Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740205 "...., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HDI::CKaS.8.li L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce ~illis at 5:15 p.m. with members Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer and Geri Vagneur. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. MINUTES 1/8/74 & 1/10/74 12/18/73 Gillis stated that there had been a request from Ms. Pat Maddalone of Benedict and Associates that the minutes of December 18, 1973, were misstated. Ms. Maddalone wished to correct page 7 in the minutes, where it was stated that the applicant had withdrawn their subdivision request and Ms. Baer stated that she had received a letter requesting that they with- draw until the 15th. Chairman Gillis stated that Ms. Maddalone wished to have the minutes corrected to read, "We are agree- able to extending the time required for action by the Planning and Zoning commission to January 15th, 1974, on Ordinance #19 Conceptual Phase, Subdivision, Preliminary Phase and Planned Unit Development Out- line Phase." Vagneur made a motion to rescind approval of the minutes of December 18, 1974, and ,add the above correction with approval. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made ary 8, 1974, by Jenkins. a motion to approve the minutes of Janu- and January 10, 1974. Motion seconded All in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Study Session - Rio Grande Conceptual Site Plan 2/14/74 Bartel pointed out that a study session had been scheduled on the Rio Grande Conceptual Site Plan for February 14th. Requested that if any of the members had any input which they would like for the meeting, to contact the Planning Office. VIEW PRESERVATION Resolution - View Preservation Bartel stated that the Resolution was the follow-up to the public hearing, which included the view from Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue, the Wheeler Opera House, and the Courthouse and further included the provision through PUD to provide the flexibility in the view corridor with variations in building height and set- back. Has included the request that the City Attor- ney submit an opinion to the Council before they take any action on it concerning the legal aspects. Johnson made a motion to send the Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution entitled "Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Recommending Establish- ing View Planes From Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue (Be tween Galena and Hunter), Wheeler Opera House and Court House and Recommending PUD, Planned Unit De- velopment in Certain Areas Affected by the View Planes Under Section 24-9 (h)" to the City Council. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exception of Chuck Vidal who was opposed. Motion carried. Reconsideration of Recommendation - Independence Pass View Plane from Rubey Park Bartel gave a brief background of this view plane. Stated that it was recommended by the Commission in the Resolution dated June 21, 1973. It was set for City Council hearing sometime in August and was tabled at the City Council meeting following a re- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <, C, F. HOECKEL 8. ~. It L. CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 quest that it should be reconsidered, consequently, the Council meeting has not been held on this view plane although it was published. Bartel then stated that there was a meeting on August 9, 1973, at which time the Commission stated that they would like to investigate the alternatives to main- tain the view and still provide flexibility on the de- velopment of the site. Bartel stated that he felt the PUD provision in the Code relating to the view corridors would provide that flexibility. Stated that it would not be finally ef- fective until adopted by the City Council. Stated it does come under the Commission's resolution of June 21st, which puts it under Ordinance #9. Stated that if the Commission would like to rescind that or hear new arguments, would ask that the Commission re- schedule the public hearing on it since you cannot change the action of the Commission following the public hearing without holding a new hearing. Jenkins stated that he felt that with two view planes over the one piece of property, if the Commission did anything short of guaranteeing or specifying very positively some leeway, would have a problem recom- mending that view plane. Vagneur stated that she would be in favor of a public hearing on the view plane. Bartel stated that the original proposal was made by the Planning Office on June 19, 1973, and at that time, the Planning Office was asked to change it, by request of the Commission, which the Planning Of- fice did. It was then resubmitted on June 21st and adopted. Stated that now the Planning Office is faced with a change in the Commission. Bartel stated he would like to give his position now on the view corridor in order that the attorney and the landowners involved would know the Planning Of- fice position on the matter before the public hear- ing. Jim Moran, attorney, was present and stated that the publication in June was the first time that the land- owner had any idea that the view plane was being con- sidered. Moran stated that he attended the meeting of July 10, 1973, prior to the time that the Council was to con- sider it, and requested that the Commission withdraw its recommendation to the City Council and take a look at it again, due to the