she could not get out of her road. She is concerned about the impact of all the people, cars, if the site is developed. Once the hotel is built, it will be too late. She is not opposed to a nice hotel, but is upset With the impact. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 Doty commented that the financial feasibility keeps the number of rooms high. The developer insinuates that he can not make a profit without 464-480 units. She wants that shown in a cost estimate; she does not believe the figures. Forty or fifty million dollars will be made off the the Mill Street residential units, the 700 S. Galena, the Summit Place, and the Aspen Meadows (as calculated by the committee to preserve open space). The hotel may not be profitable, but the applicant will do well. The applicant threatens to pullout if he does not receive the units requested, it is a bluff. Doty requested the names of the commissioners who are creditors of Cantrup and might have a conflict of interest. Harvey referred to the November 22, 1983 meeting. He stated at that time a conflict of interest, or a potential conflict of interest regarding his work on the Hotel Jerome. At that time Harvey read a letter from the owner of the Hotel Jerome stating that the owner did not feel there was a conflict of interest. Harvey read a letter from himself. The attorney for Lyle Reider, an applicant, stated that he had no problem with Harvey hearing these applications. Art Daley, the attorney for Commerce Savings Association, said he had no problem with Harvey hearing the case. Gary Esary stated that the procedure outlined in the letter was consistent. Welton Anderson at that time stated he was a creditor in the bankruptcy, and did not feel bias. Roger Hunt, in the same position, agreed. Mr. Hugus, Mr. Reider's attorney, asked the members if they had specific creditor problems with real estate. Hunt and Anderson answered no. Art Daley stated that the Aspen Mountian Lodge felt no conflict of interest. Harvey, in response to a question by the public, said that this was in connection with the GMP competition. Novak said there are a lot of loaded words from the public that are not appropriate; the applicant has never said if he did not get a certain number of units he would pullout. The applicant is serious and believes he is well intentioned and has tried in the presentations to demonstrate that. Novak said there is a difference between profit and financing. The Meadows is not relevant at this point, it is not zoned. The lodge has to be looked at as a facility that Aspen either wants or does not want. The problem with the facility is the large funding costs. The applicant came up with the best number of units that he could in terms of revenue generating costs, and kept the number as small as possible. Harvey said it is not the commission's concern to judge the financial feasibili.t:yof any project before the P&Z; its concern is to view it from the town's perspective. The reason P&Z involved itself with this project, is it feels the community wants a hotel project at the site. Projections of profits is not a pertinent issue. please confine comments to impact of people, etc., not to the total assets_ and net worth of the applicant. Doty said it is pertinent, Sheldon earlier remarked that certain room numbers are necessary to make the project financially feasible. Harvey responded that the only concern is if a decision makes or breaks the project, and ultimately that is the applicant's responsibility. Don Crawford, member of the public, expressed concern over the figures on the impact report. He wondered if the applicant is willing to restrict the occupancy to two persons per unit, if so he would like a condition in the resolution indicating this. Crawford is not con- vinced this is a first class hotel, rather than a large hotel. He sees nothing unique to place the hotel in a five-star category, the hotel could fill up more than one thinks. Harvey said that is a valid suggestion; but it should be dealt with in preliminary PUD. It is P&Z's job here to recommend to Council that in concept this is a good-looking project on this piece of property. During the preliminary PUD P&Z lists specific concerns: density, impact, bulk, mass, shading on Durant Street, engineering concerns, maximizing number of people. Crawford asked the applicant directly if he would be willing to do that. Novak said he has no feeling what the rules should be to govern the operation of the hotel, he needs to be advised. Novak said that the suites are contemplated for double occupancy not for a family of four or six. They are not being designed for that. '- .' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fCRill" C.F.HOECKEL8.a.I:lL.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -6- Hunt advised the public that if the project does not meet the criteria necessary to make it not a burden to the community in the preliminary PUD, he will vote no. If he votes yes this evening he is not obli- gated to 480 units. Tyrge, Fallin, White and Hunt are nervous about the figure 480. There is a concern by some of the commissioners about the impact of the number of units. Marc Friedberg, member of the public, submitted the following comments. All understand the problems, and do not intend to minimize them, but move the process along. To sit here week after week and talk about the number of bodies or pillows when no one is qualified here to provide a subjective count, is wasting time. The proper forum for this reopened discussion and for the new contributions provided by Ms. Doty is at City Council. He agrees with Vann. Adopt the resolution so that there are good safeguards to protect the city and P&Z. Tonight no progress is being