Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840117 .'..,-~~'- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORlIl'O C.F.IfOECKU8.8.&L.L;). Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 Acting Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee, David White and Roger Hunt present. Jasmine Tygre arrived after the motion to approve resolution 84-1 was moved and carried. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Colette Penne, planning office, noted that Gary Esary, just before he left the job, wrote KSPN a letter telling KSPN that they had been given approval by HPC to redo the location of the satellite dish. KSPN has been put on notice officially. The city is awaiting a response from Peter Van Domelen, KSPN's representative. David White noted that scheduling the residential scoring at this time of the year makes it difficult to do site visits. He wanted to look at the Gordon property, it was difficult to do that. Sunny Vann, planning office, suggested visiting the sites the summer before the year construction starts. Pat Fallin moved to table the minutes until the next meeting; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Gideon Kaufman, representing Vigoda, said he chatted with the Chairman, who is not present this evening, about a lot split request which also needs rezoning. Kaufman explained that his client's property is basically R-6. The client is seeking to do a lot split in the R-6. However, the back part of the property is zoned SCI-SPA. The reason it is SCI-SPA is when the surveyors did the zoning map they drew the line along the old Aspen townsite line. When Trueman SPA was done, it was zoned along the townsite line and the effects not considered: the back part of the property is SCI, Trueman; the front part on Hallam Street is R-6. It is more appropriately a residential R-6 zone. Alan Richman, planning office, interjected that P&Z is not being asked to make a determination of zone change. At this point what is needed is for P&Z to sponsor the ability to look at this. P&Z will be reviewing the lot split at the next meeting. The request is to make a motion tonight. We can then advertise a public meeting and meet all our requirements. Then, the information will be presented to P&Z why this is a mistake. Planning office will do the his- torical research to determine what the prior zoning was, and how it came to be what it is. Kaufman indicated that the client would be willing to go to a higher zoning from SCI. Lee Pardee moved to sponsor the rezoning of the Vigoda property from SCI-SPA to R-6; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE - RESOLUTION Pat Fallin mentioned to add Mountain Lodge Resolution. "it" after "that" in Section 3 of the Aspen Vann acknowledged the correction. Pardee addressed a number of points. Resolution 84-1 from CCLC makes some very good points which might well be considered and included in Section 2 at the end of page three. Consider adding the fourth "whereas" on page one of the CCLC resolution: "Whereas, approval of one major project will have the effect of confining construction to one time period rather than piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many years." This is something P&Z has considered. Pardee also recommends adding the sixth and seventh "whereas": "Whereas, the entire base mountain lodge district will benefit from a project of this magnitude if the developers commit to a pro rata share of the public improvements and upgrading pro- posed in CCLC's 'lodge improvement district' project" and "Whereas, the lodge project addressed much needed off street parking and here-to-fore Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 unavailable transportation alternatives in the base mountain lodge district." These could be included as items number 9, 10, and 11 at the end of Sec- tion 2, page three. Vann asked if these could be dealt with one at a time. Hunt expressed a concern about transportation; CCLC has not further outlined the trans- portation requirements. Pardee explained that more is wanted from the hotel than the proximity of Ruby Park, the transportation center of Aspen. The applicant is being asked to address the much needed off street parking; underground parking certainly addresses that. Perhaps strike "transpor- tation alternatives." Hunt asked if the underground parking is for the additional units or for everything. Vann agreed to include the first two items, but not the transportation clause. The applicant is requesting a variance from the PUD for reduction below the number required in park- ing which the code requires of any project that is approved in that general location with respect to hotel development; parking has to be provided. It is noteworthy the applicant intends to have underground parking. This does not negate the parking obligations. With respect to the the transport- ation alternative, in the request for multi-year allocation, the applicant said he would do something, but P&Z reserves the right to review the alter- natives at preliminary PUD. Vann suggested deleting the transportation and off street parking paragraph. He concurred with confining the con- struction to one time period. He concurred with the lodge improvement district paragraph but rephrased: "the developers are proposing to parti- cipate in lodge district improvements in that general area, and ask the applicant for clarification as to the extent of that." CCLC