effect it has on Curt Chase's property. Moran quoted the minutes of that meeting as saying, "commission agreed to bring view plane proposals back to Planning and Zoning commission for further consideration before sending recommenda- tions to Council. Further agreed that it would be beneficial to take a field trip to the proposed view plane site in order to determine exactly what the affects of the view planes would be." -2- r FORM;O C. F. HOECKEL B. B.ll L CO. "'""' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting February 5, 1974 PUBLIC HEARING Margaret Meadows Sub- division - Preliminary Plat RIO Grande - Pre- liminary Plat Aspen Planning & Zoning Moran further pointed out that they were to come back on August 9, 1973, which they did, and talked about this particular view plane again. Stated that he had brought in Jim Reser's cross-section showing the af- fect that these combined view planes had on this pro- perty, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not there were any compromises which would guarantee con- cessions so that development could take place under whatever the then-existing zoning was, without being penalized by the view planes. Stated that otherwise, they would have no choice but to take the matter to Court. Moran pointed out that Bartel had stated that his con- cern was what would happen after Ordinance #19 runs out. Stated that basically, what happened on August 9th was that the matter was tabled by the Commission. Feels that this matter is still with the Commission awaiting action. Bartel pointed out that there is a signed Resolution, and stated that he interprets this as the action of the Commission. Stated that the date of the signed resolution was June 21st. Feel the only way the Com- mission can change their action is to hold another public hearing. Moran stated that the Commission had essentially re- versed that action on July 10th, 1973, when they said they withdrew their recommendation. Bartel stated that in the Council meeting of July 23, 1973, it was moved to table the public hearing on the Rubey Park corridors until the August 27th Council meeting. Stated that there have been no Council hear- ings on it at all. Schiffer made a motion to reconsider the Rubey Park view planes and to reschedule the public hearing for March 19th, 1974. Motion seconded by Vagneur.' All in favor, with the exception of Vidal who was opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Meadows Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Chairman Gillis stated that the applicant had nothing to present and it was the recommendation that the Com- mission extend the public hearing to another date, preferrable February 19th. Public hearing on Margaret Meadows Subdivision, Pre- liminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19, 1974. Dick Schottland was present and stated that they had tabled the subdivision. Bartel request that it be rescheduled at this meeting in order that it not have to be re-published. Public hearing on Rio Grande, Preliminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19, 1974. Bartel suggest that the applicant handcarry those re- -3- -- FORM" C.f.HOECKELB.B.!> l. co. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting February 5, 1974 ORDINANCE #19 Exemption of Heller Addition Clarendon - Conceptual Approval Aspen Planning & Zoning ferrals. Ms. Baer submitted map showing general site on West End Street and Waters Avenue. Stated that this is currently a tri-plex. Stated that the request is for a second story addition over an existing efficiency partment. Submitted plans for the remodel of the lower part. Vidal questioned what the current zoning in that area would be. Ms. Baer pointed out that it is currently under AR, but under the Ordinance #19 map, is under mixed resi- dential. Vagneur questioned how many lots the building is now on. Ms. Baer stated that she thought it was on two lots. Johnson questioned if the efficiency would be connected to the two-bedroom addition. Ms. Baer stated that it would be connected by circular stairs. Ms. Baer stated that she was aware that there was no reason why the applicant could not rent out the rooms. Stated that on the other hand, it might well be a condition of enlargement that it be a single unit. Vidal questioned if it would remain a tri-plex and Ms. Baer stated that it would, with one unit being en- larged. Vagneur stated that she would be opposed to allowing this to go through as an exemption since it would be increasing density in what she considers a very im- portant area. Ms. Baer explained that the applicant had stated that the enlargement would take place in the living unit and it would not be separately rented. It was the concensus of the Commission to table this project until the applicant was present. Vidal withdrew from the Commission for the presentation due to conflict of interest. Attorney Jim Moran was present representing the pro- ject. Pointed out that this application was filed on October 15, 1973. Stated that the purpose of Ordi- nance #19 was to get the kind of input that the ap- plicant has provided. Moran pointed out that the applicant has holding costs of approximately $4,000 per month, and so it is neces- sary to press on. Moran stated that although he was not at the afternoon study session, but understood that it seems the real question, more of a problem than clarifying use or what is meant by mixed-residential, is density. Stated -4- -- ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM '0 