made. White said the question is the size, bulk, and impact. There is a need for the hotel, no one has said otherwise, on that site. The developer needs 480 units. The community states the impacts of the problem. White wants the impacts minimized so he can agree with a number. Harvey said the applicant's agreement to the number of units is not cast in conrete. The language in the resolution should reflect that: the number of units is conditioned upon the acceptability of massing, bulk, perceived bulk, density of the project as it relates to the site, to the surrounding neighborhood, and to the city in general. Incorporate specific concerns in the resolution, like, shading of Durant, moving pedestrians across Durant, architectural revisions to Durant Avenue, etc. Note the number is conditioned upon acceptability at preliminary. Vann said he needs some direction to the number. Tygre said the undefined quota is reminiscent of Murolt Ranch. Since Tygre is opposed to 480, it is misleading to the applicant to say he can build 480 units. Anderson entertained a motion to amend Section 1. Hunt said he is not married to 480 units. Anderson suggested phrasing the language "as not more than 'x' units." White will not go higher than 450. Hunt suggested not indicating a specific number, instead: "sufficient multi-year allocation to build the hotel." Vann interrupted, the problem is that P&Z is going to have to allocate at conceptual level, but the final decision is at preliminary. The appli- cant is to be given some guidance by the commission. He suggested to say: to allocate quota and to make a final decision at preliminary PUD; the applicant has indicated his needs.but the commission is not convinced that it will work; the commission will give the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate and prove it at preliminary PUD. White said he will accept the phrasing "the applicant proposes 480 but the commission does not necessarily accept that, the applicant will have to prove it." Vann asked for a general consensus; there was a general consensus. Sheldon questioned Section 2: what happened to street vacations and specificity of the trade offs. Vann said he was to rewrite the wording to be generic; clarification was made in Section 2, part 5. Pardee questioned the expiration date. Vann said that is put back under Section 1. The applicant sent letters agreeing to an earlier expiration date; that will be included. Pardee said note that building has to be finished in two years. White is concerned about Section 2, part 12: how is the hotel going to be managed, how is it to be financed, how long will it be before receiving that Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 that information. Someone responded at preliminary plat. Hunt questioned the access to service areas. Harvey asked that some language about density and impact on the neighborhood be put in. He asked for cross referencing of specifics on FAR height, bulk, and impact. Hunt said include service areas in that. Harvey asked about future year allocations and build out potential in the LI-L2 lodge; Vann said include it in Section 1. Harvey said include a "whereas" in Section 1. Harvey reminded Vann to include a Section 4, the change in use of the Alpina Haus. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'. c.F.HOECKELB.B.a-l.CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -7- A-I T.V., INC./PYRAMID TRAVEL - SPECIAL USE Collete Penne, Planning Office, said there are two things to be dealt with here. First, A-I T.V. is located below Clark's Market and they want to move to the space next to Clark's Market between Pyramid Travel and Clark's. They are going to occupy essentially the same amount of space, which is approximately 1000 square feet. The Plan- ning Office considered dealing with this as an Ordinance 17 action at a staff level review. However, A-I T.V. is expanding their operation; they may be selling records, tapes, and video tapes, and renting that equipment. Second, Pyramid Travel wants to expand use of the remainder of that space, which is slightly over 700 square feet. P&Z considered their expansion along with the Emporium Fabric Shop, it went through conditional use to have entered the same space. There was a specific approval for 400 square feet. The Planning Office feels that both of these uses meet conditional use criteria. Pyramid Travel has been t~rough this before and we do not think there have been any changes. The move of A-I T.V. within a same space utilizes the same services and has the same impact. It just makes it a more convenient retail location for that shop. Ms. Penne did not believe that adding another 700 square feet to the approval P&Z gave pyramid Travel a month or so ago will have an impact. Plan- ning Office recommends that P&Z approve the move of A-I T.V.; the exten- sion of Pyramid Travel to occupy an additional 700 square feet (and Pyramid Travel would then have approximately 1000 square feet); and recommends A-I T.V. be allowed to expand their sales to records, tapes, and rental of those supplies. Roger Hunt asked if the expansion of sales and rentals is a conditional use of NC zone. Ms. Penne responded that actually the t.v. sales and service shop is a conditional use in the NC zone; it is less non- conforming in NC than in SCI. Hunt said fine and that he is interested in keeping SCI space. Perry Harvey opened the public hearing. He asked for comments, there v.ere none. He closed the public hearing. He asked if the commissioners had any questions. Hunt moved to grant expansion of the conditional use permit for Pyramid Travel to occupy the additional 708 square feet, this is a net increase of 708 square feet over what they had previously applied