Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740117 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~O~M" C. F. HOECKEL 6. H. II l. '-'0. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 17, 1974 Meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Chairman Bruce Gillis with members Spence Schiffer, Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins and Geri Vagneur. Also present City County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Brinkman Building Remodel - Preliminary & Final Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that this project was the remodel of the Aspen Lumber Company. David Hauter, architect for the project, stated that the project was basically unchanged, with the excep- tion that the restaurant was a bit smaller. Stated that there was one real estate office that the appli- cant was committed to and that the rest of the pro- ject would consist of retail area and restaurant with a central mall and sky-light over it. Brinkman stated that she had informed all the busi- nesses who were committed to leasing space that they would be unable to provide parking. Ms. White stated that the lots could sit there the way they were for the next ten years. Brinkman stated that she suggested to Ms. White that in the summer the back lots could be made into a park, and stated that that would increase the flow of people into the building and also improve the appearance of the area. Ms. White further informed Ms. Brinkman that there were no improvements necessary on the back lots. Ms. Brinkman stated that she felt she should improve the area in some way, by either landscaping or something to enhance the lot. Ms. Brinkman suggest that during the winter, some sort of ice bar and skating could possibly be put in the empty lots. Jenkins stated that the Commission was not requiring the applicant to do anything with those lots, but stated that they would like to be involved in whatever was decided to be done with them. Gillis stated that he felt the project looked good and suggest that before the applicant receives an occupan- cy permit, they return to the Commission with the plan for that vacant land. Hauter pointed out that there still was the possibility that the applicant would do nothing with the lots. Schiffer questioned if the Commission would have a say in the matter after it is approved under Ordinance U9. Ms. Baer stated that the Commission could not, unless the applicant had to get a building permit for those lots. Further stated that she felt if the applicant agreed to come back as a condition of this approval it would be possible. Ms. Baer stated that the City can pull an occupancy permit in order to enforce the uses which have been decided upon under Ordinance K19. Schiffer stated he would like to approve that area as _...F...._~ ,~...,....._._.,".., ~~,_.,~,..~_..-,~,.,"~~,-.. -~. - '"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.r.HOECKELB.e.lll.<,;O. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 17, 1974 a park, with the design of the park to be approved by the Commission at a later date. Jenkins stated that he did not feel it was fair to limit the use of the land by some arbitrary decision. Felt the applicant had not made up their mind yet. Felt the Commission would just like to look at what they decide to do with the lot. Hauter stated that whatever the applicant decided to do with that lot, would be willing to come before the Commission for a presentation. Hauter stated that he did not understand why it would necessarily be conditional on this approval that the applicant would be required to do something with the vacant lot. Ms. Brinkman stated that she had discussed with the City Building Inspector the possibility of partial occupancy of the building as it is brought up to Code. Stated that Meyring had agreed that it would be okay. Ms. Baer stated that the Engineering Department would like the applicant to agree to join the future side- walk districts, if the sidewalk is put in or replaced around the building. Ed Del Duca, Assistant City Engineer, estimated the cost of the sidewalk to be $300. Johnson made a motion to approve the remodel with the stipulation that the applicant does agree to join any future sidewalk improvement district and that any res- taurant within the project be fitted for gas-fire af- ter burners as recommended in the Air pollution Study and that a mutual agreement that the Commission would hope that the applicant would come back before the Commission with any plan for the vacant lot. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. CDES Building - Conceptual Presentation Schiffer stated that there was a possibility that he would have a conflict of interest, due to the fact that Jim Daggs is his accountant. Request the Com- mission decide if this would constitute a conflict of interest. General concensus of the Commission was that a con- flict of interest was not involved. Ms. Baer located the site of the project for the Com- mission. Pointed out that it is on the fringe of the Central area. Stated that presently, it is a vacant lot. Robin Molny, architect, was present representing Daggs, Eubank, Coates and Shellman who propose to build an office building on this site. Molny pointed out that there were 3 lots with 9,000 square feet total area. Reviewed plans with the Com- mission. Stated that there was a 10' setback as re- quired by Chapter 24. -2- r -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HOECKE~ 8. B. a L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 17, 1974 Molny pointed out the open space for the Commission and the