C. F. HOECKEl. B. B.1l: L CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 that if the Commission would like to discuss numbers, the applicant would be willing to discuss that here in the public meeting and see if we're any closer to ar- riving at a solution. Moran reminded the Commission that at the last meeting before the rezoning problem was presented, the appli- cant had in front of the Commission recommendations that the Planning Office had made with respect to this project in four areas, to which the applicants had res- ponded. Stated that Rick Farrel had prepared that in the form of a memorandum which was being submitted to the Commission and the Press. Farrell briefly went through the four recommendations of the Planning Department. Stated that these com- ments were relevant to the 36 unit project as pre- sented in October. (1) The Planning Office had recommended that all 36 units be limited to rentals of more than 6 months in order to preclude short term rental of the units. Stated that they had addressed the permanent housing v. tourist housing issue in depth in the report. Stated that they had come up with another solution rather than the covenant. Stated that they would sell only to pitkin County residents from now until January 1st. To encourage that, would offer a 5% discount on market price to permanent residents during that period. Feel this is a mechanism which would allow market forces to determine the mixed-resi- dential. Stated that in order to try to create some lower cost housing for residents, have sug- gested that if they were given four additi- onal units of density, would guarantee that they would be sold to permanent residents with restrictions and covenants and would also guarantee that a price for a 2 - bed- room unit would be less than 45 thousand dol- lars by allocating all the land cost to the 36 units. (2) The second recommendation from the Planning Office was to phase the project. Stated that they would agree to a real phasing pro- gram. Stated that there position is that phasing really does not benefit the City and actually imposes costs on the neighborhood that could be avoided by allowing construc- tion in one year. Suggest that the applicant would build the units closer to the underground parking first. (3) The third recommendation was the elimination of on-site parking. Feel that it is not practical at this time. will agree to make -5- r ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <, C. F. ,IOECKEL B. B. II L CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 provisions in the Condominium Association documents to permit elimination of the sur- face parking lot at a future date when pub- lic transportation is available and when the demand for parking is not as great as it is today. (4) The fourth recommendation was that fire- places not be permitted. Stated that they had presented much technical information on that issue and have been informed that the Colorado Air Pollution Control commission new regulations that are now in a clearing stage, permit fireplaces. Stated that these are the regulations which the City and County have asked to be in- cluded under. Stated that having attended today's study session, felt that the fifth issue is really density. Stated that they are at a point where they are looking at loss- minimuzation. Farrell stated that they are prepared to negotiate un- der the intent of Ordinance #19. Stated that they would be willing to delete the third building, which would bring them down to 24 units. Stated he felt that was more than splitting the difference between 16 and 36. Stated that the resulting cost of the units would ob- viously be higher, and that these prices would be out of reach of any permanent employees of Aspen. Farrell stated that the applicant would still be wil- ling to construct additional employee housing, if the Commission felt that they would like it. Stated that they would absorb the land cost in the 24 units. Moran stated that initially, he felt the applicant had addressed themselves to what Ordinance #19 tells them to, and that did produce the idea of some give and take. Moran stated that they felt they had addressed them- selves to the Planning Office recommendations. Stated that 24 units is as far down as they could go. Moran further pointed out that the applicant, in making that option of employee housing available to the commission is taking a chance on the marketability of the basic 24 units. Moran pointed out that 24 units this year is equal to or better than 36 a year and a half from now. Stated that the time element in this has made the difference. Farrell stated that if the commission chooses to ac- cept the 24 unit proposal, the applicant would like some type of technical or legal memorandum to the fact that there would be some type of moral committment by the members that the applicant would essentially would not get horsed around at future meetings if they are working with 24 units. -6- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '1 C. F. HOUKEL B. B. II L CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 Chairman Gillis questioned the applicant as to whether or not the configuration of the buildings, that is, the elimination of the building suggested, would nec- essarily have to be that way. Farrell stated that obviously the site plan would have to change when they went to 24 units, but the appli- cant would prefer not to come up under conceptual pre- sentation again. Pointed out the building that he would prefer to drop from a marketability standpoint. Stated that the closer you get to the Gant recreation area, the less desirable the location. Jenkins stated that he felt this proposal represented a very good answer to a very sticky problem. Felt that in this particular case, this was probably the best solution. Schiffer stated that he felt this was a good idea, and was interested in the idea of the four low-cost housing units. Jenkins stated he was not in favor of the low-cost housing units. Farrell stated that if they were to provide the low- cost housing units, they would essentially divide the project into two projects. Stated that the struc- tures would be architecturally compatible and would also bring the parking in off of ute Avenue. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office does not feel that for that site tourist use is the correct use. Does not feel that this proposal is satisfactory, in other words, would not be a replacement for the cove- nant. Ms. Baer stated that concerning the four employee hous- ing units, the City economist had informed the Plan- ning Office that the original 36 units would generate 27 support persons. Do not feel that 4 units would be of a significant balance. Ms. Baer stated that as far as the Air Quality, this is a general kind of regulation that has been sub- mitted. Stated that the City already has a study. Agree that fireplaces would be permissable if the Weiner study could be amended to show that the fire- places would not be a detriment. Ms. Baer stated that the recommendation of the Plan- ning Office would still stand with the exception of the following modifications, due to a second recom- mendation: That the Commission adopt the rezoning proposal as presented, and thus set the density on this piece of property. Schiffer questioned how many units the applicant could build under the proposed zoning. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant could build either ten or sixteen units. Farrell stated that he felt the permanent resident is- -7- r '""" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.8.a. l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning February 5, 1974 sue was not applicable to the 24 unit proposal. Felt that the January 1st exclusive period was relating to the 36 units and would not be applicable to the 24. Farrell stated the applicant would not agree to a phasing program of 24 units. Further stated that there would be no surface parking associated with the 24 units, except for a guest parking lot. Would want to include fireplaces in the 24 units. Jenkins stated he was not sure he wanted to tie this project in with the proposed downzoning. Felt this would not alter his thinking on the downzoning in the area. Felt that there were extenuating circum- stances with this particular application. Felt the other recommendations of the planning Office were sec- ondary to the density Moran stated that this is what they could do to solve the density problem. Stated that under existing zon- ing could build 47 or 48 units. Gillis questioned what the average number of bedrooms for the total project of 24. Farrell stated that the square footage which they are considering would be in the vicinity of 1500 to 1600, and that is a big unit. Stated he was not sure at this point how many bedrooms that would accommodate, but would be more 3-bedroom units. Gillis stated that if the applicant provided more bed- rooms, would be putting more people in the units. Ms. Baer stated that the purpose of planning is not a trade-off on numbers, and felt the Commission should consider what the correct planning number for the pro- ject should be. Moran stated that he felt it was unfortunate to have the Planning Office planning in a vacuum. Felt that they are planning in a City which has land with cer- tain rights attached to it. Stated that they cannot necessarily plan according to what is most desirable from a planning standpoint. Vagneur stated she would like to leave the door open for the construction of two or three additional units. Vagneur made a motion to accept the 24-unit Clarendon proposal at its conceptual stage. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, with the exception of John- son, who was opposed. Motion carried. Bartel questioned the Commission on whether they wan- ted the applicant to come back with the conceptual site plan, or would they prefer that that go on to the P & Z subcommittee. Ms. Baer stated that as she understood the procedure, the Commission had just given the applicant concep- tual approval for the 24-unit proposal. Schiffer stated that he was still interested in the -8- - "'""' I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELS.B./iL,CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning February 5, 1974 possibility of adding on some employee housing units. Jenkins stated that he felt that if the Commission was going to attach a certain use to a specific project, would have to have some means of enforcing it. Ques- tioned how that could be done. Concensus of the Commission was that the site plan would be shown at the preliminary stage. The Tree House Due to the fact that the applicant was not present, consideration of the Tree House project was tabled until such time as the applicant could arrange to be placed on the agenda. Aspen Center Bartel reviewed the major points of the agreement. Stated that after a full series of meetings last sum- mer, in November of 1973, the Commission set out that they would allow 52,800 square feet