states pro rata. Vann stated the real criteria is the applicant is proposing to participate, ask to what extent. Pardee suggested adding an item fifteen (under Section 3): "That the applicant participate in the lodge improvement district on a pro rata share." The applicant has indicated he would. Vann asked what does pro rata mean. Pardee responded number of units as compared to other units. Vann asked does one want to restrict oneself at this point to that deter- mination. Vann argued it is more appropriate to deal with a specific level of participation at preliminary PUD. Pardee said there are two different issues: first, there is a condition that the applicant indicate, in ex- change for vacation of certain roads, what they would give the city; second, the request that the applicant participate on a pro rata, over the years, as an active participant in the lodge improvement district. It is an on going condition. They will be the largest landowners, and, when the applicants get their approvals, P&Z does not want them not to be inactive in the improvement district. Pardee continued to argue to include "pro rata" and to include the applicant as an active participant in the future improvement lodge district. White and Hunt agreed. John Doremus, representing the applicant, asked if P&Z is not suggesting that the applicant be required to participate in any of the improve- ment district. Joe Wells, representing the applicants, stated the applicants would not want to waive the right to protest against any improvement district that might be formulated in the lodge's history. Pardee requested the word "acceptable" be added before the phrase "written clarification" (under Section 3, items 4, 5, 12, and 13). Hunt questioned the statement on the improvement district. Vann answered item fourteen is a catchall condition, which takes all the representations of the applicant into consideration. The request is for representation top~ticipate in the lodge improvement district to be made a specific condition. The applicant participates in the lodge improvement district on a pro rata basis, with no restrictions as to when. If lodge improve- ments were undertaken by the general lodge area, the applicant would be required to participate and on a pro rata basis. Pardee asked it to be called CCLC improvement district. Art Daley, member of the public, questioned pro rata. When the district is formed, will the district decide in what manner its going to assess the landowners involvement with the district; will it be based on landownership or units pro rata. Pardee answered he did not know. Vann summarized the changes. First the "whereas's" are essentially the same as in the second draft of the resolution with the exception of the next to the last "whereas" on the top of page two. To make the resolution easier to follow the additional reviews are spelled out. There will be no '-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~l C, F. If OECK EL B. B. & l. C ;). Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 -2- mistake in those areas which P&Z has taken action on. Those are cross- referenced in the remaining section of the resolution. Second, with regards to Section 2, this is where most of the changes occurred. Vann clarified the rationale of the conditions upon which P&Z is grant- ing the quota. The first change is a condition that the applicant will continue to address the bulk, mass, FAR, and unit count of the hotel so as to reduce its actual or perceived visual impact. The second change is to mitigate potential growth related problems, particularly increased vehicular and pedestrian congestion. The rest of item one reserves the right by P&Z to require a reduction in total size and the number of units of the hotel in order to mitigate those impacts and to reduce visually the size of the building. Item two was changed to reflect the key date of the submission of plans, not the actual submission of the building permit itself. Under the reasoning areas, number four was changed. Previously P&Z found negligible impacts. Now it states that there may be certain potential growth impacts. P&Z requires the applicant to mitigate those impacts, they can be mitigated, and requires the applicant to justify the benefits accrued to the city. Item six, the reference to economic viability of the specific circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy was deleted. It now states simply that the applicant had asserted that the "480" was required due to the extent and nature of the improvements being proposed. In Section 3, item one, it was qualified that the applicant is to discuss at preliminary PUD those techniques he intends to use to mitigate the impacts of peak occupancy on the adjacent property. In item thirteen the pedestrian aspect is addressed. Section 4 and Section 5 remain the same. In Section 6, item three was added indicating the reason why P&Z is crediting Ll as an integral part of the application. Vann suggested voting on the resolution tonight so he could take it to Council. Authorize the acting chairman or chairman to sign off the changes once they have been typed into the original. Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 84-1 as amended and authorize the chairman or vice-chairman to check the corrections and to sign the re- solution; seconded by Pardee. Vann answered a question from the public. The additional changes over and above what are contained in the resolution are: Section 2 is to include items nine and ten, the CCLC resolution items which refer to confining the construction of the project to one time period and the lodge improve- ment district and the benefits that accrue to the city by participating in that district; Section 3,correct a typo, include the word "it" after "that" in the first paragraph; add an item sixteen which references the participation in the lot improvement district. All in favor, motion carried. Jasmine Tygre arrived. RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING Pardee made a disclaimer that he intends to use Bill Poss as an architect on one of his projects. He cannot imagine that this would affect his voting. He has not signed any papers or come to any agreements with anyone to design a single family house. Anderson asked the commissioners if there are any objections to Pardee scoring the projects; no. --~"""'-'''-'' .._.,-""_......_.._'....~-_.._''''.''''---+._., Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 Colette Penne, planning office, explained the scoring. The staff together scored the projects. Penne reviewed the East Hopkins Professional Town- house because she reviewed the commercial phase of this project. Richard Grice, planning office, will present the Gordon Property and 700 S. Galena. She recommends not going through a point by point discussion of the scores. Some cases come very close to threshold, 43.8 is threshold. If there are any questions or ambiguities, ask at the end of the presentations. If there are any scoring questions ask, every point is vital. She clarified a discrepancy about the bonus points (page five, number six). It is the planning office's practice not to recommend bonus points. She opted not to. It is not recommended to the commission to follow suit. It is a discretionary item. East Hopkins Professional Townhouse: Penne introduced the East Hopkins Professional Townhouse project profile. It is directly east of 601 E. Hopkins, next to Smith's Western Wear. The parGel size is 9,000 square feet. The zoning is C-l. The maximum allowable build out is 13,500 square feet. There is a 1:1 FAR in the C-l zone; with .521 FAR bonus by special review. The parcel is currently vacant. There was a building called the Garden Office Building that had successfully competed in the commercial GMP in the past for this same location. That allocation has expired. The complex, as proposed, will con- sist of 4,500 square feet of office space, 5,100 square feet of free market residential space, and 3,750 square feet of deed restricted employee housing for a total build out of 13,350 square feet. This is slightly under what is allowable with the bonus. This project will go through some subsequent reviews. One is a subdivision exception to assure that this free market residential space is accessory to the commercial space. The units will be sold together such that the person who occupies the office space would also occupy the free market residential space. Employee housing will be largely for people who work on site. It is not necessarily for that purpose. It will be deed restricted to a certain income category. Other people may be living in it at times; it is pri- marily to accommodate people who are working there. As such it is an acces- sory. A GMP exemption will be required for the employee units and an exemption for parking requirements for the employees. There is a special review for the FAR bonus. Each unit has interior parking. Bill Poss, applicant, stated most of the technical information is in the packet, he would address questions at the end of the presentation. First, Poss addressed a problem on the threshold scoring. This case is a mixed-use project, it is required to go through two P&Z competitions for alloc~tion. Planning of the project was done in July to meet the August 1 deadline on the commercial application. Planning for the residential application was done at that time. Subsequent to that, on September 1, 1983, there was an ordinance passed that clarified the scoring of the employee housing. This project scored 60% of the available points under public facilities, 75% on the quality design, and a 100% under support services. It also provides a 1:1 ratio of employee housing. With the new scoring procedure for employee housing, the project becomes a marginal threshold project. Pardee questioned the change. Poss explained it was a clarification of the ratio of deed restricted housing to free market housing: a ratio of bedrooms to bedrooms. It was changed to be a ratio of deed restricted housing to total number of bedrooms in the project, including the employee housing. This effectively reduced in half the number of points without reducing the percentage of the threshold. Penne stated it did not change the way the scoring read. The code was ambiguous in the statement of ratio of free market bedrooms to employee bedrooms. This project was scored on total bedrooms, that is the way the planning office applied the scoring. The code was amended to read number of bedrooms to the total project. Pardee asked if this clarification could be applied after the scoring, the guidelines for grading were distributed then changed. Penne corrected him, it was the way the code was written that was changed, scoring was made clearer. poss's complaint is well taken. Penne also commented that other applicants were aware of the amendment. Wells affirmed this. poss