for. And further recommends approval of the A-I T.V. move from their basement space to occupy Space 205 of the Trueman Center, to occupy 1000 square feet of the space, and to expand into sales of tapes and records, and into rental of video supplies. It was seconded by Paul Sheldon. All in favor, motion carried. HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS Alan Richman, Planning Office, explained this is a condominiumization that P&Z once before reviewed back in 1981. Richman brought this appli- cation forward to P&Z as the Vicenzi-Goldstein subdivision exceptions across the street from the post office. P&Z recommended approval of it. It went up to council on condition of approval of a series of safety upgrades of the building based on inspection by building inspec~ Lor Herb Paddock. They were so extensive that the applicant could not see his way to proceed with the condominiumization. A couple of months ago, Jim Wilson did a follow up inspection at the request of the applicant. He found that many of the requirements were not only stringent, but, not in keeping with the spirit of the condominiumization ,----'^".- If.. . _.",""_ ~gular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 regulation which is life, health and safety; and not necessarily bringing the building to compliance with the current code. The applicant therefore is asking P&Z to move the condominiumization forward again. There is one slight addition to the project. When P&Z last reviewed it, it was on two lots. There are two corner lots upon which the Hannah Dustin sits. The owner, George Vicenzi, also owns the other two lots upon which the A-frame on Hyman Street sits. Since he can not do a lot split because of the location, the A-frame also has to be condominiumized. The review comments are fairly perfunctory. Engineering asked for many changes' to plat, to bring the building up to code requirements. They noted that an encroachment license is needed for intrusion onto Spring Street. They also talked about a sidewalk along Hyman Avenue. When P&Z reviewed this in 1981, they talked about whether it should be considered a sidewalk improvement district, or a sidewalk should be built. It was P&Z's recommendation at that time that a sidewalk be built. Please, continue with that recommendation. The A-frame will be shifted to employee housing, and follow those guidelines for employee housing for the next five years. The applicant does not have any problem with that particular requirement. The Building Department, as said earlier, did a reinspection of the office building. There is a memo dated September 19, 1983, that sets some requirements for bringing that building up to code. They did an inspection on December 30th, last Friday, of the A-frame. Richman received the memo last Friday, the 30th, and simply included it in the packet. It is a memo from Gary Esary. After talking with Gideon Kaufman, Richman fee~that some of the requirements, particularly the requirements for the A-frame, fall into the realm beyond life, health and safety requirements, and not necessarily within the rea~of what the applicant was looking for on the basis of the code requirements. Richman suggested to Kaufman that, as a compromise, P&Z would not require any of the building code changes be applied to the A-frame until such time that the A-frame is conveyed. That unit is going to stay as a rental unit, in deed restricted status. Richman does not think that it is particularly fair to impose heavy obligations upon the A-frame building at this time. That is not the intent. Lee Pardee asked Richman if Jim Wilson, in looking at the larger building, has a good feel for the life, health, and safety concerns, but not with respect to the A-frame. Richman answered that Jim did not do the inspection on the A-frame, some other inspector did. And yes, that some of these elements of life, health and safety, which he does wish to talk about, are excessive. Kaufman may also want to comment on those which he too feels are excessive. Perry Harvey asked if the intent is to split the two parcels out, because of the merging of the common ownership. Gideon Kaufman responded that the real issue is the A~frame.The intent is to comdominiumize the office building, not the A-framE. Because one of the owners owns adjacent lots, both buildings have to be condominiumized at the same time. The purpose of the condominiumization ordinance is to deal with those buildings that are actually condo- miniumized. The desire is not to condominiumize the A-frame. But, because there is common ownership the A-frame has to take on the general common element. Because of a particular quirk of merger, the A-frame is being inspected when it should not have been in- spected in the first place. Pardee commented that some of the items are true safety items. Kaufman commented that Richman's compromise was acceptable. The purpose of the health and safety features is to protect the future buyer. If someone was to purchase the unit, the seller did not want him to think that the building was a safe and healthy kind of place. The A-frame eventually will be torn down and the office building expanded. The expense associated with the changes is so high, that the applicant would have to tear down the A-frame at this time. He does not want RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM'D C.F.HOECKfLe.B.ltl.