of retail space in the first phase of the Aspen Center project, with no committments in square footage to the other phases. Bartel stated that included in that are lists of uses from which the uses that would locate in the Center should come. Further, set out several things that were not to occur. Bartel stated that the Commission had excepted from the 52,000 square feet any square footage of the Post Office. Also excepted any square footage for housing. Bartel futher stated that the agreement made no com- mittments as far as requirements for subdivision are concerned and other Ordinance #19 review provisions. Stated that what was before the Commission at this meeting is the conceptual stage of the Ordinance #19 review for the first phase of the project. Richard Schott land was present and submitted a model of the proposed first phase of the project. Stated that in reference to the entire site now, this model represented 7% of the density under the existing zon- ing. Schottland pointed out the location of the 13 low cost housing units. Further pointed out that he has made an offer to the City whereby they would agree to rent a one bedroom apartment for $150.00, two bedroom apar- tment for $225.00, and a three bedroom that would be rented for $260.00. Stated that those prices would remain at that level unless their taxes were increased or cost of operation increased. Schottland stated that if they were to get the rentals down lower and the City wanted to not have any taxes applicable to those units, could reduce the rentals by $16.00 per unit. Schottland stated that at their next presentation, would have an economic impact statement which they have just completed. Vidal requested that Schottland describe phases rela- -9- r - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'C. C. F. HOECKEL B. B. II L CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 tive to the model. Schottland again pointed out that the model only repre- sented the first phase of the project. Stated that there had been no planning of the remainder of the site. Gillis reminded the Commission that there had been no committment, nor were they being asked to give a committment, to any future phases of the project. Schottland stated that the idea was that Mill Street would be regraded from Bleeker all the way to the end of the project, and there would be no curb cuts on that street in that certain area. Bartel stated that the first consideration is that there are some things that the Planning Office feels are subdivision items that might adjust the site plan. Concerned with access, existing utilities, drainage, have been trying to preserve the option of Railroad alignment into the Rio Grande Property. Trying to reserve the right to cover a number of the items under the subdivision hearing. Does not feel that there are any major disagreements on subdivision, but several things to work out. Bartel stated that on the Ordinance #19 considerations, one of the concerns of the Planning Office is housing. Request that the applicant explain why he did not add more units on this phase, due to what it does to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Bartel further stated that the Planning Office has referred this to the State for its comments with res- pect to air quality impact, and therefore, must re- serve those considerations for a later phase. Vidal questioned when landscaping came under review by the commission. Bartel stated that landscaping would come under one of the later reviews. Vidal stated that he would like to address himself to the massing of the project under Ordinance #19. Felt it seems to have been effectively reduced the effect of the massing, but have done it partially with a great deal of landscaping of the project. Questioned if the applicant really intended to landscape to that level. Applicant stated that he would be willing to commit to that. Stated that he had checked with Henry Peder- sen and that the landscaping could be done as shown in the model. Vidal stated that another apprehension which the Com- mission might have is that with the predominant traf- fic on Main Street, concern with what the applicant puts on the roof. Applicant stated the project would have all electric heating. Remaining ventilation would be within the -10- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM SG C. F. HO~CKEL B. B. 1\ L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 individual units. Felt this would be an important covenant to place on the buyers. Applicant pointed out that even though they have broken it up into fairly small masses, it is quite intensive use of the acreage that is initially used. Stated that the only place to add additional units for em- ployee housing would be to place them on top. Bartel explained that his concern as far as parking is that if the City is going to make any attempt at all at managing parking congestion problems, that we will have to have all major retail areas, at least as far as the open parking areas are concerned, oper- ate under the same rules and conditions so that we do not have adjacent to the downtown area a location where anything goes with respect to parking require- ments. Stated at this point, really do not know what form that parking management might take, but has in- dicated to Schottland, that he would request that the same kind of parking management techniques applied in the downtown area be applied to the open portion of this site. City Engineer David Ellis stated that it was not clear to him