continued. This is a small point. The project appears to be a , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. IfOECKEL B. B. & L OJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 -3- threshold project but in fact it was given 60-75-100% of the available points. Penne commented that this competition is heavily graded on em- ployee housing. Poss presented some background information on the project. The reason for the project is to provide an office, a professionaloffice, and owner or professional housing with housing for the employees. This allows a professional, who is generally over qualified for MPH housing, to combine the rents of his office and his home and apply it toward equity, at the same time, generate some income to offset this. This allows a local professional a chance to own something in Aspen. This demonstrates an idea in Aspen of a professional townhome. It is a mixed-use project. It provides professional office space located on the street side of Hopkins, a residential unit located in the middle of the project and oriented toward the mountain, and two employee units, separated by the free market unit which allows a reduction on the impact of people coming to one spot. This allows the owner-professional and the employees to work and live in the same environment on the same site. It is an infield project downtown. It is now a vacant lot used for parking. The project will upgrade the area. Poss commented on the scoring, specifically Section 2, the qualities of design, subsection A, neighborhood compatibility, which states "that a consideration for compatibility for the proposed building in terms of size, height, and loc~tion with regard to the existing neighborhood development..." The attempt of the project is to create a ten foot plant- ing strip along the front, it would be landscaped, and to improve the quality of the street scene along the sidewalk. A courtyard will be in- corporated. The building department stipulates that there is 25.5% open space. In fact, 40% of the site is provided for open space develop- ment. Certain areas under horizontal projections were not counted. There is a five foot strip of planting in the private patio for the residential studio. At the rear entry off the studio there is a private garden, walled and landscaped. This is not counted in the FAR. Neither is the paved driveway to the garage counted. 60% of the site is being built on. poss pointed to a front elevation. The attempt is to break up the building mass, to place smaller masses on the street. On the street there is a ten foot planting strip and a five foot sidewalk. The height of the smaller mass is 26', the height of the employee unit, which is built over an enclosed garage, is 34' from natural grade. That height is almost 40' back, from the street to the middle of the site; it is six feet below the maximum allowable height by the Pitkin County code. It is 12' lower than the KSNO Building, and 7' below the Professional Building on the corner. The Ashley Building and the 601 E. Hopkins Building are virtually the same height, within 4'. Those two buildings were built before the code re- quired a four foot parapet, the actual foundation is the same. poss requested three points for the quality of the design. Under subsection B, the site design, there is ample landscaping and im- provements on the open space. There is an attempt to show lots of paving. $30,000 is allocated for each individual unit for site improvements. The employee units are separated for ease of access and to lessen the congestion. The owner's unit is accessible from the rear through the garage into a residential entry. There is an attempt to create privacy with walled courtyards, landscaped screening on both employee units, and with the decks above on the free market unit. Poss addressed bonus points. This is an infield project. It is upgrading a lot. It is improving the quality of the street scene through landscap- ~_"."M_,'~'_"__'"_.~_'__m"..-",_, ._,'...__", Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 ing. It is a mixed-use project with professional offices and employer- employee housing. It is not a 1:1 ratio of employee housing, when the studio is provided for commercial space, it is a 3:2 ratio. The combina- tion of living and working environment has a negligible impact on the neighborhood. Anderson opened the public hearing. Fallin questioned the available quota. Penne said the scoring and the quota are separate events. Score the project on its particular merits. There is an appeal by the Ute City Place to have its allotment held over. The allotment has expired and City Council has not acted on it. P&Z is in a position not necessarily of recommending quota. If a project scores in the threshold, P&Z is effectively approving it; if it does not meet threshold, it is denying it. The number of available units is questionable, P&Z may not want to make a quota allocation recommendation. If P&Z so chooses to make a recommendation it could if it dipped into future year allocation said Pardee. Penne mentioned two things: categories of the residential scoring are identical to commercial GMP, the recommended allocated points are the same, and the project came out two-tenths of a point over threshold; score each project as they are reviewed because they are complex. Anderson asked for public comment. No comment, public hearing closed. Fallin questioned fire regulations and