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -8- to do that. The applicant would be willing to put in a smoke detector, and other minor things. Pardee mentioned that the woodstove lacked the required clearance. Kaufman said the required clearance is 3 feet; in 1963, when the building was built, it was legal. Since then UVC has been changed; where it used to be a foot and half from the wall it has to be three feet from the wall. That is difficult to change. The stairways are legal. Pardee said he would insist on keeping conditions number two, three, four, and six which is critical (conditions listed in memorandum dated January 3, 1984, titled "Hannah Dustin," from the Planning Office, pages two and three). Pardee was concerned that people are sleeping in rooms that do not have emergency fire exits. Kaufman corrected him; the rooms do have exits but they do not meet today's standards. UVC has been changed four times since the building was built. Pardee further asked if a person of regular size could exit from the windows. Kaufman said that is not the issue. It is the same issue as the deficiencies in the exit doors; the difference between 6'-4" and 6'-8". Pardee said that he understands that. He did not say change that. Pardee wants Jim Wilson to look at the building. Pardee feels that this is an opportunity for P&Z to enter a building and make sure it is as safe as possible. Richman interjected that do not make the conditions such that the A-frame is lost. Pardee mentioned that the electrical panel is not accessible, that is important. Kaufman stated that the the entire electrical wiring would have to be changed. Richman wished to pare down the safety list to those items which are crucial for people to live in the buildings safely and to those items which address the conveyance of the units. He does not want to eliminate all the conditions; some are reasonable and doable. Kaufman explained that the ordinance was adopted as an amendment to the condominiumization ordinance to address the following: as one condominiumized units and possibly generated some additional income, that the buyer of the units be protected. In this situation the A-frame is excess baggage. The A-frame is included in the condo- miniumization because of the code and the merger of the adjacent properties. It is not part of the condominium, it is not part of the office. This is not the intent of the condominiumization ordinance. The alternative is to tear down the A-frame if the changes are too expensive. Again the applicant does not wish to do that. Perry Harvey asked if P&Z deed restricted the property for five years what would be the response. Kaufman responded that then the applicant would have to find another place to house the employees. Kaufman suggested that this was absurd. Paul Sheldon asked questions about the office building. Sheldon stated he visited the office building site. He talked with some of the tenants. The general consensus was that people seemed happy with the building. The exception was that it was poorly maintained. The front lobby is bordering on dangerous; the bricks are deteriorating and becoming a tripping hazard. The wiring is it safe, are there enough outlets in the office building? Has the Building Department addressed these issues? Is it necessary to provide a stipulation that a condo association be formed? Harvey answered that when a condominium associ- ation is formed, a declaration is drawn up, etc. Kaufman commented on the specifics of the conditions. He first addressed Condition lC, dimensioning parking spaces. The applicant prefers to say that a parking area will be designated, but without individual parking spaces delineated. Designated parking has never been provided, Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 and it is not intended to be done. The designated parking area will meet requirements. Harvey instructed Kaufman to indicate the designated parking area on the site plan. Harvey also stated that the applicant should designate individual spaces to eliminate driver confusion on where to park within the parking area. Kaufman stated that when the building is torn down, the parking area will change. Harvey responded that the applicant could amend that. Kaufman conceded the issue. Kaufman addressed Condition lH, providing a title certificate and mortgage certificate. The applicant consulted the attorney's office. To date that has never been done and does need to be done. Harvey concurred. Kaufman then disagreed with a point on Condition 4, construction of a sidewalk. The more enlightened approach is to join an improvement district. The sidewalk will go no where, it deadends. If the city puts a sidewalk in, the applicant will follow. But why put one in at this time when it has no destination; it will have to be maintained and shovelled. Pardee answered that this project is a large office building with an adjoining lot occupying almost two-thirds of a block. P&z required it once before, and for consistency should require it again. Richman commented that this is a commercial project not a residential project. There is a difference. Kaufman asked for a compromise, no sidewalk for designated parking spaces. Pardee said no. Kaufman stated for A, B, C, D, and E of the office building the conditions could be addressed. For unit "F", because of an existing leasehold, the applicant would prefer to address the conditions at the time anyone of the units was sold. This would allow some time to change the lease of the current tenants. The Building Department requestsa second door be provided in one of the offices, a second exit. This would disrupt a space which is currently under a lease, we do not have the right to interrupt the leasehold at this time. Richman said that Jim Wilson was amenable to this. If one reads Wilson's comments, Vicenzi indicated a door would be added as necessary and Wilson did not see this as a safety hazard. Harvey recommended that the applicant work these details out with Jim Wilson and the Building Department. Pardee stated that P&Z approval was contingent upon receiving