Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740507 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSO C.F.HOECKElB.B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer at 4:15 Commission members Bryan Johnson, Janet Landry and Charles Collins. sent City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer, ford and Yank Mojo and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. p.m. Also John with pre- Stan- Blue Sky Resolution The following resolution was submitted to the Commission for their approval: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION BLUE SKY SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, a final plat for Blue Sky Subdivision, located in Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and con- sideration, and WHEREAS, due to avalanche action on the site in April, 1973, an earlier plat was revised and resubmitted, and WHEREAS, the revised plat received conditional preliminary approval on October 23, 1974, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds the land proposed for subdivision is unsuitable for residential use by reason of adverse topography resulting in a con- cition of recurring avalanches on the site and across the access road, and the development of said land is likely to be harmful to the health, safety and welfare of future residents, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that despite efforts on the part of the subdivider to verify the extent of danger from avalanche and to assure the health, safety' and welfare of future residents of the proposed sub~' division, the land has not been rendered suitable for residential use to. the satisfaction of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Since there were not objections from the Commission mem- bers, the resolution was signed by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer. Benedict Commendation The following resolution was submitted to the Commission for their approval: Resolution of Commendation Benedict & Associates WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has had need of certain study maps to facili- tate its planning efforts in behalf of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, Benedict and Associates generously volunteered to prepare said maps without compensation, and WHEREAS, Gail Weinberg, an employee of Benedict and Associates has diligently preprared and sub- mitted said maps for the use of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to express its sincere gratitude and appreciation to Benedict and Associates, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Benedict and Associates and Gail Weinberg be, and they are hereby, commended for their contribution to City of Aspen planning responsibilities and procedures. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FDIlIllSO c. F. HOECKEL B. B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 As there were no objections, Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer signed the Resolution of Commendation for Benedict & As- sociates. Bartel submitted the maps prepared by Benedict and As- sociates. Set Public Hearing - Parking Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the next available date for the public hearing would be May 23, 1974. Public hear- ing date was set for May 23, 1974. Set Public Hearing - Bartel submitted maps of the specific locations to be Downzoning of Public considered in the public hearing. Stated that this was Lands & Ski Runs the Planning Office proposal as the next step in the Below 8040 zoning and it includes the public lands from the mountain to the river and the ski runs below 8040 which are in private ownership. Bartel briefly reviewed the proposal and the general ow- nership pattern. Stated that the proposal of the Planning Office is that the next step in the rezoning would be to zone the public lands to assure their use for open space and to set the precedent which can help determine the land use plan for the remainder of the core area. Stated that it includes two new districts: (1) a district desig- nated public; and (2) a district which has a park chara- cter dominate but can be used for other public purposes such as transportation. Bartel suggested the public hearing date be June 4, 1974, which is the first regular meeting date at for which the publication requirements can be met. As there were not objections, the public hearing for the downzoning of public lands and ski runs below 8040 was set for June 4, 1974. New Member Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer welcomed new member Charles Collins to the Commission. Bruce Gillis - Resignation Vice Chairman Schiffer pointed out that Gillis would be absent for anywhere from 2 to 4 months. Stated that he had offered to tender his resignation to the City Council and had been discouraged from doing that, but left it open so that at any future time if the Commission felt it would be necessary to have a full commission, would make a rec- ommendation to the City Council that his resignation be accepted. Vice Chairman Schiffer further stated that at the same time, the Commission indicated that they would recommend at this time that he be given an extended leave of absence with his absences being excused under the by-laws. Johnson stated that he had a problem with this in that the Commission has had difficulty in getting a quorum on one occasion which he felt was embarassing for the Commi- ssion. Johnson further suggested that the Commission sug- gest to the City Council that they replace Gillis. Stated that this does not reflect in any way on Bruce Gillis as a member of the Commission, but felt that there should be a full Commission at all times. Johnson made a motion to recommend to City Council that Bruce Gillis be replaced. Motion seconded by Landry. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 FORNSO C.F.HOECKELB.B.lI:l.CO. Main Motion Compliance with Ordinances Main Motion SUBDIVISIONS Shadow View Sub- division - Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he was opposed to the motion. Felt that Gillis had made invaluable contribu- tions to the progress of rezoning, etc.. and does not feel fuat it is critical at this time to make such a recom- mendation to Council. Members in favor of the motion: Bryan Johnson and Janet Landry. Members opposed to the motion: Spence Schiffer and Charles Collins. Motion not carried. Bill Dunaway, editor of the Aspen Times, pointed out that the City Council had brought over a legal notice adver- tising a vacancy on the Commission. commission stated that they were not aware of this. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he had noticed that applicants coming before the Commission are not complying with the letter of the ordinances. Stated that the or- dinances require that certain things are done before their appearance before the first hearing, either under subdi- vision or Ordinance #19. Stated that it appears that the Planning Office is overlooking the technical requirements of those ordinances. Stated that there are certain things that may seem insignificant from the point of view of the applicant, but due to their failure to comply with it, it requires the Commission to do more work in preparing for these meetings. Felt it is incumbent on the applicant if they want to get something heard to comply with the exact letter of each one of the ordinances. Vice Chairman Schiffer recommended that when any appli- cation is made under Ordinance #19 or subdivision that it be first reviewed by the Planning Office and if it has not complied fully with all the requirements, it not be placed on the agenda. Johnson made a motion that when any application is made under Ordinance #19 or subdivision that it be first re- viewed by the Planning Office and if it has not complied fully with all the requirements, it not be placed on the agenda. Motion seconded by Collins. Vice Chairman Schiffer gave examples of violation$' of the requirements. Stated that these examples are wasting the time of the applicant and the Commission. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that Shadow View Subdivision is a request for a condominium subdivision. Stated that it is the pro- ject which the Commission gave conceptual approval under Ordinance #19 as Hopkins Fourplex. Stated that the pro- posal is now for a four unit condominium. Ms. Baer submitted the site plans. Ms. Baer submitted considerations fromfue Planning Office: (1) Plat corrections & additions; (2) Finished site ele- vations and access from alley; (3) Drainage - provision to retain run off on site; (4) Parking - layout is not workable for 8 cars; (5) Trash storage and removal; (6) Snow removal; (7) Landscaping; (8) 4% dedication; (9) Agreement to join future street, curb and gutter and drainage districts; and (10) Construct sidewalk. -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I! C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 A memorandum from the Engineering Department was submitted which stated that the plat should have the following ad- ditions: (1) Street and alley widths; (2) Date of pre- paration; (3) Scale and orientation on sheet 2; (4) Lo- cation of utility pole in alley; (5) Acreage of land; (6) Location of sidewalk; (7) Details of landscaping; (8) Contours (existing and proposed) extending across al- ley; (9) Finished contour elevations; and (10) Trash handling facilities. The memorandum further stated that the number of parking spaces shown becomes questionable under the restraints of the existing utility poles, alley grade, and snow condi- tions. Any plan for regrading the alley will require ap- proval and all costs involved in regrading or relocating the utilitites will be the responsibility of the subdi- vider. Regrading of the tract should not increase runoff from the improved site onto the adjacent downhill property. The site improvements hsould be designed to provide enough on-site retention to maintain the historical runoff rate and comply with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Sub- divider should also covenant to join any future special improvement districts including street, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage. Paul Hamwi was present and submitted the plat. Stated that they have moved the building up 8' and so have more than the required setback. vice Chairman Schiffer opened the public hearing. Hamwi stated that by moving the lot forward 8', allows them 8 parking spaces which is what was discussed in the conceptual presentation. Could" provide 9 spaces, but do not feel they need it. Indicated the trash areas on the plat. Indicated the location of the 30' drywell for the drainage. Stated that each separate garden will have a drywell as indicated (2' x 4' x 4'). Stated that the drywell location has not been determined yet since they will need some type of landscaping plan in order to plot the drywell. Collins questioned how the size of the drywell was deter- mined. Hamwi stated that the architect for the project determined that. Ms. Baer stated that the Engineering Department has not had time to review the revised plat. Hamwi stated that if the Engineering Department determines that the drywell is not large enough, there is adequate room for drywells. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned what corrections had been made on the plat. Hamwj. stated that the street and alley widths were not indicated on the plat. Stated that the date of prepara- tion was indicated on the plat. Stated that the loca- tion of the utility pole had not been indicated on the plat. Stated that location of sidewalk was on sheet 2. Further stated that they have not determined the actual landscaping in the garden areas. -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOFIMSO C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Ms. Baer questioned what the height of the wall would be. Hamwi stated that the height varied. Further stated that the developer has brought his lot up to the alley. Ms. Baer stated that there would have to be a method of getting access to the alley. Hamwi stated that the entrance was indicated on the plat. Stated that it was a 20' entrance. Indicated the location of the retaining wall. Stated the entrance could be in- creased. Further stated that they are getting bids on snow removal. will submit a contract to the Commission. vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the problem is not with respect to what the developer is ultimately going to do, but the problem is that it does not appear on the plat. Stated that the way it stands now, the Commission cannot approve the plat as it is. Stated that the Engineering Department has not had a chance to take a look at it and there are some things that are not on the plat that must be on it. Felt the appropriate thing to do would be to table this until information has been provided to the Engineering Department and they can review it and make recommendations to the Commission. As there were no further comments, Vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing. Collins made a motion to table the consideration of the preliminary plat on Shadow View Subdivision until such time as the Engineering Department can review the plat with the additional information which the applicant must provide, and that it would be scheduled again within 30 days. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 Exemptions Paas Residence Ms. Baer stated that this is a request for an addition to a single family dwelling, which is a use by right in Ordinance #19. Stated that this would be a 4 bedroom, 1 bathroom addition located on South Mill and Dean Street on 7500 square feet of lot. Ms. Baer submitted site plan indicating existing struc- ture and addition. Ms. Baer further stated that the Plan- ning Office was recommending this for an exemption and would like the record to show that the intended use is for a single family dwelling. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt it was clear under the AR zone, if there is a lot area of 6,000 square feet or greater, there is a use by right for a single family dwelling. Concensus of the Commission was that this would be a single family dwelling which is a use by right. Aspen Times Bill Dunaway was present as applicant. Charles Collins stated that he had a conflict of interest and would therefore have to abstain. Janet Landry stated that she had a conflict of interest and would also have to abstain. -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSO C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 As a result of the two abstentions, there would only be two members voting, which is not sufficient according to the Planning & Zoning Commission By-Laws. Johnson made a motion to table consideration of the re- quest for exemption by the Aspen Times until such time as there would be sufficient voting members. Motion se- conded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Con- sideration tabled until such time as there was a quorum. Taylor Residence Ms. Baer stated that the Taylor residence is located on Hallam and First Streets. Stated that it is an existing dwelling unit with an out building, which is now used as a caretaker's unit. Stated that the residence is on 4 lots, lr 12,000 square feet. The request is to build an addition to the caretaker's unit which is 1 room now. A living room, dining room and kitchen would be added. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office is recommending an exemption because there are 12,000 square feet. Felt this addition would be in conformity with the density suggested by Ordinance #19. Applicant would be willing to leave the corner lots va- cant forever if she is allowed to make this addition. Stated that this was a very nicely maintained Victorian building. Johnson made a motion to grant the exemption on the con- dition that the remaining portion of the lots not be built on. Motion seconded by Landry. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt it was within that section of Ordinance #19 that would grant an exemp- tion for a project that is of such a small scale. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Preliminary Review Clarendon Ms. Baer stated that this project was located on Ute Avenue. Attorney Jim Moran, Rick Ferrell and Chuck Vidal were present representing the project. Moran stated that the applicants had receieved a bill of due signed by Ms. Baer which stated that they had been af- fected by the recent Ute Avenue downzoning. Questioned if that advice had been communicated to the Commission and questioned if that would be a consideration of the Commis- sion. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the Commission had not been given any direction on it, but stated that even if the applicant did get Ordinance #19 approval, they could not get a building permit if they did not comply with the current zoning. Stated that the Commission would go ahead and consider this under the normal Ordinance #19 procedure. Moran questioned if the Commission would have the down- zoning ordinance enter into its deliberation as the appli- cant procedes through Ordinance #19 and subdivision re- view. Johnson stated that he felt it would be difficult to di- vorce the fact that the area had been downzoned. -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rORIIl\O C.r.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Moran questioned if the down zoning would affect the de- cision of the Commission. Vidal stated that the issues that remain do not include density. Questioned if there would be a bias relative to the other issues because of the downzoning. Ms. Baer pointed out that this was building permit review. Pointed out that you can not approve a subdivision that is not in conformity with zoning. Johnson stated that he did not feel that he could divorce himself from the fact that the area had been down zoned in any deliberations that he made. Stated that he would try to review it under the ordinance. Ms. Baer stated that the subdivision regulations require a designation of the zoning on the subdivision plat. Moran stated that if the Commission was going to consider the downzoning in relation to this project, the applicant would be willing to table this project, both under subdi- vision and Ordinance #19, and apply to the court for a declaratory judgment asking how does the recent ordinance affect the applicant's status and relationships with the City in respect to the application which are in process. Would combine the request for a declaration with a request to enjoin the Commission from applying or considering it. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he was going to suggest that since the applicant has a new proposal which they will be bringing before the Commission that will concern this project, why not table. Vidal stated that the applicant is on the agenda to make a concept presentation on the new proposal on the 4th of June. Requested that there be a study session prior to that concept presentation. Stated that that proposal has no official status at this point, so must proceed with the Clarendon and protect themselves if, in fact, that proposal never goes beyond anything but a proposal. Vidal stated that there are certain time clocks that are running relative to their obtaining declaratory judgments that may not be able to wait for this other sequence to happen, but to the degree that they can wait, applicant would wait. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that his recommendation would be to table this for a period of time and see what happens with the other proposal. Moran questioned if they could table this subject to it being placed on the agenda as old business at the request of the applicant. Vidal requested a study session prior to the 4th of June and subsequent to next Monday. At the request of the applicant the presentation for the preliminary ordinance #19 approval is deferred until the applicant requests consideration. Bartel questioned if the applicant would be prepared for the study session as early as the following Tuesday. Vidal stated that the applicant would try to be prepared -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" 10 C.r.HOECKELB.B.IllL.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 for a study session on Tuesday, May 14th. Conceptual Reviews Vroom Building Ms. Baer stated that this would be located at the corner of Mill and Main on a 4500 square foot lot. Submitted site plan. Would have approximately 6000 square feet of total floor area and would be 20-25' high. Stated that the uses proposed are commercial and office. Stated that com- mercial uses are by right. Stated that the HPC has re- viewed the building and approved it with recommendation of a wrought iron fence to enclose landscaped areas from sidewalk because of high pedestrian traffic at this cor- ner. Basis for approval: compatability in materials, mas- sing and detail similarities. Stanford stated that a design analysis had been done on this section of Main Street and felt the Vroom building would be compatable with the Epicure building, it has similar proportions and detailing and has basically ver- tically oriented windows, similar materials and compata- ble color. Primarily massing was the reason it was ap- proved by the HPC. Stanford stated that the HPC had suggested to Vroom, and this was not contingent on whether or not it was histori- cally compatable, but since it was a busy intersection had suggested the possibility of a wrough iron fence coming out to the sidewalk to protect the landscaping. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned how many units would be in the building. Vroom stated that at the present time it was petitioned for four spaces and the basement. Stated that the base- ment would be used for storage. Basement to be 2831 sq. ft. Stated it would be either warehouse storage or sto- rage for the tenants. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned if they were consider- ing a commercial-type storage where one rents space. Vroom stated that that was a possibility. Collins questioned if the basement would have outside ac- cess. Vroom stated that it would. Two interior stairs and one exterior. Jack Lawlor, architect for the building, pointed out that the zoning does allow 9,000 square feet in the total gross area above grade. Stated that the plan submitted does meet with the open space requirements, trash removal, setback requirements, etc... Vroom stated that he felt the commercial uses would be software, tourist oriented. Did not anticipate a res- taurant or anything with that high of intensity use. Vice Chairman Schiffer requested that the applicant des- cribe how the project would comply with the recommenda- tions of the land use plan and Ordinance #19. Stated that this is one of the requirements of Ordinance #19. Johnson questioned if the applicant would agree to join~ a parking district or buyout parking from the City of -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.tO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Aspen. Vroom stated that it would be difficult to commit himself completely without knowing what system would be required. Ms. Baer pointed out that this would apply to anyone in the district. Vroom stated that he had made no provisions for on-site parking. Further questioned if the City planned to use the former Trueman property for the space. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that would be one of the places, but there were also some other places under con- sideration. Johnson stated that it is highly likely that the parking needs, as the Commission sees them, would probably be greater than they are in the present Code. Vice Chairman Schiffer pointed out that the parking re- quirements would depend on the use, and until the uses were determined, could not determine the amount of re- quired parking spaces. Vroom stated that the uses will be primarily professional offices. Stated that if the Commission would prefer re- tail space there, then that is what he would provide. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned how many employees the building would generate. Vroom stated that based on the professional uses, would guess approximately 8 - 10, but would be difficult to say at this point. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned, in the event the Com- mission were to come up with a recommendation that people who build new buildings will have to provide housing for the employees of that building, would Vroom be willing to provide housing for the employees of the building. Vroom stated that he did not see how he could. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that there are so many things concerning employee housing that are contingent on so many other things, that it becomes a problem that seems to have no solution, and felt that he was inclined to disregard that question altogether. Ms. Baer stated that she felt the warehousing use question should be tied down. Collins made a motion to give conceptual approval to the Vroom Building conditioned on the lower floor and the commercial uses being dedicated to basically tourist and pedestrian oriented uses and that the applicant come back at some stage and indicate what uses he intends to provide and further that he agree to join any future parking dis- trict or comply with the parking requirements as they are promulgated at a later date. Motion seconded by Landry. Collins questioned the possibility of increasing the set- back on the west side and cutting down the setback on the east side. -9- , _.^_" "u._",.~......,.<..,.._.,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.llL.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Applicant stated that they feel they need some sort of access from either Main Street or from across the alley. Vroom stated that the open space required is 1125 sq. ft. and have provided 1150. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Vroom questioned the possibility of conceptual and pre- liminary approval at this meeting. Schiffer stated can combine all sary hardship. was not on the it would be to see what comes that under the ordinance, the Commission three stages providing there is unneces- Stated that the only problem is that it agenda for the other stages. Suggested that the applicant's benefit to hold back and out of the parking situation. Stanford suggested that the applicant submit brick samples to the HPC. Vroom stated that he would be willing to bring in several alternatives, but it was too early to determine exactly which brick would be used. Fred Smith Remodel Ms. Baer explained that this would be an addition to the Chateau Blanc - adds manager's apartment and maid's quar- ters. Submitted plans of the proposed addition. Ms. Baer pointed out that the Chateau Blanc was built with a tunnel through the center of the building at grade level, the purpose being originally for parking. Stated that the request is to build a manager's unit, maid's room, laundry and storage within the tunnel area. Smith stated that the parking space in the tunnel is now unuseable because other cars block the tunnel. Stated that it is only possible to park in the tunnel when there is no one parked in the front parking. Smith further stated that it was his consideration that they do have ample parking for their short term tenants. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned how many spaces are cur- rently provided. Smith stated that there currently 13 spaces - six across the fronD and 7 in the back. Will not be eliminating any parking spaces, but will, in fact, be gaining one space. Indicated one parking space which was converted into a storage space which would be reconverted into a parking space if the addition were built. Ms. Baer stated that you could not reduce the number of parking spaces but must at least retain the number at which approval was given. Smith stated that he thought the building was approved for 15 parking spaces. Jack Jenkins arrived. Smith pointed out that it is tourist accommodations and the concensus is that you do not need one space per apart- -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 ment for tourist accommodations. Stated that from a prac- tical point of view, will be gaining one parking space plus employee housing. Smith stated that the addition would comply with Ordinance #19 for the following reasons: (1) Improvements will not result in increased guest capacity; (2) Access, fire pro- tection and water pressure will not be affected by these improvements; (3) Building bulk or height will not be in- creased; and (4) Effective off-street parking will be in- creased by one space. A space now used for storage will be availabel for parking when the improvements are com- pleted. Note the original plans called for parking in the tunnel area, but this was not used because of access pro- blems. Smith further stated that they feel that this plan should be approved in concept because it does not increase guest capacity and does not increase the bulk or height of the building. Approval would also demonstrate that the Com- mission does want to encourage employers to provide on- site housing for their employees. The improvements will be owned by the condominium association and they could amend their declaration to insure that these improvements never become tourist accommodations. Also believe this will reduce congestion in the area, as they will be able to attract employees that are not dependent on the auto- mobile. Smith pointed out that there was one other parking space which had been landscaped rather than used for parking. vice Chairman Schiffer stated that under the requirements of the Code, the applicant must provide 15 spaces. Stated that the applicant would have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Further pointed out that the applicant would be creating two additional units, so would probably be !re- quired to provide more parking than the original 15. Ms. Baer pointed out that the other problem was with the across the curb parking - would like sidewalk along there. Have not calculated what affect that would have on the six spaces. Smith stated that hind the parking. walk district. he felt there was room for sidewalk be- Would agree to go along with any side- Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office feels that, as a tourist use, would prefer to see fewer parking spaces pro- vided on the site. Felt the employee housing is preferable to the extra parking spaces. Feel the Commission should make no representation to the Board of Adjustment. Smith stated that putting a manager's unit in would solve his ski theft problems and will solve the problem of peo- ple parking behind other people, etc... Smith stated that he did not think that they ever had a night where all the back undercover spaces were used. Felt that on the average, have about 6 cars a week that belong to guests. Did not feel that they had ever had one car for every unit. Smith stated that the addition would be compatible with tp -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSO C.F.HOECKElB.B.&L,CO. Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Regular Meeting existing building. Ms. Baer questioned if the condominium association would consider purchase of one of the units as association owned for the manager. Smith stated that they have considered this possibility, but the problem is trying to obtain a ground floor unit when it is available. Has not worked out successfully. vice Chairman Schiffer questioned the possibility of ad- ding the manager's unit and forgetting about the maid's unit and adding another parking space. Smith stated that this would not be adding another park- ing space. Collins stated that he felt in this area there was a great- er need than one space per unit. Pointed out that in this area, could conceivably change from tourist accommodation to permanent resident housing. Landry stated that she agreed with Smith as far as the parking was concerned, but was concerned with the addi- tion of more units because of the density. Johnson made a motion to give the project conceptual ap- proval with the condition that the parking question be resolved. Motion seconded by Landry. Ms. Baer suggested that the applicant go to the Board of Adjustment next. Smith stated that they have every intention of keeping this project for tourist accommodations, in which case there is adequate parking. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. AEM - 8 Unit Apartment Ms. Baer stated that she had building plans since this project was proposed to be built last summer. Ms. Baer stated that the request would be for 8 studio units, long term housing. Applicant stated that there are six parking spaces. Ms. Baer stated that this would not be adequate under cur- rent zoning. Pointed out that this was in the mixed- residential district. Further pointed out that the con- siderations of the Planning Office were: (1) density- Proposal is for maximum density under current zoning. Block is presently a mixture of single fmaily, multi- family and 1 lodge; and (2) parking - on site parking space for each bedroom should be provided. Ms. Baer pointed out that densities have not been deter- mined for this area. Applicant stated that since the site is surrounded by multi-family dwellings, feel that this proposal fits into the neighborhood. Johnson stated that he felt there would be a downzoning in that area which would cut down on the density. Peacock stated that it was designed for the density which -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rORN54I C.F.HOECKELB.B.l!ll.