Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740416 __ __"___"_,_~_,___,,,__.~'_-"--""~"'~_",,,,,'-__~~""_""~"~~'~'__.".".H...,""...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOlIM'1 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spencer Schiffer at 5:10 p.m. with members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. OLD BUSINESS Molny/Eubanks Final Approval Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the MOlny!Eubanks project was given final approval under Ordinance #19 subject to certain conditions. Stated that those con- ditions have been fulfilled, consequently, final approval is complete. Bartel pointed out that Molny has acquired an additional 7' easement which was part of of the Card property and can move those structures an additional 7' away from the river, which is even that much better than what he had shown on the plan. Stated that does not require any action of the Commission. Landry made a motion that final approval be granted for the Molny/Eubanks project under Ordinance #19 since all the conditions had been met. Motion failed for lack of a second. Rio Grande Subdivision Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested this discussion be placed at the end of the agenda. Concensus of the Com- mission was to place this item at the end of the agenda. Resolutions for Exemptions to Condominiumize Duplexes Bartel submitted the resolutions for exemptions to con- dominiurnize duplexes which the Commission acted on at the last regular meeting. Schiffer pointed out that this was only two: Jordan/ Hecht and Chestnut/Weiman. Stated that have complied with the requirements and regulations. Concensus of Commission was to have Vice Chairman Schif- fer sign the two resolutions. Set Public Hearing Date Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that it was necessary for the Commission to set a date for the public hearing of the historic designation of the City Hall, Lift #1 (old) and the Community Church. Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing for the historic designation of City Hall, the old Lift #1 and the Community Church for 5:00 p.m. May 21, 1974. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearing Rubey Park View Planes Vice Chairman Schiffer opened the public hearing on the Rubey Park View Planes. Schiffer pointed out that this hearing included the In- dependence Pass corridor and the Aspen Mountain View corridor. Bartel submitted a map showing the two proposed view planes. Stated that they had decreased the angle of the Aspen Mountain View Corridor and retained the In- dependence Pass Plane. Stated that the reason for this was first, wanted to, where possible, limit the view plane to one for the undeveloped portion of the block directly across from Rubey Park and that with both Rubey Park and Wagoner Park being public land and the use of Rubey Park for transportation center, in the long run there is going to be a shift from the place where visi- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C...HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 tors concentrate to the direction of the Mill Street in- tersection. Stated that the disadvantage in that is that Galena Street is projected as the pedestrian link from the river to the downtown area to the transpor- tation stop, so the view of Aspen Mountain would be blocked except for the small corridor off the street. Bartel stated that the Planning Office feels it is very important to maintain the view of Independence Pass since this is a very high tourist concentration area and since there are not very many locations where there is a com- bination of both a foreground view of Aspen Mountain and a distant view of Independence Pass. Bartel stated that the front part'of the property could still be developed for a single story use. The back corner would have the height limits of the zoning code as it now is. Stated that the view line for Independence Pass could be varied through the PUD procedure. Bartel summarized by saying the Planning Office trade- off proposed at this public hearing is to decrease the angle of the Aspen Mountain view and retain the Inde- pendence Pass View. Vagneur questioned how much of the undeveloped land is under the Aspen Mountain View Plane. Bartel stated that the proposal is that none of it that is not built on would be under the Aspen Mountain View Plane. . Attorney Jim Moran was present representing Curt Chase who owns the property affected by this view plane. Stated that they have on file a letter from him out- lining the affects of both view planes on this property. Moran stated that the compromise that was indicated is really no compromise at all. Indicated on map how the view plane affects the subject property. Moran stated that at the study session at noon, one of the reasons for the so-called compromise was stated to be that no one's property should be subject to two view planes. Stated that that problem has not been remedied. Stated that the unusable portion has been expanded by the pro- posal. Stated that the space that is now occupied by the house is subject to the Aspen Mountain View plane and he is still subject to two view planes. Moran stated that if you are standing in the alley at Rubey Park on Mill Street, you see none of Independence Pass. When you stand at the corner of Durant and Mill Street you see none of Independence Pass. Stated it is only at that one particular point for a length of ap- proximately 4-6 paces that you get the narrow view of Independence Pass. Stated that the idea that tourist concentration is going to move to that point at this stage is rank speculation. Stated that there is no data to support the statement that this is the tourists' first visual impression of Aspen. Moran stated that the combined affect of this is that the two lots on the west side of Chases's property are restricted to the existing height of his house which is approximately 24 or 25 feet. Stated that when the view -2- ,_._..~.__~_._<~"_..."_'_'__ _ ~_"~_,~---,,_,'~",~,,,._"",'H'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.1l0ECKELB.B.&L.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 plane up the mountain crosses the back end of the pro- perty it reaches 37~ feet. Pointed out that the other plane causes the problem. Questioned what type of building could be designed that is 11' tall in one place and can go as high as 14' to 18' in the back. Moran further stated that there have been indications in the previous history of these two view planes that because of the severe affects on this property, affects that do not relate to developed property on either side of it, that there should be some negotiation, some dis- cussion of a possible solution. Did not feel PUD was any real solution. Requires additional dedication of open space. Does not allow development according to existing zoning. Stated that what this does is carve up this property, place an undue burden on it that is not shared by the neighboring property. Pointed out that Rubey Park, from a public standpoint, is not a park. It is being held by the City for development as it pleases and the City is preserving all its options there and taking them away from his client. Feels that the affect on this property is clearly a taking. Moran stated that he did not feel the City should take away a long-time citizen's property rights for the un- demonstrable benefit it would give to the tourists waiting for a bus for a few minutes. Moran stated that he did not feel the City could ask individual citizens to pick up the tab for making this a more beautiful place. Moran stated that the value of the land to Chase and eventually to anyone is not as a single