sprinklers. Poss said the sprinklers were removed because of cost. Penne commented unless an area is upgraded, in general, the score is not affected. It was not effective for Poss, in terms of scoring, to install the sprinklers. The fire department is two blocks away. Fallin said a sprinkler system would upgrade an area, it would contain the fire. Penne understood the rationale, but she did not score it that way. The applicant decided to remove the sprinklers because it was not cost effective. Gordon Property: Richard Grice, planning office, introduced the project profile on the Gordon Property. This is lot 2 of the Gordon subdivision. It is located adjacent to the Aspen Club property on the Roaring Fork River, opposite the Ute Children's Park. It is 2.15 acres in size, it is R-15, and zoned for a maximum of six units. The site is currently vacant. The present development includes the construction of three duplexes, each duplex will contain a free market unit and a one-bedroom deed restricted low income employee housing. In addition, three two-bedroom free market condominiums will be purchased offsite and deed restricted to low income employee housing. The project is subject to review, subsequent to this review, in PUD and subdivision and to review for GMP employee housing. Grice made two comments about the project. First, in the area of roads on page two of the planning office score sheet, the applicant was awarded two points. The applicant indicated he would build roads to service this development. According to the engineering department, this project will have a negligible impact on the road system and it will not improve the road system in the area. Grice recommended to change the score from two to one. Second, on the same page in the section on fire protection, the applicant was awarded one point. Grice noted that the applicant has committed to providing a new fire hydrant which would benefit the area. However, the road widths are not adequate for fire access. The applicant presented this afternoon a technical clarification. He has indicated that he is willing and has committed to in writing to meet all the requirements of the fire department. Consider raising that score by more than two points. The access road into the subdivision as well as the internal circular one way road system, the applicant will widen as per the fire departmenesstandards. Consider raising that score in that area. Stan Mathis, applicant, stated he has no complaints with the way the project was scored. He made a few clarifications. In terms of fire protection, Mathis did commit in writing to a fire hydrant. A building is at most 600' from the fire hydrant. In an effort to keep the asphalt to a minimum, and the green space to a maximum, Mathis considered a minimum two-way road way of 16'. The fire department requires 24' in this section. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'! C.F.IfOtcKEL8.B.&L.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 -4- There is a water main in addition to the road. Mathis has dedicated a 30' water line easement, that is existing, to be relocated wherever the road is located. He is committed to extensive landscaping. He dedicated a separate parcel to the project as common area. To that common area he has dedicated a 12' trail easement that aligns with a prior easement granted when a lot split took place in this area about four months ago. The project is directly across from the Ute Children's Park. To facilitate access to the trail alignment in Aspen, he is willing to build a bridge over the Roaring Fork River. Mathis encouraged bonus points because of the commitment to a bridge lane, a pedestrian way, a loop water system. Fallin questioned the widening of the road. Mathis understood that the road to the Aspen Club and its parking are adequate. There is a section of road at the present time (he points to a site plan, to a road along the base of the mountain) which needs to be widened to 24'. It is 16' in some places. He is committed to widening the entire length. Anderson opened the public hearing. No comment, hearing closed. Hunt asked if the parking design score should be changed from two to one. Grice said the change in roads score should be changed, the parking area is scored correctly. 700 S. Galena: Grice presented the project profile of 700 S. Galena. It is located a block and a half south of Durant. The parcel size is 21,600 square feet. The zoning is L2. The proposed development is tied directly to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. There are 12 unrestricted units proposed as 21,600 square feet multi-family structures, with 24 bedrooms. This proposal, if it were not connected to the Aspen Mountain PUD, would have a maximum build-out of 1:1 FAR with a total of 21 bedrooms. The applicant is exceeding what is allowed in the underlying zoning because of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. In addition, there are nine two-bedroom low income restricted units to be provided off site. Subsequent to this scoring, the project will have to go through full subdivision PUD and receive GMP exemption for employee housing. There is also a condominiumization pro- cedure. The commitments made in the application with respect to water, sewer, and storm drainage, were contingent upon the approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The planning office assessed the project based on the denial