a letter indicating agreement between Wilson and the applicant about what has to be done. Harvey stated that if the apPlicant approached Wilson with the idea to do the changes when the units are sold (Richman's proposal to do the changes at conveyance), it may be interpreted that the applicant might not make the necessary changes because the applicant is going to tear the building down. P&Z says some of these changes ought to be done now. Wilson needs to create a hybrid list. Richman's sug- gestion was not favored. Welton Anderson asked why is the property not under one ownership, why is it under two different names. Kaufman answered that, when the property was purchased in the 1970's, the owners'action was dictated by the merger doctrine, voted on by P&Z. Welton asked if this fact was not caught two years ago. Harvey said the owners then did not realize it. Harvey asked if Vicenzi built across Lot B to Lot C. Someone answered no. Richman stated that is why a lot split can not be done. Harvey recommended an addition of "as the Building Department deems necessary" in the resolution. Kaufman asked what happens if the Building Department claims that the ceiling height in the bathroom is too low. Someone said that the applicant then proceeds to the Board of Adjustments. Pardee assured Kaufman that that probably would not happen. Wilson has indicated that he is far more flexible than Herb Paddock. Richman asked if the resolution comffiback to P&Z or is it sent to council. Harvey requested that the chairman review it prior to sending it to council. Harvey asked Kaufman if he is comfortable with the decisions. Kaufman said no, and that if he has problems with the Building Department he will return to P&Z. ./ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'. C. F. HOECKEL B. e.1> L. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -9- Harvey asked if the commissioners have any questions. Roger Hunt moved to grant subdivision exception to the applicants for the Hannah Dustin Building for the purposes of its condominiumization, subject to the following conditions (which are listed in the memorandum to the P&Z, from Alan Richman, Planning Office, titled "Hannah Dustin Condominiumization," datEd January 3, 1984, pages two and three) : conditions in paragraph one are the same; conditions two through seven are the same with the exception that under seven, paragraph on "for residential building," under condition "a" shall be added the words "as the Building Department deems necessary;" and paragraph eight is the same. Seconded by Lee Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. The following commissioners left the chambers at 7:20 p.m.: Lee Pardee, Jasmine Tygre and Paul Sheldon. ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION Harvey assured the applicant that there is a quorum, four commissioners constitute a quorum. Colette Penne proceeded. The issue is a R15 PUD and C Conservation lot. The parcel includes some area in the county which will not be dealt with at all. The property is composed of steep slopes and many trees. The applicant chose to consider the density population and redevelopment purposes in the city land below the 80/40 greenline. There is a small area above the 80/40 greenline within the city's boundaries, approximately three quarters of an acre, which the applicant did not address. The focus will be on conceptual subdivision, conceptual PUD, approval to build within 50 yards of the 80/40 greenline, and GMP exemption for three deed restricted employee units. The initial action the Planning Office took was to verify number of units. There is attached to the memo (issued by the Planning Office titled "Aspen Chance Subdivision," January 3, 1984) a letter written by the Planning Office to the applicant indicating how many units the department considered to be verifiable. The unit count came to seven; three market residential units proposed for this project were verified as existing residential units on the property. The seven units are exempted from residential growth management competition by Section 24-11.2A. That exemption allows for reconstruction of any building that exists as of November, 1977, provided no additional dwel- lings are created. In this case, seven free market residential units proposed on seven lots and three caretaker units within three of those seven structures are going through whole subdivision. There is no condominiumization proposed. Without condominiumization the question of whether there is any reduction in employee housing does not come into play. That question was put to rest through the exemption and verification of units and by the fact that condominiumization was not requested. Harvey asked if bedrooms or units are being dealt with. Penne said units. Penne continued to say that, in addition, exemption is being requested for 3 deed restricted employee housing units, rental units, which, as mentioned before, are within the free market residential structures. The decision to ask for these three residential employee units came later in the process. Planning Office did not refer these units to the Housing Authority for its recommendation in terms of size, number of bedrooms, price restrictions, etc. The specifics we want P&Z to to review at preliminary stage. Planning Office feels that it is important for the Housing Authority to look at this ".""",,,,,;,,-,,,,,,,.