family dwelling directly opposite the transportation center. vice Chairman Schiffer questioned Moran on whether or not he had any specific recommendations regarding a compromise on the view planes. Moran stated that his recommendation is, if the City wants something from a property owner, why don't they corne like any private citizen to the property owner and try to negotiate. Stated that he had offerred to dis- cuss the matter with the City but no overtures had been made. Felt that if the City wants those particular con- cessions that it is incumbent on them to approach the property owner. Feel this is two much to ask from one individual for the betterment of this City for the peo- ple at the transportation center. Jenkins stated that he did not feel that two view planes were necessary affecting one piece of property. Johnson stated that he had looked at the view plane in- numerable times and can understand that the City would like to protect its views, but on that particular In- dependence Pass view plane cannot support it. Vagneur stated that she agreed and could not support it. Landry stated that she was intrigued with the idea of a compromise, but cannot support the view plane as it is. Stated she would like to have a view of Independence Pass from that area, but not necessarily the proposed -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C.F.HOECKELB.B.ftL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 point. Vagneur stated that she would like to support some ac- tion to get the Planning Department to work with the property owner. Jenkins questioned Moran as to whether or not he had a problem with the view plane of Aspen Mountain and what it was. Moran stated that he did, but not nearly as bad of one. Jenkins stated he felt that they should get together and try to corne up with some type of compromise. Bartel stated that he wanted to include in the file the applicant's submission and the City's submissions so that everything for this hearing that has been collected to date is part of the file for records purposes. Vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing on the Rubey Park View Planes. Schiffer suggested that all the Commission members go to the site and take a look at the view planes together and discuss them there and then get together in a study session with the property owner. Hopefully could do that before the meeting of May 21, 1974. Jenkins stated that he felt the Commission needed more information concerning the transportation center. Felt this might affect the view plane. Moran suggested that since there is no development pre- sently planned for those six lots, would like to have the Rubey Park view planes not recommended or cancelled at this time. Stated that if the development situation changed, would undertake to tell the Commission at that time that something was being planned. Jenkins stated he would like to get the problem out of the way in the near future and would like to have an inspection and a study session. Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested tabling this project but have the Planning Office put this item on the schedule. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS Hibberd Condo- minium Houses Attorney Ron Austin was present to represent this pro- ject. Austin stated that the requests are being made under Section 20-10 of the Municipal Code which is the excep- tions and exemptions portion of the subdivision regu- lations. Austin reminded the Commission that they had voted to disapprove the proposed project on the basis of 20-7(5i} which in effect is the finding by the commission that the site is unsuitable for subdivision. Stated that he did not expect the Commission to reverse their decision at this meeting but is here in order to exhaust his ad- ministrative remedies. Austin submitted a letter containing the engineering -4- .~-,~~~~.---.,..--...----._,_..~--'",--" ........""",.'~~_"__~.',"...",,._..__..__..__..._ "W","'_ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F.1l0ECKElB.B.& L. CO. Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Regular Meeting Richardson Duplex Berghof Subdivision Exemption reports, the data with respect to fire protection, drain- age, etc... Austin stated that he did not have a great deal to say other than what is in the letter. Felt it covers the specific sections under 20-10 and the language in the letter requesting the exception or exemption comes di- rectly from the Code. Stated that in effect, what the applicant is asking for is a consideration by the Com- mission either to grant an exemption under that appli- cable provision or to recommend to the Council an exem- ption to the extent that this project does not fall di- rectly within the intent and purposes of the subdivi- sion regulations. Austin stated that with the decision of the Commission, the owner has no use for the land. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that under 20-l0(a}, did not feel that this particular request falls within the perview of that section of the regulations. Johnson made a motion to deny the request for a subdi- vision exemption under Section 20-l0(a}. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion to deny the request for a subdi- vision exemption under Section 20-l0(b}. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion to deny the request for a subdi- vision exemption under Section 20-l0(c}. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that this is an existing duplex in Snow- bunny on Lot 16, Red Butte Road. Stated that the re- quest is to allow condominiumization. Stated that it has been reviewed under the provisions for exemption and the Planning Office would like to recommend an ex- emption from the definition of subdivision. Attorney Leonard Oates was present representing the ap- plicant. Stated that the letter recites that they meet the criteria from the standpoint that they have the a- vailability and hookup to water and sewer and all the design requirements. Vagneur made a motion to grant the exemption from the definition of subdivision since the land in question has been platted into lots and blocks and it fulfills all the pertinent design requirements under 20-7. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that the Berghof is located on Cooper & Garmisch. Stated it is an existing condominium com- plex with 12 units. Stated that this application has been made in order to clarify the ownership and trans- fer of ownerships of the units. Stated that the Plan- ning Office and the Engineering Department have reviewed it with the design requirements and they are met with some satisfaction. Stated they are recommending, how- ever, that parking be removed from the City right-of-way along Garmisch, that curb, gutter and sidewalk be in- stalled and that parking be allowed to remain on site to meet the parking demands of the development. -5- _".._._.,v~___",,,__~"_"~...-._,~.____._.._._,__.__..__u_~"__,.....~--~,----......_-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOlIMII C.F.HOECKElB.B.l!Il.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that the reason for this request is that Garmisch will be a major pedestrian-vehicular circula- tion route. Stated that there is a 100' right-of-way in Garmisch Street now and believe that it should be beautified and should be made a major circulation street in the City. The result would be 12 spaces along the front, four along the alley and one on the western boun- dary of the property. Applicant stated that this was the first condominium in Aspen and was before the condominium law carne into ef- fect in Colorado. Jenkins made a motion to grant the exemption conditioned on the following: (I) that parking be removed from City right-of-way on Garmisch Street; (2) that curbs and gut- ters be installed on Garmisch and sidewalk as indicated by the Planning Department; (3) that parking on Cooper remain; (4) that the applicant create additional four spaces on north side of property and one on west; (5) and that they agree to join any future sidewalk district on Cooper Avenue provided that the parking does remain and that any sidewalk is constructed so that the parking will remain; (6) applicant agrees to join any future storm and drainage district and that these conditions are met by October 1, 1974. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion car- ried. Subdivisions Blue Sky - Final Plat Ms. Baer submitted memorandum to the Commission giving brief background of the project. Stated that this project consisted of 8 unit condominium houses on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. Stated that the ap- plicant had applied for 24 units in the spring of 1973, but revised to present proposal because of an avalanche in April of 1973. In the memo, the following were given as considerations for the project: (I) An easement for a loop road through Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision, back to ute Avenue could not be obtained. 30' turn around is now shown on the plat as an alternative, and has been okayed by the Fire Chief and Aspen Trash Service; (2) Notaion of Book and page for utility and drain- age easements should be shown on plat; also for raod easement through BLM and Lot 5 Hoag Subdivision; (3) Agreement to join in street improvement and drainage districts; (4) Agreement to form a Horne Owners Association; (5) Covenant deeds to guarantee long term rentals; (Consideration of Ordinance #19 conceptual ap- proval) (6) Drainage plan by Wright McLaughlin; -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOtCKElB.B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen planning & zoning April 16, 1974 (7) Domestic water service has been approved by the Engineering Department; water for fire protection okayed with fire hydrant at loca- tion shown on plat; (8) Subdivision Improvement Agreement to incor- porate relevant conditions from the above; (9) 3/26/74 Ellis and Baer visited site where avalanches had occurred a day or two previ- ously. Approximately the same areas had ava- lanched. Neither building site appeared to be affected, but the access road east of the proposed building sites was heavily covered as well as the area of the proposed turn a- round; (10) If the proposed rezoning is in effect by the time a building permit issues, a PUD will be mandatory. Schiffer stated that he understood the last approval which had been given was final approval conditional on certain things. Ms. Baer stated that the conditions were a number of the items mentioned in the memorandum relative to plat cor- rections. Stated that the major condition for this final plat approval was that the developers should have changed an easement for a loop from the access road back to ute Avenue. Stated that was requested by the Fire Depart- ment and the Commission, however, the developer was un- able to obtain this easement so now are proposing a 30' radius turnaround. Stated that Willard Clapper and As- pen Trash find this acceptable. Stated that they have no subdivision improvement agreement at this time and this should be a condition and it should incorporate those conditions in the memo. Ms. Baer stated that this final approval was given on october 16, 1973. Attorney Leonard Oates was present representing the ap- plicant. Stated that from the standpoint of the road, felt the original road concept as presented was not through the Larkin property but rather was to be a loop which was to go around through the subject property and through the Newfoundland Lode Claim, hooking up with the road again. Felt that was a mutual agreement between the developer and the Planning Department. Stated that the 60'diameter was acceptable with the utility company. Ms. Baer pointed out that the proposed road around would have torn up the terrain and it was mutually agreed that this would be an undesirable solution. Stated that the turnaround and the snow storage used to be one-in-the same and it was suggested that obviously it would be unusable unless the snow was stored someplace else. Jenkins questioned where the parking for the project was located. Oates stated that with respect to the avalanche danger, have obtained a report prepared by one of the foremost avalanche experts in the world and that is on file, -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.&l.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 and as a condition, developer agreed to indicate the pos- sible avalanche areas on the plat, and that report has been filed for record so that is available to anyone who is a prospective purchaser or user of the property. Stated that the developer has done substantial modifi- cation of the placements and reduction of the density so as to totally minimize that danger as far as possible. vice Chairman Schiffer questioned where the slides had occurred this year. Ms. Baer stated that they were located in approximately the sarne area as before. Steve Crowley was present and submitted an aerial photo- graph of the area, indicating slide areas and location of units. Stated that they had spent two days walking across the area and sarnples were taken and terrain analy- sis and topography study. Located ridge on map and stated that this ridge diverts the snow to one side or the other. Stated that as far as the experts could de- termine with the tree samples, etc., estimate no ava- lanche activity for approximately 100 to 150 years, and were satisfied that there was no possibility of it ever entering those areas because it does not have the po- tential to accumulate the force it needs. Johnson questioned if it was conceivable that if there was a small child in the road at the time the snow slid, that small child could be buried under the snow. Crowley stated that it was conceivable. vice Chairman Schiffer stated that that was his concern. Stated that he was not concerned about the units since they are located in a place where they would not be af- fected by the slide. Stated that if you are putting units there then it is conceivable that children could be playing in the area. Crowley stated that the slide that recently occurred was located between the two building sites. Stated that the possibility of a slide is the reason that they had put the snow storage area in its location. Jenkins questioned how much snow actually was in the slide. Crowley stated that the slide had stopped on the road and went from sluffing right off the shoulder to pos- sibly five feet deep at the deepest. Stated that some- one drove a Jeep over it the day it happened. Ms. Baer stated that it was about 40'. Crowley stated that this year it was possibly 25' wide and last year possibly 30-35' wide. Johnson questioned how long it would take to remove the snow, assuming the units were constructed and there was a slide comparable to this year's or last year's. Crowley stated that a decent snowplow would do it in half an hour. -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned if there was any con- ceivable way, from an engineering standpoint, to divert a possible slide in that area. Crowley stated that he would have to give the people that may live there credit for not walking where they know there is a possibility of a slide. Johnson stated that that would work for adults but not for children. Oates stated that some of that activity could be preci- pitated by the Homeowners' Association so that if there is any buildup there it can be blown or forced when no one is in the area under controlled type situation. Do not think the developers would have any objection to having a mechanism to see that that is taken care of. Oates pointed out that the City wants to use that as a hiking trail, so the same thing pertains. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he was concerned with that section of the subdivision regulations which says that you shall not approve subdivisions if you find that there is any condition likely to be dangerous to the health, welfare or safety of the residents or the com- munity. Oates stated that that is the reason why the developers went back and had the reports done. Stated that this is already a subdivision - already a lot in the Ute subdi- vision which was approved by the City several years ago. Crowley stated that when they first began the project, it was zoned for BB units, and initially submitted a proposal for 24, were two slides last spring and the de- veloper voluntarily reduced the density to eight and took out the upper road. Further stated that they would never have embarked on this venture if the lot had not existed and been zoned for high density residential hous- ing. Have spent two and a half years doing every re- quest which has corne up. Have spent a great deal of money on engineering, avalanche reports, plans, redone plans, put in roads, take out roads, etc... Jenkins questioned what the feasibility and practicality was of blowing the avalanches. Crowley stated that if they got into the situation of shooting, would have to be done by the condominium ow- ners association. Oates stated that it could also be done on a contract with the Ski Corporation. Jenkins stated that he felt because of things which have happened in the past, the Commission has likely progres- sed to a point where it is difficult to back out. Oates stated that they felt that this Commission under a different membership were totally satisfied on that point at one time, approximately a year and a half ago. Since then, a great deal has gone into the project in the way of time and money to resolve the other problems. -9- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!I C...HOECKElB.B.& l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Bartel stated that each time the Planning Department or Commission has asked for a problem to be resolved, the developer has resolved it to the extent that it could be resolved. Stated that they have made it as good as they can. Stated that the only safety consideration, as he sees it, is the slide passing over the road. Vagneur questioned if there was a manager to be in resi- dence in the proposed condominium association. Oates stated that these units are anticipated as resi- dential units for people who live and reside in the com- munity and there would be no resident manager. Not tourist-type housing. Feel that the developer could clearly draft, in the form of an agreement, that they would have the homeowners' association undertake to do that and failing their doing that, the City could corne up and do it themselves and charge them back for it. Stated that there would be some liability on the devel- opers if it was not done. Jenkins stated that his reaction would be to approve the project with that agreement concerning shooting the slides. Did not feel it was that much of a difficulty since it would only have to be done once or twice a year. Landry questioned if the language on the plat noted the avalanche area. Ms. Baer stated that it would have to the language should be more suitable. area, not a possible avalanche area. be changed. Felt Is an avalanche Schiffer stated that the Commission could not approve a plat it had not seen, which means that this plat would have to be redone before it could be approved. Ms. Baer stated that she agreed since there are a number of things which should be included on the plat. Oates questioned, specifically, with the exception of that language, what additional requirements would there be. Ms. Baer stated that they needed some more easements, book and pages. Oates stated that they had understood that under this configuration there was no problem with the easement. Crowley stated that the utility easements were on the subdivision plat. Stated that there was a 15' easement between every lot. Ms. Baer stated that there should be a book and page number. Oates stated that it would be the whole plat. Stated that this was a resubdivision of an already subdivided lot. Ms. Baer stated that she felt it should still refer to the same source of material. -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.l!Il.CO. Regular ~leeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that the easement across BLM should be recorded with book and page. Oates stated that he had documentation respecting his dealings with BLM, and the BLM stated that this was un- der a special use permit to the City and the City carne along and approved it for access to these lots. Ques- tioned where the special use permit that the City has would be. Ms. Baer stated that it was in this file. Oates requested a copy of the special use permit. Ms. Baer stated that the subdivision improvement agree- ment which goes to Council should incorporate the other considerations in the memo, and the Commission usually looks at those or is made aware of them. Oates questioned when they could be rescheduled before the Commission. Requested that they be rescheduled to go over the considerations in the memo at the next regu- lar meeting. Bartel stated that the agenda was full and what is nor- mally done is to continue to a Thursday meeting, so that it could be put on the agenda. Oates stated that the considerations submitted at the meeting today were not the same list of conditions from before. Schiffer stated that he had a problem with the slide con- dition, but since he was not a member or involved before and since this project has obviously dragged out over a long period of time, do not feel that he could vote on this project. Johnson made a motion to deny the project on the basis that it is unsuitable for residential use. Motion se- conded by Landry. Johnson stated that he was not satisfied that the area could be made safe for residents. Realize that the chance of something happening is slight, but still could not approve it. Jenkins stated that he had no problem with that because it could be taken care of by covenants or agreements. MAIN MOTION Johnson and Landry voted aye. neur and Schiffer abstained. Jenkins voted nay. Motion carried. Vag- Schiffer pointed out that there is a 'provision that if the land is made suitable that it can be approved. Oates stated that he felt the record was clear that the developer has acted in substantial reliance upon what the Commission has done. Schiffer stated that if the developer could find a way to divert the slide so that it is not in an area that is going to be inhabited by people, would vote in favor. -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Ordinance #19 Exemptions Peacock Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer pointed out that this is an existing duplex lo- cated at 630 West Hallam. Stated that the applicant would like to add a second floor to one of the units. Would make three bedrooms where there are presently two. Applicant described the present unit. Stated there was no intention of making this into a triplex, but simply enlarging the one unit. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt the remodel was of such a small scale would have no problem with the exemption. Ms, Baer stated that she felt the Commission needed to work out a policy on these type projects. Applicant pointed out that this was located in an area where triplexes are not allowed. Submitted plans of proposed addition. Schiffer stated he did not feel the Commission could act on the exemption until the Planning Department made some sort of recommendation. Bartel stated that what the Planning Department would want to do in that case is do it through the Ordinance #19 Review. Applicant questioned what that would accomplish. Stated that he did not plan to alter his plans, and would like to get it under construction. Applicant further stated that he had been informed that he would have to wait until July to get under Ordinance #19 Review. Landry questioned if there was any mechanism that it could be guaranteed that it be a two-unit building. Ms. Baer stated that this was a problem allover town and that enforcement is difficult. Stated the only thing that could be done was to evaluate each plan on its own merit. Jenkins pointed out that although the applicant might assure the Commission that while he owns the building it would never become a triplex, there was nothing to insure that when the building was sold it would not be- come a triplex. Johnson made a motion to grant the exemption under Or- dinance #19. Motion died for lack of a second. Jenkins made a motion to deny the exemption under Ordi- nance #19. Vagneur stated that she had abstained from any discus- sion on this project since she was involved in the sale of this piece of property. Stated she would like the Commission to decide if she has a conflict of interest. Concensus of Commission was that Vagneur did not have a conflict of interest. Johnson made a motion to grant the exemption, seconded -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.1!I l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 by Vagneur. Landry questioned what would happen if the project was reviewed under Ordinance #19 as far as insuring that this would never become a triplex. MAIN MOTION Members voting in favor: Johnson and Vagneur. Mem- bers voting against: Schiffer, Jenkins and Landry. Motion not carried. Ordinance #19 Reviews Durant - Galena Building Attorney John Wendt was present representing the appli- cant, Steve Marcus. Ms. Baer stated that this was a preliminary review. Stated that the conditions of conceptual approval were shown on a memo submitted to the Commission.which in- cluded: (1) Later discussion of parking; and (2) Ap- plicant demonstrates an option on remaining 6 lots of ~ block. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has sub- mitted an economic impact report and referral letters are noted and shown in the memorandum. Marcus stated that the reason they had not requested a referral letter from the gas company is that the pro- ject would be all electric. Vagneur stated that she had sat on the Commission when this project was first discussed and the original build- ing was disapproved. Stated that it was her understand- ing at that time that the Commission had asked Marcus to go back and do a Master Plan of the entire half block. Stated that she had not seen that Master Plan yet. Marcus stated that they did Master Plan the block and in the middle of the drawing of the plans, the City tried to pass a view plane Ordinance. Stated that he had been told he could go possibly 50 feet if he set back and was not boxy or massive. Stated that the view plane lowered the potential height of the buildings. Ms. Baer stated that the first time that Marcus carne be- fore the Commission, would not say that the building was denied. Stated that the minutes indicate that the Com- mission requested that they see a plan for the half block and this would be an opportunity to master plan a half block in downtown Aspen. When he carne back with a sketch plan and then requested a study session with the Commission, but due to a heavy schedule, this study session never took place. Vagneur stated that her interpretation was that the build- ing that Marcus brought in the first time the Commission considered too dense for two lots and thought it should be spread out over a half block since it was their last chance to really do something. Then Marcus carne back with a new plan of 3 lots. Marcus stated that he was told to withdraw his plan or the Commission would deny it. Pointed out that he did not own the whole block, but has an agreement with the owner to sell him the balance of the block and is will- ing to contract that he will architecturally match the rest of the block. Schiffer questioned if Marcus had an option on the rest -13- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.B.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 of the area. Marcus stated that he did. Schiffer stated that he did not see how the Commission could get the applicant to commit at this stage to do something on property that he does not own yet. Marcus submitted the site plan and schematic design. Vagneur stated that she felt it was unfortunate that a developer does not go to the Historic Preservation Com- mittee meeting before he comes before the Commission. Stated that Marcus had corne in with a buildiing that was squarelike and the Commission decided that it was too dense. Marcus then carne back with the present buil- ding and the Commission gave him conceptual approval. The HPC said that they did not like it because it was all timber and glass and it does not fit with the rest of the tenure of the block, and Vagneur agreed. Wendt stated that the building that the Commission had earlier rejected, the HPC liked. Further stated that the concern should really be with Durant street, but the HPC was talking only about Galena Street. Jenkins stated that he felt Vagneur's point was valid. Marcus stated that he felt the Commission had made an architectural decision when they requested him to corne back with a different design. Schiffer stated that the reason he had a problem accept- ing the recommendation is that the Commission approved the concept first. Stated that he did not feel quali- fied to pass on something aesthetically. Felt that if this were a single building located in the central core as opposed to being on the fringe, might be inclined to agree with the HPC Resolution. But given that it is probably going to be an entire half block under consid- eration, does not feel that he could go along with that boxy type of structure. Wendt stated that they would covenant that if they buy the other half of the block the architectural design will be compatible. Marcus stated that even if he did not take up the option the owner would covenant that the rest of the block would be designed the sarne. Concensus of the Commission was that applicants should go first to HPC before corning before the Commission. Schiffer stated that he felt the City should probably arnrnend Ordinance #19 requiring applicants to go to the HPC first, but do not have that now. Stated he did not feel the Commission was setting any precedent by a de- cision on this project. Stated he felt this was a good design for this particular location. Landry made a motion to accept the recommendation of the HPC on the grounds that would like to see the applicant work further with the HPC. Motion died for lack of a second. -14- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIlI C...HOECKElB.B.a l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Marcus stated that the HPC did not give them any real design considerations. Stated that he has discussed the design of the building with several architects in town and they feel that the massive, boxy type of build- ing is ridiculous. Stanford stated that the intent of the HPC is not to address themselves to individual buildings as to whether or not they