location of an antique shop of approximately 1,000 square feet, the area devoted to Mr. Coate's operation. On the second floor, pointed out the location of Dwight Shellman's Office and the first level of the Daggs- Eubank operation. Pointed out the third floor, which would have a roof line of approximately 33'. Molny stated that in each case, the applicant was 2ro- viding expansion space which they intend to lease for the time being until expansion becomes imminent. Pointed that the allowable floor area ration is 18,000 square feet above grade and are only asking for 15,552. Stated that the open space requirement is 2,250 Sq. Ft. but are providing 3,168 sq. ft. Molny pointed out that the Planning Office recommended that no parking be provided on the site. Further stated that Coates had indicated that he would prefer to have parking. Further stated that the basement use, as contemplated, is for storage and for probably a sculpture gallery or something similar. Jenkins stated that at the conceptual stage, he had no objections. Schiffer questioned if the applicant would be subject to subdivision regulations for condominiumizing. Molny stated that it would. Ms. Baer stated that first they would have to check out the design requirements and then they would have to return to the Commission under that, or they might choose to subdivide. Stated it might be in the ap- plicant's best interest to do so. Further stated that if the design requirements are met, the appli- cant could come before the Commission for an exemp- tion to subdivision. Bartel stated that he had discussed with the applicant the general housing problem, and stated that if we cannot get some solutions to the housing problem as we go along, eventually we end up with a situation where, because the problem is so severe, the govern- ment is forced into doing something about it. In- dicated to the applicant that he did not feel with the design of this particular building and the allo- cation of floor space that it was very well suited for units within the building itself, but feels that the Planning Office had to continue to address the problem of employee housing where we are creating new office or retail spaces and ask that they indicate what they felt they could do so that the Commission could consider aside from using a portion of the actual building. Bartel stated that the concern is not so much within the Commercial area as it is to provide housing for the increase in office space and retail space. Bar- tel stated the housing need not be in the central core. -3- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. F. HOECKEL 8. B. 8: LCD. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 17, 1974 Molny stated that the applicant would prefer for this housing to be for their employees. Stated the ap- plicant would be willing to either build, buy or lease space. Stated that there was a timing problem, but would assume that if everything went through, at the time final application for a building permit were made, they would, at that point, be able to satisfy the requirement. Stated that the applicant had studied putting units in this building, and in this particular case, it was very incompatible with the function of the building. Bartel stated that he did not feel that the City could require that all employees have housing as a condition, but felt that the basement floor, in this case, could accommodate the six unlimited units, and feels that that is an appropriate number. Molny pointed out that the Daggs operation presently leases three apartments for their staff, and are in- terested in perhaps coming up with some ideas beyond their own project. Gillis stated that as far as the parking was concerned, after next week the Commission will have a better di- rection from the Council after the study session, and would prefer to hold that back as a condition at this point, that the decision would be made at a later date. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office felt, in the Central area, parking should be put out on the streets where it can be managed by the City. Stated that in this case, it would be necessary to figure out how much on-site parking it generated. Feel that the number would be too great to provide on-site parking. Would be undesirable for the City and the applicant. Stated that even if the Commission did that, they have not avoided the auto emmission problem and the recommendation of the Air Quality Study. Vagneur stated that she felt street parking was not adequate. Molny stated that if you provide off-street parking, that at best, the building occupants would be using it. Jenkins stated he felt the City had made a fundamental decision when they bought the parking lot and would not like to see on-site parking. Johnson stated that he would like to see something like a 15-minute zone parking. Bartel stated that he felt the Commission needed to establish on the housing question, at this point, that it will not be on the premise. Vagneur made a motion to accept the project in its con- ceptual presentation, but that the Commission will es- tablish a policy on parking and housing, not on the premises, in the near future. Motion seconded by Jenkins. -4- - ""'''"', RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM\' C. F.HOHKEL 8.B.1I L co. Aspen Planning & Zoning January 17, 1974 Continued Meeting Molny questioned if it was the concensus of the Com- mission that the amount of housing that the applicant is discussing is satisfactory if it is required in the end. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Bartel pointed out that at one point, the applicant stated that all they wanted was the conceptual re- view, and from that point it could go to the Commit- tee to help and if that is the direction the applicant goes, the next presentation could be scheduled when they are ready. Hibberd/Durant Houses- Conceptual Presentation & Preliminary Plat Fred Hibberd and Attorney Ron Austin were present representing this project. Hibberd gave a brief history of the project to this point. Hibberd explained that the applicant would be moving and replanting approximately 150 Aspen trees and will plant 100 small spruce and lodgepole in the same tract. Gillis questioned Hibberd as to whether or not this would be hand excavation. Hibberd stated that it would be done with a rubber- tired backhoe. Austin pointed out that the intent of these houses is that they will not require an automobile, due to their location. Stated that Hibberd had provided parking according to the zoning. Hibberd pointed out that the main access is by ele- vator, in addition to several walkways which would lead to trams and steps. Austin stated that the applicant was here for the conceptual stage of Ordinance #19 and preliminary plat review under subdivision. Stated that if the appli- cant was approved under the conceptual presentation, then would proceed under subdivision alone. Ms. Baer pointed out that the applicant had made every effort to investigate the suitability of the site. Stated that the Planning Office position was this: In order to render the site suitable for residential sale, excessive engineering and artificial devices needed are unacceptable to the extent they are re- quired. Further stated that the maintenance would be a considerable problem for the future buyers. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was recom- mending that this site is unsuitable under 20-seven five of the subdivision regulations that no land shall be subdivided for residential use which is held by the Planning Commission to be unsuitable for such use by reason of, in this case, the drainage, topography, health, safety and welfare. Jenkins stated that his position was the same as the Planning Office. -5- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORiIl\O C.F.HOECKEL6.B.IlL.CJ. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 17, 1974 Johnson stated that he, too, agreed with the Planning office. Austin again stated that the houses would not add to the traffic problem in Aspen. Stated that the engi- neering reports the applicant had submitted were evi- dence that the site could be made safe. Stated he felt the position of the Planning Office was not ten- able. Ms. Baer stated she felt the Commission must make a policy as to what extent a developer can engineer a site. Ms. Baer further pointed out that the site had been cut and cribbed and that in the summer, one could very clearly see the erosion. Schiffer questioned if their would be access to the site for emergency vehicles. Ms. Baer stated that a standpipe with a hose in a cabinet would be in almost every house, or spaced periodically among them. Further stated that the fire department had stated that they did have access. Johnson stated that he could imagine situations where the site would be inaccessible. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing. Jenkins made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins made a motion that both the conceptual pre- sentation and the preliminary plat for the Hibberd/ Durant House be denied. Motion seconded by Johnson. Schiffer stated that he wished to abstain from the vote, having not been present at other presentations of the project and having not seen the site. Vagnuer abstained for the same reasons. Main Motion Johnson, Jenkins and Chairman Gillis voted aye. Motion carried. -6- r ....... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F DRM \~ C. r. H OECKEL B. B. Il: c. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 17, 1974 Sketch Plan Referrals Ms. Baer pointed out that the subdivision regulations required that subdivisions within a certain distance of a municipality be submitted for their review and comments to the County Planning & Zoning Commission. Fritz Benedict - Stillwater Property Bartel further explained that the County is required to refer to the City any subdivision within a three mile radius of the City's boundary. Stated that the Commission did not have to recommend approval or dis- approval or even make any comments. Ms. Baer pointed out that the location of the site was on Fritz Benedict's Stillwater Property. Pointed out an existing gravel pit that was to be made into a lake. Ms. Baer stated that there would be 350 units. Stated that it would include a health center, part of which will be done in conjunction with Dr. Morgan for general health and mental welfare, along with some research. Stated there would be townhouses, hotel-type units, 10 single-family units and 10 employee housing. Also includes tennis courts and trails. Schiffer questioned what type of time span the appli- cant was discussing. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant was willing to phase the project. Stated it would also include additional offices. Stated that Ute Avenue would be used for emergency access. Applicant stated that the 350 units includes the 10 single family residential homes plus 10 employee units to be built within the office park. Stated that the office park is really not proposed for any kind of development at this time - would merely like to reserve that space within a PUD or within subdivision for fu- ture development if need demanded. Further stated that the indoor tennis court includes apartments on plan, but stated they have since been deleted. Ms. Baer pointed out that the site was 137 acres. Applicant pointed out that 85% of the total site area would be open space. Further stated that there were 19 acres, basically defined by the meadow area around the bend in the river, that are within the 100-year flood plain. Stated that would be 58 acres left when you subtract the flood plain and the over-40% slopes on the site. Gillis questioned if all utilities would be underground and the applicant replied that they would. Applicant submitted site plan for the Commission's re- view. Applicant stated the parking area would be depressed with retaining walls on both sides. Further discussed the site drainage. Stated there would be no on-site drainage. Applicant explained that prime access to the project -7- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM~" C. f. H OECK E~ a. B. 8l L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 17, 1974 would be on Highway 82. Pedestrian and emergency ac- cess would be from Ute Avenue. Johnson questioned how large the hotel complex would be. Applicant stated there would be 330 units in that area. Ms. Baer stated that there would be 126 dwelling units in apartment, hotel, health institute complex, 106 townhouses for permanent residents and 100 employee housing units. Applicant stated that they had guaranteed in the ap- plication 10% employee housing. Ms. Baer pointed out the Planning Office concern with highway impact and air pollution. Stated it was sub- ject to negotiation. Pointed out there was a problem with the water. Gillis questioned if the applicant had any plans for acquiring Forest Service permits for any recreational use. Schiffer stated that, given that there is going to be development out there, thinks that this looks like a good project due to the amount of open space and ap- pears to be aesthetically pleasing and recreational facilities are provided for. Concerned with impact on City. Feels that if it is phased properly, City could handle it. Applicant stated that at this point, they are talking about a 10-year phasing of the project. Stated that they might be talking about 50 or 60 the first year. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was concerned about the impact on public facilities and their need for expansion, air pollution, impact on highway, etc.. Stated that the County P & z tabled for these reasons and the reason that they have land use and density considerations in this area. Chairman Gillis stated that another consideration would be the use of these offices if they are ever developed. Applicant stated that they are willing to zone that with PUD. Northstar Ranch Ms. Baer stated that there would be 1109 units. Stated that Jim Smith has in a rezoning application since part of the land is zoned tourist and the remainder is zoned AF. Stated that smith has an application for rezoning PUD 300 units. Stated that County P & z would be hearing this on February 6th for the first time. Stated there would be lodge units and condo- minium units with some single family dwellings. Ms. Baer stated that the area of the subdivision is 260 acres. Chairman stated that he felt the impact on the commu- nity would be totally unreasonable and would hope that -8- -_....,....,,"......'-,....----"~ r '-/ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL8.B.6: l. CD. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning January 17, 1974 the county P & Z would take into consideration all hazards. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Gillis. vagneur stated that she felt it was an unrealistic ap- proach. General concensus of the Commission was that the pro- posed project was totally unreasonable. Paragon Remodel Chairman Gillis stated that he did recall when the Paragon came before the Commission for their remodel, the Commission specifically asked the applicant if there would be dancing and the applicant stated that there would not be. Gillis stated that he hoped the Planning Office would pursue some appropriate recourse. Ms. Baer questioned what the Commission would like the Planning Office to do on this matter. Gillis requested that the Planning Office investigate what could be done to make them comply with whatever regulations the applicant was skirting by this. Planning Office Policy on Recommendations Schiffer stated that he understood in the past, the policy has been that the Planning Office submits its recommendations on specific projects at the hearing of that project. Feels that is a poor policy and would like the benefit of their professional skill when they make their determinations. Feel it would be better for the commission if they received the recommendations and specific objections to projects as soon as they are made, at least the time the developer gets them and possibly before them. Schiffer made a motion to change the policy in order that the Commission receive that information as soon as it is available from the Planning Office. Bartel expressed his concern on pre-judging the ap- plication before the presentation. Schiffer stated that he would like to be as prepared as possible on all the relative considerations. Feel it would add to the knowledge of the Commission and al- low the Commission to make more intelligent decisions. Gillis stated that he was in agreement with Schiffer. Johnson stated he, too, was in agreement. Jenkins stated he also agreed. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer made a motion to adjourn the meeting, se- conded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 tary