- 1 I. ~,-, Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission January 3, 1984 and make a recommendation for P&Z's consideration. Penne said that a caretaker unit of this type is not customarily in the city; it is in the county. Harvey noticed that first she was talking about employee housing then talking about caretaker apartments. Penne responded that how she deals with that is to consider this in terms of density, consider these duplex units. The caretaker units do meet the requirements for duplex units. If the Housing Authority will accommodate these within the city, which she feels it will, the caretaker units will remain true caretaker units and will be price restricted to a rental category, will be rented, and will be occupied by a tenant who also will have something to do with the upkeep of the residential unit. Harvey asked if it is important to the deal that these be caretaker units. Karen Smith, Planning and Management Services, said that the units were only called that because they would operate like that. They are essentially deed restricted employee one bedroom units. Harvey asked if they would not be in the for sale inventory, but in the rental. Penne answered that in fact they can not be in the for sale inventory because the applicant would have to condominiumize the duplexes. For their purposes that raises many employee housing questions. Harvey suggested that in these conditions that the amount of work being done by the caretaker be given some value and included in the rent. He wanted to avoid in the duplexes a situation, as in the case of Andre, where shovelling the walk, fixing the roof, mowing the lawn, became-- onerous. Penne said that she will attend that issue, debate it and see how it is dealt with. Harvey asked the commissioners if this is a fair representation among them. The answer is yes. Penne said that she has gone through in the second paragraph, page three (of the memorandum "Aspen Chance Subdivision," dated January 3, 1984), and shown exactly that the net amount of land that is available for density population is just under 145,000 square feet. The R-15 zone requires 120,000 square feet for the number of units the applicant is proposing. This parcel is of adequate size to accommodate the seven units and the three caretaker units if they are approved. Penne continued to say that, as has been mentioned, the applicant is going through conceptual PUD, conceptual subdivision, and 80/40 green- line. As stated in Section 27, the purpose of conceptual review for subdivision is to "authorize further study on the project." And that some aspects of this proposal are preliminary at this time. Note that there are no lot lines shown yet on the site plans, and the code does require those to be shown at preliminary plat. Specifically, she thinks the biggest question in the subdivision section, is the assurance of the suitability of the land for subdivision. The ap- plicant is aware of the need for further study in the preliminary work that he has done. The applicant has undertaken that simultaneously with the referral process. There is a preliminary review of engineer- ing geology of the site that is attached as Appendix E to the applica- tion that Planning Office received. Further investigation and more detailed proposals will be forthcoming at preliminary plat concerning landscape grading, containment of runoff, control of erosion suita- bility of the mine tailings. Those are all basic to the evaluation of the site suitability. The site is outside avalanching hazard zones. There may be some flooding cOnSirerations associated with peak runoff. The question of the existence of old mine shafts appears to have been addressed and eliminated; it is not a strong statement. P&Z may have received more information concerning this already. It is not going to be a problem. Penne commented that comformance with section 20-17, which is the design standards for subdivisions, will have to be demonstrated in the preliminary plat: submission for the off street and any related improvement easements, utilities, public dedications, etc. In terms of access to the site, the proposal is for the existing access to the Aspen Alps Road to continue. There will be another access off of Ute Avenue. There is some question raised by the attorney's office about the grade of the access, which is 6-8%. The code allows 10%. There is no comment yet from the fire chief concerning the ~^,./ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOECKEL8.B.lI:l.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -10- emergency access. That is necessary and will be covered at plat. Parking will be provided at one space per bedroom internally. It will be eliminated from ute Avenue; this is certainly upgrading the situation that currently exists. The tennis courts at the Alps will be provided with access and separate parking. The issue for approval of this recommendation is that the agreements be formalized: the access to the Alp's tennis courts, the access for their parking agreement, the shared access on the road. These should be formalized through the recording of the agreement. The attorney's office also made comments concerning the potential inadequacy of ute Avenue in light of the other applications that are anticipated. The Planning Office feels that this project is basically the replacement of residential units with a higher quality residential unit. It does not see it as being a growth generator. Penne thinks to burden the applicant with some sort of upgrading of ute Avenue at this time is preliminary and should not be done. There may be some improvement districts that the applicant might have to join, i.e., sidewalk improvements, but substantial upgrading of ute Avenue is probably not the responsibility of this applicant. Penne also feels that because of the type of units which are going to be provided, and considering the number of people who live on the parcel now who are full-time residents, the actual number of people in cars may be less than the current situation. She assumes these will