like that particular building or not. It is to whether it promotes the character of old Aspen, which does not mean historic looking necessarily. Stanford further stated that Marcus had corne to their first meeting and the HPC gave him their recommendations. Stated that they would like for Marcus to corne in and they would give him some guidelines. Stated that they were ready to give Marcus guidelines that day. Marcus stated that he disagreed with the HPC analysis. Landry repeated her motion which was seconded by Vag- neur. Schiffer stated that if the Commission voted in favor of the motion, that would be the same as saying that the Commission is not approving this building and that the applicant will have to corne back with something dif- ferent regardless. MAIN MOTION Members posed: ried. in favor: Landry and Vagnuer. Schiffer, Johnson and Jenkins. Members op- Motion not car- Bartel stated that it has not worked for the applicant to seek relief from the Board of Adjustment. Stated that it is a function that is initially is a Planning & Zoning Commission function and not a Board of Adjustment function, so the sequence of changes to the Code would be the next time that the off street parking requirements could be changed would be following the public hearing on May 2nd. Stated that he felt that in the downtown area there was a concensus that the off street parking requirements in the Code were not applicable. Stated that if the Commission then decides to change the Code that would have affect for a period of six months, dur- ing which time it could be taken to Council as a sepa- rate consideration or incorporated in the zoning code rewrite and presented to Council as part of the revised Code. Further stated that the possibility is that the off street parking requirement change would only have affect for six months and then be reversed by the City Council. Wendt stated that after the public hearing on May 2nd the applicant would no what was appropriate in the way of parking and would incorporate that in the final plan. The sarne would apply to employee housing. Marcus stated that they would like to do a hotel, if not a hotel a commercial building with more shop space and could put some condominiums in it. Marcus stated that in the basement there would be a res- taurant - theater group. The main floor would be all shops with the uses as called for in Ordinance #19. -15- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B.al.Co. Regular MeetJ.ng Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Further stated that the upper floor will be probably some shops and possibly an office or two. Stated that there would be 8 shops altogether, or 8 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that these were the recommended uses in that area. Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval un- der Ordinance #19 to this project conditioned on working out the parking and employee housing problem, that the applicant demonstrate his option on the remaining 6 lots of the block, that he agree to participate in the un- dergrounding of electric utilitites for the building, and that he agree to restrict the uses to tourist-related uses. Motion seconded by Landry. Yank Mojo stated that Marcus had submitted an economic impact statement. Stated that he was satisfied with both the parking and employee housing if Marcus will agree to the City's decision when it comes up for final approval. Stated that he has calculated the parking im- pact and the employee impact and it is up to the Commis- sion to decide what they would like to do with those numbers and then impose whatever decision they have on the developer. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. RBH Building Vagneur stated that she was abstaining in the discussion and vote on this project due to conflict of interest. Ms. Baer stated that this was preliminary review. Stated that the building was given conceptual approval at its last presentation conditioned upon a report from the HPC and a later discussion of housing is part of the ap- proval. Applicant stated that they would have to get a new tap. Submitted preliminary site plan. Architect Jack Walls explained site plan to the Commission. Also submitted schematic design drawings and building elevation. Stated that their lot area is 6750 and they are under the floor area ratio, have excess open space and are under the al- lowable height. Walls stated that the Commission had recommended that the applicant not provide on site parking, therefore, the basement would be used for storage. Stated that the large lawn area is being preserved and the trees that are there now are being preserved. Stated that the masonry would be tied in with the color of the Court House and the Chur~h. Engineering Department comments were as follows: The proposed project should not create any access or cir- culation problems on Main Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the back through a contested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreement from pitkin county stating that the County will provide alternate access if the alley is closed. The opinion of pitkin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordi- nances. Drainage should be in compliance with the Ur- ban Runoff Managemen t Plan; the roof and the sunken court should provide retnetion c~pacity for the site. -16- FORM 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B.&l.Co. Regular MeetJ.ng RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Walls submitted the elevations for the Commission. Stated that some of the trees on the lot are dead and are not of any consequence. Other trees will be saved or trans- planted. Stanford stated that the HPC thought this building would be compatible. Massing similar to the Church and right across from the Church and blends in with what the HPC felt was the primary criteria of maintaining the promi- nence of the Courthouse as being the most significant structure on both sides of Main Street. Walls stated that the recommendation of the HPC that the fence be continued would be a little bit of a problem. Stated that to fence in the open space is against the ordinance. Do not feel it is worthwhile to fence it. Have planters to make transition from the iron fence around the corner and into their courtyard. Stanford stated that the HPC felt that it would be a good opportunity for a new building to show how a con- temporary wrought iron fence could be continued and could be compatible with the existing fence. Walls stated that he felt it was difficult to fence an area in and then expect the public to use it. Johnson stated if the transition from the courthouse lawn was made good enough going around the corner down to the courtyard, did not feel the fence would be that necessary. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned the applicant as to whether or not there would be signs on the building. Walls stated that there would be signs but they will be cut out of metal letters. Concerning the HPC recommen- dation on the windows and lighting, stated that just concerned draping on the inside. Do not feel that there will be any problem since they would try to standardize the draping. Schiffer stated that there was a problem with the access. Walls submitted the following letter from Al Blomquist, County Manager: "Dear Jack: The County can now give a temporary access easement to the rear alley location on the east County property line of the Pitking County Courthouse. The giving of this permanent access will be conditional on the City of Aspen vacating the alley behind the Court- house, closing Galena Street for use as a mall and ex- tending Hunter Creek Trail via the Trueman Property and vacating the access easement across the slope from Ga- lena Street to the Obermeyer Building." Walls stated that in essence, what they have is that they have worked out a plan for access. Stated the County was just using that letter as a lever to get something else out of the City. Further showed showed map of area and access to building. Further showed which land was owned by the County. Stated that accor- ding to Blomquist, the annex behind the Courthouse is going to be removed. -17- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!II C...HOECKElB.B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer questioned if that alternate access could be the permanent office. Walls stated that as far as employee housing and parking was concerned, at the last presentation, Ms. Reed, one of the owners indicated that there was no problem in that area and that they would supply it. Stated that the housing would not be supplied in this building. Have not arrived at a number in regard to what the City would like to require in the way of employee housing. Ms. Baer requested that the applicant meet with Mojo to discuss that problem. Jenkins stated that he felt some type of impact study should be made. Jenkins made a motion to give prelimary approval under Ordinance #19 for the RBH Building conditioned on work- ing out of the parking situation, that the applicant get together with Mojo and work on the employee housing situation and arrive at some sort of agreement and that the applicant work out the access problem and obtain an agreement from the County stating that the County will provide alternate access if the alley is closed. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor with the ex- ception of Vagneur who abstained. Motion carried. Stevens - Ginn Building - Final Approval Johnson stated that he would be abstaining on discussion and vote in this project. In a memorandum from the Planning Office, states that this project conforms with approval given at concep- tual and preliminary reviews. Conditions: (1) A use agreement has been submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney and the Planning Office. If new zoning is adopted, it will apply to this site; (2) Project re- ceived all four requested variances from the Board of Adjustment; (3) Trash management plan should be submit- ted; and (4) Covenant should be submitted to restrict apartments to long term rentals. Schiffer questioned the City Attorney as to whether or not she was satisfied with the last paragraph of the a- greement. Ms. Stuller stated that essentially what it is saying is that they are afraid thatl if they start construction this summer and the zoning is changed on them mid-stream, they might have entered into some leases and made com- mittments that they might not be able to honor later on. Ms. Baer stated that the previous agreement indicated that zoning applied at the time of occupancy was to pre- vail. Stated that the only reservations she has is that the City is so close to a rezoning proposal and possible action that hesitates to commit to something which might be in conflict with it. Architect Larry Yaw stated that the applicant feels that the agreement reflects as much the nature of the times, the interest of the City and the interest of the owner. Feel it is a fair and not burdensome request on the City because it does take care of the immediate range - long term interest. If the use is legislated against by -lB- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.8.al.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 furture zoning then the agreement provides that when the occupancy changes it will fall under the prevailing zon- ing. Jenkins questioned what mechanism the City had to en- force use control. Ms. Baer stated that that was taken care of through the building permit system since almost any change in use requires some type of remodeling and thus a building permit. Schiffer stated that as far as he was concerned, the a- greement would be satisfactory. Yaw stated that since the last presentation, the appli- cant has been able to provide more open space. Now have a total of 5925 square feet which is both combined open space and-covered space and mall space. Yaw stated that with regard to the trash, had conversa- tions with Aspen Trash, and concluded that the best pos- sible system would be a trash compactor in the basement. Stated that they did agree that having trash in the base- ment was the best method. Stated that it is stored un- til the specific pick-up time. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was satisfied with the trash solution. Yaw indicated where the access to the underground park- ing lot would be. Stated that the degree of inclina- tion of the ramps would be 8%. Schiffer stated that he felt it would be better to have a different type of access. Yaw stated that the premise of the underground parking would be that that parking condition relieve what would be a very big problem without it. Stated it would be used for both employees and customers. Stated that the one instance in which he saw some potential for conges- tion is where City Market has prevailed on a public right of way to make a driveway out of it. Schiffer expressed the possibility that customers would be using the City Market parking lot for convenience rather than the underground parking. Do not feel it is a situation which can be policed. Yaw stated that the situation would be much worse if they did not provide parking. Schiffer questioned if there was any way that the archi- tect could design a situation where the parking access was on the other side of the building. Yaw stated that they would have to the building in order to do that. constitute a hardship. completely redesign Stated that that would Jenkins questioned Mojo as to whether or not he had re- ceived enough information from the applicant to create an impact study with which he would be satisfied. Mojo stated that he had received no information. -19- FORM5lI C...HOECKElB.B.l!Il.CO. Regular MeetJ.ng RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Mojo stated that after reviewing the plans has corne up with what he thinks will probably happen. Stated that he is projecting approximately 70 employees out of the project. Felt that it was absurd to think that the par- king lot is going to be used for anything other than employees. Felt that there would be customers driving down the rarnp and creating a jarn in the lot. Stated that he would like to see the studio units used as hous- ing for employees in the building, and would like to see the lease covenant that. Stevens stated that they had informed the City that they had the information any time the City wanted it. Yaw stated that he disagreed with the number of employ- ees projected by Mojo. Stevens stated that with the tenants he had in mind, could only count 16 employees that would be in the build- ing at one time. Vagneur stated that she would like to see two floors of parking. Stevens stated at the origin of the project he had ap- proached the owners of City Market for their opinion of a neighborhood shopping center and whether or not he should put parking in the building. Stated that City Market felt they should include parking. Yaw submitted floor plans and elevations. Ms. Baer questioned how many parking spaces there were. Yaw stated that there would be 28. Ms. Baer stated that it started out being 36 spaces. Questioned if the applicant had checked with the Buil- ding Inspector to see if 28 spaces would be sufficient. Johnson and Schiffer stated that they thought the ap- plicant had said he would provide 38 spaces. Yaw stated that there were two reasons for the reduction of parking: (1) the mechanical areas for this and ac- complishing a gentle ramp; and (2) the parking require- ments which do prevail make you go to 11' which pre- cluded other parking spaces. Felt that was extremely excessive as far as workability. Bartel stated that the Building Inspector would calcu- late the required number of parking spaces for the build- ing. Yaw described the floor plans and uses. Described the building material to be used - wood, stone and glass. Ms. Baer questioned the applicant as to what they would do if they find that they do not have adequate parking spaces. Stated the Commission could not approve a pro- ject with less than the required number of parking spaces. Yaw stated that they have provided as many parking spaces as possible. -20- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C...HOECKEl8.B.