of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The results of the score for water, sewer, and storm drainage won. The applicant indicated he would not be able to make those improvements to those facilities unless the PUD was approved. Subsequently, today the planning office received clarification from the applicant. The applicant acknowledged in writing that the project is designed as part of the larger PUD and cannot be built separately. The specific commitments to water, sewer, and storm drainage, should be con- sidered in the scoring. Grice recommended that two points be awarded to the project in each of the three areas. Specifically, the applicant is committed to the installation of a new 12" water main, which will create a looped water system. It improves the service in the area. There are a number of old sewer lines in the area which have historically caused maintenance problems for the metro district. The applicant is committed to removing those lines which will solve the problems, and thereby improve service in the area. Improvements will also be made with respect to storm drainages for the various facilities in the area. John Doremus, representing the applicant, proceeded. There is a three story building. The units break out as six two-bedroom, three one- ""'~-"~.,-".....t.",,,_,,,,.,,,,,___,,~_ ....,,'.. ,,,,..,,,,,..; +--<__~.,._, ~-"- Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 bedroom, and three three-bedroom units. The same configuration is on each floor. All parking is underground, far in excess of what is required by or what the transportation experts recommended as the need for the structure. The pedestrian entrance is near the Tipple Inn end of the property. Each unit has a separate entrance, there are no interior corridors or hallways. Each unit enters from the outside. The living areas in all the units take advantage of the solar orientation and the view of Aspen Mountain. The utility and mechanical areas are located in the garage. The yard area is 40% of the total. On its own, the open space is exceeded by 15%. This is possible when the parking is located underground. The materials of the building will be identical to the hotel;. it will be the same color. Doremus addressed water. A new 12" water line with three new hydrants will be built down Galena Street, adding to an existing undersized 6" line. Please score the project on the basis that this project is going to locate the line although it is a condition of the entire PUD. Doremus requested a score of two. The sewer changes are part of the entire PUD. The sewer line is being eliminated because of the underground parking. The applicant proposes a cross line over the property to connect with Galena. It does not improve the neighborhood, it is for the convenience of the applicant. The sewer lines are substandard, they are old and infiltration is occuring. The applicant is willing to put down an extra main line on Mill Street, just at the edge of the Mill Street mall. The substandard lines will be totally eliminated. The applicant will rely on the fact that these improve- ments will be made in order for the project to go forward. Doremus requested credit for this. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, explained the circumstances sur- rounding how this came about. The applicant included these commitments in the application, all these improvements are part of the larger PUD. Wells was asked by Vann if the applicant could commit to doing this project if it had to stand on its own. Wells said that obviously the applicant could not make the commitments to major upgrading of the utilities of the area. Wells asked Vann a few days ago, if the fate of the residential portion of the PUD could be tied to the balance (hotel) of the PUD, so that the ap- plicant could in fact make an argument for living by the commitments which were made in the application. Wells addressed the storm drainages. The storm drainage analysis, included in the initial lodge application, assumed the applicant would take the dif- ference between the hundred year developed storm and the five year historical storm and take that amount of water and store it to reduce peak flows. This would be located in the parking structure of the lodge. There are other ways to handle this. This is making a major commitment beyond what is required by the code: to take the difference in storm runoff and release it into the system more slowly, so that the hundred year storm does not exist. In addition, the applicant plans to build a storm sewer system with additional inlets allowing Galena Street to further deal with the local drainage problem in the area. This commitment is clearly an upgrading of the services in the area, and should be scored appropriately on this issue. Wells said the standard for judgement as to whether or not the project receives two points or one point in the area of roads is whether it improves the quality of services in the area or not. The planning staff in its comments acknowledged that the road system, as it presently exists, is adequate to handle the project. The applicant plans to offer curb and gutter realignment of Galena Street which does improve the efficiency of parking in the area. It increases the capacity of the street system. Wells requested two points in this category. Wells addressed energy. He also felt that . standard design would be one which simply meets the code requirements. He acknowledged that the site may not be an excellent site from a solar standpoint. But the proposed construction techniques are beyond the code requirements: the heating and glazing, for example. An additional point is requested. Doremus made comments on bonus points. The 12" water line of 1200' is a big improvement. The three new fire hydrants are worth some points. ......".. ,........~- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM \0 C. F.IfOECKEL B. B. & L co. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 -5- Doremus requested bonus points for fire controls. He believed a sprinkle system is an improvement for the general neighborhood. The applicant has opted to sprinkle the entire building and has indicated the use of all the other state-of-the-art fire protection methods: a self-powered emergency lighting system, for example. There will be a two to four minute response time. The added hydrants increase the water capacity three times that which exists on the street now. The trails, the open space, and the landscaping proposed in the lodge application are general improvements to the community. The applicant will relocate and build trails and a trail system up into the ski area for summer hiking and for ski access for the whole community. The project is 450' from Ruby Park, the transit stop. It is 700' from Wagner Park, 900' from two ski lifts, and 500' from the retail area. The location has created an exceptionl situation. Bonus points are requested. Finally, all the parking is designed to be placed underground, and forty parking spaces are being provided. Anderson opened the public hearing. Carolyn Doty asked to know the number of units for each of the three residential projects. Grice stated: for the East Hopkins Professional Townhouse there are three free market units, three employee units; for the Gordon Property, there are six employee units, and three free market units; and for the 700 S. Galena, there are twelve free market units and nine employee units. Anderson closed the public hearing. Tygre asked if the overall PUD is not approved will this project then not happen. Wells said the codes provide for reconsideration of a project that cannot provide for its commitments. Scores Penne stated that threshold is 43.8. She presented the scores. East Hopkins Professional Townhouse At threshold With bonus points 44.75 46.80 Gordon Property At threshold With bonus points 46.90 47.40 700 S. Galena At threshold With bonus points 45.30 46.50 Penne said she needs to do an ice skating approach of ranking these applicants according to the scores, including bonus points. She would report to the applicants the results. Penne explained the ice skating approach: it ranks each category, and then ranks the applicants. It can affect the way P&Z ranks the projects since it does include bonus points. The projects did meet the minimum number of points required to be con- sidered approved by P&Z, threshold was met. Pardee stated that P&Z has an obligation or at least the opportunity r Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1984 to make a recommendation as to the future allocation. All applicants met threshold and P&Z is obligated to provide the numbers even if it requires dipping into future year allocation. All projects are noteworthy. Pardee recommended that the commission act on that now. Anderson, Hunt, and White disagreed. Tygre requested first the results of the ice skating marks. Even though there are 119 residential units available, there is the po- tential of many items coming on line residentially. P&Z needs to look closer at that before it recommends dipping into future year allocation. Penne said that no matter how the projects rank, if P&Z wants to dip into future years, it can take that action. If P&Z wants to see how the pro- jects ranked, she preferred to return at the next meeting with the results. Depending how the projects are ranked, one or two may be aced out if P&Z does not dip into future year allocation. Tygre questioned how long it would take to resolve the Ute City Place question. Penne said it would be presented to Council at the next regular meeting, Monday. Tygre commented if those units are made available, this discussion may be unnecessary. She preferred to defer the recom- mendation until more information was presented. Pardee questioned how much time P&Z had to consider the recommendation before forwarding it to Council. Someone said thirty days. Pardee agreed to postpone the recom- mendation until next meeting. Doremus asked the commission what it expects from the applicant of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Anderson said that the commission essentially has adpoted the conceptual PUD resolution. Doremus said that the applicant does not want to circumvent P&Z. He wants the dialogue to continue. He wants P&Z as informed as Council. Pardee suggested that since the applicant has his hands full with Council, put his efforts there. Wells said the applicant cannot go forth with the employee housing issue until Council makes its comments about the project. Anderson stated that each time the applicant comes back he has shown a lot of effort, creativity, and concern about the issues that have been raised. He suggested approaching Council and then schedule another work session. There P&Z would respond to their comments. Fallin moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. .d~I~ ~ Barbara L. Norris Deputy City Clerk