largely be second homes. Harvey asked if there is additional access from ute Avenue other than what currently exists. Karen Smith responded that there will be one turnoff from Ute Avenue, but it essentially improves the situation. Currently everyone parks off on Ute Avenue, and there is one wall of parking. Smith indicated the location of the one access on the site plan. Penne said that it is one curve cut. White asked if it is technically a road now. Someone said yes. Hunt asked what is the space that appears in the vicinity of that part of the project. Smith answered that it is a parcel owned by Bill Hewitt, and previously owned by Ralph Jackson. Harvey noted that he did not see anything in the conditions on one parking space per bedroom. Penne informed him that she did not make it part of the conditions because the applicant already made it part of his application. The applicant already designated one parking space per bedroom; it is part of the code. Harvey asked if there ''Were any stipulations on improvement districts in the conditions. Penne answered no. She thinks that generally the applicant is required to join improvemnt districts. If the improvement district goes in to improve the curving sidewalks, then the applicant should participate. There should be a condition added. Penne briefly explained what the applicant is proposing. The applicant plans to alter the existing topography through terracing, to reshape mine tailings, to maximize privacy, and to shield the buildings from public view as much as possible. The natural bench of the upper site will be maintained and used as a site for two of the structures which the commissioners viewed today in the site visit. The applicant has stated that he intends to keep the majority of existing trees. The code requires that trees over six inches in diameter be looked at; that will be looked at in detail in preliminary plat. The applicant has been informed of this. The utilities will be under ground. Natural spring water runs through the property, and the applicant intends to use that to their aesthetic advantage. There is a natural spring that Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 comes out of the old mine shaft. This ultimately will discharge into Glory Hole Park. penne suggested a condition that P&Z needs to review this in some detail, to review what kind of sediment load may be deposited into Glory Hole Park. Penne said that Ms. Smith feels the applicant can show P&Z that Glory Hole Park will be non-impacted. Harvey asked if it is discharging there now. Smith said there is runoff from the site. Penne said it flows to the side of the barn. It then simply disappears. Someone from the audience said it flows through the Alps. Smith said it is part of the ditch system. Penne also suggested as a condition an ongoing maintenance agreement with the city to remove any sedimentation, so it does not become a burden on the city. Smith said the applicant proposed to do two things on the site to control the runoff. One is to redirect the ditch water through the center of the site into settling ponds. Second, to provide catch basins on all the paved surfaces to catch the runoff and retain it on the site. Smith thinks that the she and the applicant will be able to demonstrate in preliminary plat that this can be done so as to not cause any continuing problem in Glory Hole Park. Hunt asked, with regards to Condition 7, what provision should the city have for providing the maintenance of the settling ponds within the project site. What kind of agreement should there be? It is fine to have settling ponds, but they do fill up. Smith said that is something one would typically do through the improvement agreement in the subdivision process. She thinks that would come at the next phase; language could be provided to that effect. Penne agreed. Penne expressed that initially there may not be aproblem with Glory Hole Park, but three years down the road there may be. There is no mechanism to deal with that. She further stated that until there are lot lines and other details on grading and terracing, it is somewhat difficult to evaluate some of the merits of the site plan in terms of conceptual PUD. She thinks at the conceptual stage, the applicant is utilizing PUD to get some flexibility and to add some site amenities and aesthetics that will be an asset to the site. We will look at these in greater detail when we see exactly what the applicant is talking about. It is possible that there may not be any variations in the underlying area in bulk requirements. She is not holding the applicant to that. The indications so far is that the applicant will be able to work within the setback and height limitations, without variance. , However, the applicant has a right to ask for these at preliminary plat, if he so choses. As required by code, the applicant has to include a statement of intention for future ownership for all portions. The owner of the parcel plans to retain one of the upper sites for his home, then sell the other six sites with limited land area. Each purchaser will have an interest in a common area. 80/40 greenline review and the review for mandatory PUD are identical with one additional criteria. This is a preliminary presentation and it is difficult to evaluate the criteria at this point. She recommends that P&Z hold that review and the GMP exemption until preliminary plat. She suggested postponing reviewing the nine criteria in detail at a later time. Penne said the other consideration is that the applicant intends to get a trail easement, 40 feet in width with the developed trail of 8 feet in width to the City of Aspen for ski-in and hiking access from Aspen Mountain. The applicant is working with