until just recently that there is considerable parking underneath the structure. Bartel stated that he felt that the major point that the Commission should consider is the impact with res- pect to housing. Stated the Commission has had some projects which they have acted on which were too small to address the housing need to. Have had others where the Commission has said that it is a consideration and a condition and said that it should not be a part of the site. Bartel stated that he did not have a number of em- ployees that would be generated by the site. Fur- ther stated that estimates could be made. Felt it is clear that the number of units included would not meet the housing requirement. Schott land questioned what the housing requrement is based on. Bartel stated that it was new territory for the City, and what they have done is in one case, try to reserve one level of the building, and in other cases it was based on the number of estimated employees. Stated that the Planning Office's concern is that they feel that if the housing problem is not dealt with, like most problems, they end up being the responsibility of the governmental entity. Stated that he took the posi- tion that it is easier to deal with the housing prob- lem at this stage than it is at a later stage when the City has to take over the responsibility, which could take a number of forms. Schottland stated that at an earlier presentation, they had proposed to have fifty low cost housing units over the life of this project. Stated that they now feel -11- -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C. F. HO~CKEL a. B. a L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 that they can get 100 units. Stated that they could get fifty units in this phase if they could hadd ano- ther story. Feel that from an architectural aspect, this would be a mistake. Schottland pointed out that a large number of the employees will already have housing. Not certain how many new jobs it will create. Applicant pointed out that substantially, the business- es that will be located in the first phase are busi- nesses which will be relocated from the mall area. Bartel stated that that issue has been concerned and explained that the Planning Office's concern is that as long as it's additional space, saying that the existing space is going to be filled with new uses so there will still be a problem created. Applicant stated that it would be particularly hard to solve all those problems in the first phase. Chairman Gillis stated that he did not want to project into other phases. Felt that the first phase is all the Commission should consider. Schiffer questioned if the Planning Office had any specific recommendations on the number of employee housing units which should be built in this phase. Bartel stated that they did not. Stated that that number could be arrived at by analyzing the major uses in the area, could come up with a fairly realistic num- ber. Ms. Baer stated that she felt the City Economist would be able to come up with a figure in the near future. Stated that he has some figures at the present time and has a ratio that he works with on commercial space. Johnson stated that he thought City Market was approxi- mately 4,000 square feet larger than the market which is being proposed. Felt that a supermarket of 9,000 square feet is really not large enough to give ade- quate service. Schottland stated that they could not go over 12,000 square feet for the market. Stated that it would be somewhere between 9,000 square feet and 12,000 square feet. Schiffer made a motion to give conceptual approval of the project, seconded by Johnson. Schottland stated that he had written a letter to Mayor Standley and also to Bartel stating that he would be willing to give the City the right of first refusal for three days upon notification that someone was moving, provided that that City employee had been a resident for one year. Bartel stated that the number of parking spaces would come under the building permit stage, unless the Com- mission would like to designate specific ratios. -12- - ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. ~OECKEL B. 8. a ~. ~a. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning February 5, 1974 Vidal questioned if under the old zoning, for this type of use, would the ration still be 1 to 400. Bartel stated that that was correct. Schiffer stated that maybe the Commission could condi- tion approval on the working out of an agreement with the city. Schiffer withdrew his original motion and Johnson with- drew his second. MAIN MOTION Schiffer made a motion to give the project conceptual approval, conditioned on working out the housing pro- blem between the Planning Office and the developer, and working out the parking problem. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. RBH Office Building - Concep- tual P-resentation Applicant explained that the project consists of space for three residents of Aspen who have been here for some time. Stated that the businesses concerned would be Reid Realty (7 employees), Cliff Brelsford, Aspen Agency (8 employees), and Reece Henry, CPA (3 employees). Stated that these businesses would probably be using over half of the space available in this project. Stated that would constitute approximately 6,500 square feet. Applicant stated that the other 6,000 square feet are available for rent. Chairman Gillis questioned if they had gotten any kind of indication from the Historic Preservation Commis- sion. Applicant stated that he had not been approached by that Commission yet. Stated that they realize they are in a sensitive area as far as the Court House is concerned and the Church across the street. Ms. Baer stated that one condition would be to submit the drawings to the Historic Preservation Committee and ask them to address in particular the height and bulk of the building, with the purpose of maintaining the Church, the Court House and other historic sites in the neighborhood. Ms. Baer stated that secondly, would like to see the landscaping remain a natural transition to the Court House sideyard, and have discussed this with the ap- plicant and this is also their intention. Ms. Baer further stated that they are recommending that no parking be provided on the site. Stated that there is proposed underground parking of. Stated that there is an access problem, of which they may need to take note later. Ms. Baer stated that they also feel some provision should be made on employee housing, on this site or on another site to accommodate the additional need in housing. -13- -- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORiIIlO c.r,HOECKELB.a.l!.L,CQ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 Applicant agreed that there was a problem with access. Stated that they have been negotiating it with the County, who are in the process of trying to vacate the alley behind the Court House. Stated that about the 1st of January, the applicant began negotiating with Al Bloomquist and he assured them that the County would come up with some solution to maintain their access if they would not protest vacation of that al- ley. Applicant stated that the question now presents itself: the East Aspen Townsite line, goes approximately on a diagonal through a corner of the Court House and across their site. Stated that part of the contention, is that the East Aspen Townsite was never provided with alleys, therefore, they have no reason to give the ap- plicant access. Stated that in checking it further, in 1893, there was a permanent easement established through this area for electrical power lines and other utilities. Applicant stated that if the access does become a pro- blem, would like to accept the recommendation to not park any cars on the site. Do not forsee this issue, at this point, as becoming a conflict. Stated that they would prefer to park their cars on the site, but would be willing to do otherwise. Applicant stated that as far as the housing was con- cerned, one of the owners of the building is in the real estate building and has management contracts on several long term rental units and have agreed that these facilities, in some proportion, may be made a- vailable to satisfy that housing requirement. Further pointed out that, as far as the applicant could see, was not adding any people to Aspen. Jenkins questioned what the Planning Office's position was on the area of the building in relation to lot size. Ms. Baer stated that it was allowed under existing zoning. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office had asked the Historic Preservation Committee to comment on the bulk of this project. Vidal questioned if the applicant had done any mass- ing on this project. Applicant stated that they had, and stated that as far as they could see, would be entirely within what would be considered good Victorian massing. Applicant stated that one reason they would like to have parking on site is that one of the businesses is a real estate business, and they have a higher turnover of cars. Stanford stated that this would be coming before the HIstoric Preservation Committee, and they would be ad- dressing themselves to things such as height, bulk, and setback as it relates to the other structures in -14- , " ...-' '""" . , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~OR'" 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5, 1974 in the vicinity, particularly the Court House and the Church across the street. Stated that they would pro- bably be comparing all three buildings together to maintain the predominance of the public structures. Bartel stated that the Ordinance #19 map did show the site as public and the reason for this was to save for the County the opportunity, if they felt there was a need for it, to include it in the Court Complex. Stated that it was not shown to mean that it should be a public site if the County did not need it. Stated that the County has not expressed a need, and the of- fice use would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Ordinance #19 map. Schiffer stated that he had some concerns regarding the parking, in that if the commission does not allow any parking, might find them parking behind the Court House since there is a lot there. Expressed concern that this might create interference with the actions of the Sheriff's Department. Applicant stated that since they were so near the City parking area, were not disputing the parking issue so much. Jenkins made a motion to approve the project under the conceptual presentation, conditioned upon the report from the Historic Preservation Committee, and would discuss parking and housing later. Motion secon- ded by Schiffer. Ms. Baer stated that as far as housing is concerned, the Planning Office could probably come up with a for- mula within a week for this building. MAIN MOTION All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the meeting would be con- tinued Thursday, February 7th at 5:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.