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 was permitted the previous year. Stated that it is in a 28' high area, and the height of the building at this point is 21'. Ms. Baer stated that there would be a zoning proposal for the consideration of the Commission within a matter of probably 2 weeks. Stated that based on the position which is currently being taken, this would be over the density allowable. Peacock stated that there are six spaces in the rear and could possibly be two in the front with a curb cut. Fur- ther stated that hopefully the people living in the pro- ject would not generate automobiles since they could walk downtown. Bartel stated that what they are trying to come up with is a density range in that multi-family district so that there is not all of one certain type of unit construction. Have taken the position that 50 plus units per acre is too high. Applicant stated that there would be someone from the corporation living in the project who could control the number of persons living in the units. Further pointed out that the fireplaces were deleted. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was recommending that they be allowed to come up with a firm recommendation for the density in that area. Will be well-within the 30 days in which the Commission is allowed to table for additional information. Vice Chairman stated that he is in favor of decreasing densities and increasing the parking requirements, but also in favor of employee housing. Applicant stated that he felt the development in the ad- jacent area should be considered which is primarily multi- family and extremely dense. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt the project must be looked at in terms of what the proposed zoning is going to be. Ms. Baer submitted a present land use map giving uses. Applicants pointed out several errors in the map. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt it was impos- sible to make a decision on this project at this time and stated that he felt they should table until the next regular meeting. Johnson made a motion to table the project for two weeks in order to determine what the proposed rezoning for that area would be and to give the Planning Office time to cor- rect the land use map. Motion seconded by Landry. All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who abstained. Motion carried. 620 Hyman Office BuHding Kit Mason was present to represent the project. Ms. Baer pointed out that the location of the project is at 620 Hyman between Aspen Furniture and the Patio Build- -13- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOII,.!o c.r.HOECKELB.B./t L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 ing. Applicant submitted drawing of proposed building. Mason stated that the three principles of his company and one outside investor own the property and wish to build a professional office building of contemporary design to house the offices of the Doremus/Fleisher/Mason Company plus other commercial users. This use complies with the 1973 Aspen General Land Use Plan. Stated the zoning in this area is C-C. Felt it would be compatible with the rest of the buildings in be area. Mason further pointed out that they are not in a view plane or the historic area. Lot size of 6,000 square feet and the building coverage would be 4,000 square feet leaving 33% open space. The gross building S1ze would be 14,700 square feet with the above grade being 10,960 square feet. Building height would be 37 feet. No on-site parking planned. will join future parking dis- trict or purchase from City. There would be no employee housing provided. Mason stated that they would be agreeable to going through the complete subdivision proceedings and paying the land dedication requirement. Do want to own their own floor. Mason pointed out that basement is considered anything which is more than 50% below grade. Garden level is more than 50% below grade. Submitted drawings of proposed build ing . Peacock pointed out that the main portion of the building is actually 32 feet back from the sidewalk. Mason stated that the garden level would make a very nice restaurant area. Mason further stated that he felt the best solution would be a parking district. Stated that he felt present par- king requirements were inadequate. General discussion on parking took place. Mason stated that he felt it would be unrealistic to re- quire the true amount of parking generated on site. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned the applicant as to whether or not they had considered the possible employee housing question. Applicant stated they had considered the problem. Dis- agree with the fact of making them part of construction. Stated that they would consider, given that housing were provided, buying and leasing to employees or taking a mas- ter lease on some other housing. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that his impression of the building was that it seemed to large. Mason stated that everyone who has seen the model of the proposed project liked it. Johnson stated that he, too, felt the building was large in relation to the surrounding buildings. -14- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM II C.F.HOICKELB.B.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Ms. Baer request that the applicant get for the Commis- sion the leasable square footage of the Patio Building and Aspen Furniture. Jenkins stated that he did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission to make architectural decisions. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he did not feel the Commission could act on precedents under Ordinance #19. Mason stated that he had studied the Commission decisions before making his presentation. Johnson stated that he felt the garden level should be included in the floor area ratio. Ms. Baer stated that it was about the same as the Stevens- Ginn Building. Applicant stated that they would like conceptual approval at this time and would look at the gross area . Considerations given by the Planning Office included the following: (1) Use - tourist commercial on street level is most compatable with district; (2) Parking - If res- taurant is open for lunch - 90 autos will be generated, if open for dinner only, approximately 60; commercial will probably generate more cars than office use. (3) Employee generation; Economic needs additional information in the form of an economic impact study in order to calculate number of new jobs and resultant additional population; and (4) Landscaping: detailed plan for court area. Jenkins made a motion to give the project conceptual ap- proval under Ordinance #19, seconded by Johnson. Schiffer stated that he felt it was still too large and intense, and did not feel the Commission could look at previous approvals under Ordinance #19 as precedents. Collins stated that he felt the bulk and the height of the building were too great also. Felt the building was out of step with the other buildings on the block. Mason stated that he felt the variance in roof line made the street more interesting. Jenkins stated that he did not feel the Commission should make architectural decisions. Felt the Commission should give applicants information on which they could take a re- fusal and come back with something different. Felt that it would be arbitrary to disapprove this building without a quantitative answer. Schiffer pointed out that the ordinance states that the Commission is supposed to consider lot and yard require- ments, building heights subject to review and the reduc- tion of building bulk and lot coverage are considerations. Mason pointed out that the construction costs of the pro- ject dictate what size the building is. Main Motion Those in favor: Jenkins and Landry. Those opposed: Col- lins, Johnson and Schiffer. Motion NOT carried. -15- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!I C.F.tlOECKEl8.8.IlL.C(l, Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Mason questioned what the Commission would approve. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he would just like to see a smaller building. Ms. Baer suggested the applicant get the information on the amount of leasable space of the two adjacent buildings and then come in again for a comparison. Aspen Times - Exemption Due to the fact that another member of the Commission had arrived, the Commission decided to hear this case. Ms. Baer pointed out that this is a request for exemp- tion for basement expansion in the Aspen Times Building. Submitted plans for expansion. Janet Landry and Chuck Collins abstained due to conflict of interest. Ms. Baer stated that the basement would go under the en- tire building and would extend to the card section of Carl's Pharmacy. Bill Dunaway stated that the uses would not change. Would be expanded storage space for newsprint and more press- room space. Stated that they were going to try to exca- vate and maintain the existing operation while it is being done. Will be no change in use or change in number of em- ployees at this point. Dunaway pointed out that basement use does not require parking. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant would be required to provide more parking. Stated that only basements for storage do not require parking. Dunaway stated that if parking was required that would be fine. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned the applicant on historic preservation of the front facade. Stanford stated that as long as it is interior work, did not feel this project needed to go before the HPC. Dunaway stated that at some future date, something would have to be done with the upstairs of the building. Pre- sently is a fire hazard. Johnson stated that since the applicant is coming in for an exemption, as part of the Planning Department's recom- mendation of that exemption they are asking that the front facade be preserved and that parking be complied with. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was asking the applicant to request consideration for historic designa- tion. Stated that the historic district has not yet been adopted. Dunaway stated that he felt that at some future date, the building should probably be masonary just for the fire reasons. -16- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR!IIIO C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.C(l. R,egular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning May 7, 1974 Johnson stated that one thing which the HPC would like to look at is to what extent they would like to address the use of wood in the historic district. Stated that the research has not been done on this yet. Dunaway stated that he would be agreeable to asking for consideration from the HPC. Stated that he felt nothing should be done without approval of the HPC. Johnson made a motion to grant the Aspen Times Basement Expansion an exemption from Ordinance #19 on the condition that Historic Designation is sought for the building and that any additional parking requirements be met. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, with the exception of Collins and Landry who abstained. Motion carried. Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting ad- journed at 8:00 p.m. I /l i {{S81 !/Jrd/7 L ;rretary