representatives at Fritz Benedict's office to get cooperation with adjacent owners so that the trail will extend to Ute Avenue, to connect the Gant with the mountain and the Aspen Club. Smith said the trail is on the portion of the si te that lies in the county. The applicant would be more than interested in dedicating that as a trail easement and has worked with Mr. Benedict to create that across the other properties as well. Penne recommended approval of conceptual sUbdivision and conceptual PUD for the construction.o.f seven units on the property as presented. She further recommended that the action on the GMP exemption request for the three employee units and the 80/40 greenline be deferred to preliminary plat. The conditions recommended for the conceptual approval are the fifteen ocnditions listed on page 7 of the "Aspen . , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M ~o C. F. ~atcKEL B. B. 1.1 l. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 -11- Chance Subdivision" dated January 3, 1984. Hunt suggested adding a Condition 16, "fue applicant will join in any sidewalk, gutter improvement district that P&Z wants developed." Harvey said to add to Condition 7 that "continuing maintenance would be part of that improvement agreement." Hunt added "continuing maintenance on the on-site pond." Harvey stated that the bulk and height impact on the open character of the mountain will be discussed in preliminary. Is that handled in the 80/40 greenline? Penne said yes. White expressed his appreciation of the visual aides provided by the applicant. Harvey asked Smith if she has any further comments. Smith stated that Penne has covered it. There is one thing to add. The applicant views the PUD as an opportunity to work with that site and to create a better plan for that site. In fact, in reshaping and clustering the units, the open character of the mountain will be maintained. David's preliminary designs are intended to create the open feel of the mountain and to tuck the buildings into the side of the hill as much as possible, to keep the site as invisible as it is today. The other point Smith addressed is employee housing. Although it is not required by the code she thinks it is a good idea, and will serve the project well, that the applicant offer the three employee units which are characterized as the caretaker units. The only consideration is to preserve the opportunity for the owner to choose a qualified rentor. That is something that will be taken up with the Housing Authority. We are in basic agreement with the points raised by the Planning Office. The applicant will present more detailed design work in the next phase, it is the more appropriate time to review and to decide the case. With respect to Glory Hole Park, the applicant would like the opportunity to demonstrate that he can retain the water and sedimentation on site. With respect to the 6" trees, the applicant realizes he has to seek city approval. He may wish to do that however. He has been advised by some landscaping people that some of the trees are in poor health now, the trees would benefit from being weeded out. In reshaping the site, it would probably be better to plant the trees on new topsoil. This will be addressed through the landscaping plan of the next phase. Kaufman made a point with respect to the requirement of joining an improvement district. He said presently there are five houses located on ute Avenue. This reduces the impact on ute Avenue. There are two houses with one access. His concern is in the event a lodge is granted employee housing there, he does not want to see the following: the applicant is improving the situation with minimal impact, and is required to join the improvement district in a 50/50 fee schedule with the lodge owners who are upgrading the curves and gutters of Ute Avenue for 36 units. Penne said a condition should read that the applicant will join in the sidewalk, curve and gutter improvement district. The comments in the memo that the applicant will not be required to do substantial improvements on the street are part of the public record. This precludes the applicant from participating in a giant improvement of Ute Avenue. Any person who applies for a land use application in town is expected to provide sidewalk, curves, gutters, etc. for their frontage. Hunt requested an addition of "the applicant will join in the sidewalk, curve and gutter improvement district for their frontage, if one Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 1984 develops." Kaufman concurred. Hunt moved to approve the conceptual subdivision and conceptual PUD plan for the construction of seven units on the Chance Claim (Spar) property as presented. Action on the growth management exemption re- quest for three employee rental units in three of the proposed structures is deferred to Preliminary Plat review, by which time the Housing Authority will have reviewed the request and made a recommendation. Action on the 80/40 greenline review is deferred to the Preliminary Plat so that more information can be considered to determine compliance with the criteria. And the following conditions (listed on page seven of the memorandum "Aspen Chance Subdivision" from the Planning Office, dated January 3, 1984) one through six are identical. To condition seven add the following after the period, "continuing maintenance agreement for the on-site ponds shall be pursued." Con- ditions eight through fifteen are identical. Add a condition sixteen: "Applicant will join in a sidewalk, curve and gutter improve- ment district covering their frontage, if one develops." Seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. l3a4"114./1ntu Barbara L. Norris Deputy City Clerk ....,