&l.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that since the project was in the C-l District, were not allowed to buyout parking. Yaw stated that in the event they did not have enough parking, would have to request a variance. Ms. Baer stated that there was no hardship. vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt the Building Inspector should determine how many spaces would be re- quired before the Commission acted on final approval. Vagnuer made a motion to table final approval on the Stevens-Ginn Building until the calculations were com- plete on the parking and then be put on the next avail- able agenda. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Rio Grande Subdivision Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that this was a problem of Rio Grande Subdivision versus Aspen Center Subdivi- sion. Bartel stated that the legal notice for the preliminary plat indicated that it was for the Rio Grande Subdivi- sion, that it was the Rio Grande Property including both sides of Mill Street. Stated that there is no public notice for final plat. Bartel stated that the drawings on the subdivision show a 3-lot subdivision. One lot, the ll~ acres for the City, lot 2, which is the Aspen Center and lot 3 which is the remaining lot of that 3 acres. Stated that the sheets in the proposal first show what amounts to a boundary survey for the ll~ acres, a fairly detailed schematic site plan for Lot 2 and nothing on Lot 3 with language on the plat that all that is being approved on Lot 3 is the ~oundary, that there are no development plans being approved for Lot 3. Bartel further stated that the minutes for the prelimi- nary plat meeting on March 5th are approved so that requires specific action to correct the record. Stated that the minutes for the final plat have not been sub- mitted and corrections there could be made at the time they are acted on. Vagneur stated that she had never understood in any of the meetings that Rio Grande was mentioned. Schiffer stated that it had always been discussed as the Aspen Center and had always looked at it as a condomi- nium subdivision and just looking at the building in re- lation to Lot 2. Repeatedly the point had been made not to discuss Lot 3. Assumed that the land had been sub- divided. Johnson stated that those were his feelings also. Jenkins stated that he had no feelings to the contrary. Schiffer stated that the problem is that the minutes in- dicate that the Commission approved the Aspen Center Subdivision, and the City Council approved the final plat for the Rio Grande subdivision. Stated that the notice requirement has been satisfied, and presumably anyone who would have corne to the public hearing to -21- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!II C.F.HOECKElB.B.I!IL.Co. Regular MeetJ.ng Aspen Planning & Zoning April l6, 1974 voice any objections would have been there because of the notice. The only problem is that the Commission did not discuss at the public hearings the division of the land. Stated that it meets all the requirements of the subdi- vision regulations. Stated that they could rehold the public hearings, but that would hold up Schottland. Johnson stated that he could see no reason to rehold the public hearings. Ms. Stuller pointed out the overwhelming hardship that would be imposed on Schottland if he was asked to go through this allover again. Stated that if it was the Commission's intent to handle the Rio Grande Subdi- vision, can do that by correcting the minutes. Bartel stated that what they were trying to do is cor- rect what should have been the responsibility of the seller and both Bartel and the City Engineer wanted to get something on file of what the City purchased and it has been on all the maps. Reminded the Commission that Lot 3 carries with it no development approval, and whether a condominium plat is subdivided for Lot 2 or not, still must meet the subdivision requirements for the entire thing. Schiffer stated that he felt the Commission had approved the condominium subdivision before approving the land subdivision. Bartel stated that on the plat it states, "Lot 3, Rio Grande Subdivision as herein shown is accepted and recordation of this plat approved only as the exterior survey boundary and does not constitute an approval of the tract as specifying the design requirements 20.7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen prior to the issuance of a permit. For construction thereon Lot 3 shall be resubdivided or subdivision of deed all as provided for by Chapter 20 which is the subdivision regulations of the Code and approval shall be contained on satisfaction as to the design requirements of said Section 20-7 at such time permanent dedication of right- of-way, utility and public easements shall be finalized and any landscaping requirements satisfied." Ms. Stuller stated that it would be possible to start allover on Lots 1 and 3. Schiffer stated that he felt that was the only way the Commission could handle the problem, and try to find some way to allow Schottland to go ahead with this pro- ject. Schiffer suggested continuing the meeting until Thurs- day in order that the City Attorney could corne up with a solution. Stevens-Ginn Building Jenkins made a motion to continue the meeting to Thurs- day at 5:00 p.m. Motion died for lack of a second. Yaw stated that he had just found the calculations. Stated that the parking as calculated on square feet of certain different types of use, just applied the Code to them. Stated that they have two parking spaces to spare. Stated that his calculations corne up with a requirement of 27 spaces and are providing 28. Re- -22- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 'I C...HOECKElB.B.al.Co. Regular MeetJ.ng Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 quested that, since parking was the only condition or at least the primary condition on which they were asked to return, request that the Commission give final ap- proval subject to the evaluation of the Building In- spector. Vagneur made a motion to reconsider the motion on the final approval of the Stevens-Ginn Building, seconded by Landry. All in favor with the exception of Johnson who abstained. Motion carried. Vagneur made a motion to give final approval to the Stevens-Ginn Building under Ordinance #19 conditioned on the execution of the agreement regarding the uses and that the 28 parking spaces meet the requirements of the present zoning code. Motion seconded by Landry. Members in favor: Vagneur, Landry and Schiffer. Members opposed: Jenkins. Members abstaining: Johnson. Mo- tion carried. Jenkins made a motion to continue the meeting to Thurs- day, April 18 at 5:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting continued to April 18th, 1974 at 5:00 p.m. Meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m.