Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740219 ,--~ , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. 1l0ECKEL 6. B. 81 l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 Chairman Gillis called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with members Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. MINUTES 1/8/74, 1/10/74, 1/15/74, 1/17/74, and 1/22/74 Schiffer made a motion to make an addition to the min- utes of January 15, 1974 (pp. 10, para. 4):"... not that we should base our decision entirely but that they are relevant." Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/8/74, 1/10/74, 1/15/74 as corrected, 1/17/74 and 1/22/74. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur arrived. OLD BUSINESS Stevens - Ginn Building Larry Yaw, architect, was present representing the pro- ject. Submitted a model of the proposed building. , Yaw stated that the project had been approved at the conceptual stage and they had completed the prelimi- nary review with the subcommittee. Stated that the subcommittee had recommended approval, expressing a concern with the trash removal. Yaw gave a brief review of the project to this point. Stated that this project involved two owners working together. Stated that the Planning Office had en- couraged this approach for the following reasons: (1) Can deal better with architectural continuity; (2) Can combine open space; (3) Can exercise control over architecture and the needs of the area. Yaw submitted an overview and pointed out the location of the project. Stated that the shops relate in func- tion to City Market. Stated that it was located con- tiguous to both the mixed residential area and the rec- reations accommodations. Yaw stated that by using open space in this manner and by creating a link between user and need, feel they can make the open space a pedestrian experience. Further stated that in the preliminary review with the subcommittee, itwas requested that the applicant give a listing of uses. Submitted a list of uses to the Commission. Stated that the architecture of the pro- ject would be in wood and heavy timber and stone with a relationship between the roof form and the roof mat- erial with City Market with the idea of bringing things a little closer together. Yaw stated that in addition to the preliminary presen- tation, the applicant is requesting that the Commission back the applicant on three variances which they will go to the respective boards for. Stated that the con- cept behind asking the Commission's backing on those variances is one of dealing with the projects in their entirety rather than as two individual entities. Yaw stated that one of the variances which they would w. ,..-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL6.B.&L.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning February 19, 1974 like to ask the commission to back them on is that of the open space itself. Stated that open space is re- quired to have a certain frontage on the street. Feel that the relationship between City Market and this as a shopping environment for service needs precludes an important aspect of the strict definition of the open space. Stated that by combining the open space, the applicant has considerably more and considerably more useable open space than is available to an individual project. Yaw stated that the actual open-to-the-sky space is less than the 25% required. It is 22%, however, com- bining the pedestrian space, have over 40% open space. Felt that the intent of open space is for the func- tional use and enjoyment of people. Feel is is a very acceptable notion. Yaw stated that the other variance the applicant would like the Commission to back is one of projections. Stated that there are some beam endings and some roofs that project into one another's property lines. Feel these make the pedestrian experience a little more ex- citing and have an encroachment agreement. Submitted a copy of the agreement to the Commission. Yaw stated that the uses in the building are in general the lower level of one building is commercial, the upper level is combined commercial and office and the other level is office. The uses in the other building include commercial on the lower level, office on the second level and residential on the third level. Re- minded the Commission that at the conceptual presen- tation it was required of the owner that eight units cannot be condominiumized and have full year leases. Johnson stated that he was withdrawing from consider- ation of this project due to conflict of interest. Yaw submitted photographs of the proposed project, and indicated where the property lines were. Gillis questioned the applicant on how the trash re- moval problem had been handled. Yaw stated that the trash removal has not been hand- led. Stated that there are two basic ways to handle the problem. Stated that the preferred way was to handle it in the lower level. Stated that the mall would be totally heated. Stated that because of the project's relationship to City and market and the fact that the project is addressing itself to City Market and beyond, that the owners have requested that they have no alley elevation. Vagneur questioned if there was underground parking. Yaw stated that there was, with space for 31 or 32, depending on where one column goes. Described the circulation system of the project. Schiffer questioned the letter containing uses. Felt it would be better to state the excluded uses. -2- ,.,-. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.aL.<;;Q. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 Yaw stated that the uses would which limits them. Stated that quired by the Planning Office. commit space until approval. conform to the zoning that listing was re- Stated they could not Vidal questioned if in the conceptual presentation, the possible third building accommodated its own open space. Yaw stated that it did. Stated that there was no op- portunity for trade-off. Vidal questioned the applicant on how he would feel about taking one of the buildings back a short dis- tance to provide more of an open space to the sky. The applicant stated that the model was incorrect. Stated that the drawings reflect about a four foot greater distance between the buildings. Stated that the drawings reflect about 8 foot distance at that point. Pointed out that from the pedestrian level that space was quite open. Vidal expressed concern about the vertical element. Felt that it appears to be a.very sunless area. Yaw stated that they had checked the sun angles and the sun does shine in the mall area. Yaw stated that a second variance which they would ask that the trade-off between open spaces. Vidal stated that he agreed with what the applicant was trying to accomplish, but felt that maybe they had not accomplished it in the one bottleneck. Yaw stated that there would be some alterations in the roof form. Schiffer stated that he would like some more time to see the project since this was the first presentation on the project he had seen. Jenkins questioned how many people this particular pro- ject would generate. Yaw stated that they presumed it would be 30 - 35 people. Stated that it could possibly vary to 45 since they are not sure what uses will be used in the build- ing. Jenkins stated that he felt parking should not be pro- vided in this location. Further felt that he was not sure that people should be living in the core area. Schiffer stated that he was not in favor of recommend- ing underground parking for every new building, but felt that in this particular building, felt it was a good idea since it is in an area, where, if it is not provided, people will park on the streets and the City Market parking lot. Felt this is one of the areas where parking should be provided at this point. Ms. Landry stated that she felt this building was to -3- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.6l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 people and businesses that need a pick up access rather than offices or businesses that do not require any parking. Chairman Gillis stated that was the only problem he had with the project. Felt he would like to approve the project conditioned upon the uses, allowing the Com- mission more time to study the uses. Jenkins stated he felt the project had too much land coverage. Appeared to cover the land from lot line to lot line. Yaw stated that if the applicant had followed the true course of the prescribed law regarding this building, there would be absolutely no open space on the back of the building. Felt that in regard to the needs gene- rated by the neighborhood and addressing itself to a relationship with City Market, the applicant had done quite well. Vidal questioned the applicant on how they could ac- commodate the full 25% open space in the interior area. Yaw stated that it would create some architectural pro- blems. Stated that they would have to remove one full employee housing unit. Would penalize the owners in terms of the space they would have to rent. Would start getting down to facades that became straight down to the ground type of things. Vidal stated that he was impressed with what the ap- plicant had done and how they had applied their open space, but bothered by the narrowness in the one par- ticular spot. Jenkins stated that he felt if every five lot area in downtown Aspen were developed to this extent, would be too much. Yaw stated that he felt it was not right to encourage the two-owner development for the neighborhood shop- ping concept and then to say that they must park in the Trueman Property, which is twenty minutes away. Yaw pointed out that City Market brings in people from a much greater distance than three or four minutes aw- way, making it more than a neighborhood shopping cen- ter. Chairman Gillis again pointed out that the Planning Of- fice had recommended no parking for this project. Vagneur stated that she felt the project required par- king, due to the fact that cars would encroach on the City Market lot and problems with parking on the street. Vidal stated that he felt the Commission would like to think more about the variances. Would want to study before making recommendations to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Chairman Gillis requested the applicant to come back -4- ,. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen planning & zoning February 19, 1974 on Thursday for a work session with the Commission. Schiffer made a motion to approve the preliminary re- view of this project, subject to further review of the uses and exemptions. Motion seconded by vagneur. All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who was opposed. Motion carried. CDES Building Robin Molny was present to represent the developers. Pointed out that the project was located at the cor- ner of Hyman and Original Streets. Submitted plans of the proposed building to the Commission. Molny stated that he had gotten conceptual approval on behalf of the owners Nick Coates, James Daggs, Dale Eubanks and Dwight Shellman. Stated that they had ap- peared before the subcommittee. Submitted the pre- liminary plans and elevations. Also submitted a model of the project. Molny pointed out that the basement plans included a stair tower, mechanical and storage, and two handball courts (proposing that they limit membership to 30 members). Also a limited amount of rental space, which would be offices with skylights. Stated that there would be 4400 square feet below grade, which does not count for floor area ratio. Molny further pointed out that the floor area ration allowable would be 18,000 square feet. Stated that the building would be somewhere between 13,500 square feet and 14,500 square feet above ground. Further stated that due to the area of the client's program, need the lesser square footages on the first and second floor, with the most being on the third floor, which gives the opportunity to provide a great deal of arcade space at street level. Stated that each of the owners if providing for himself space for expansion in the future. Molny stated that the arcade space would be 2400 square feet at street level. Stated that the second floor would be identical to the first. Stated that the third floor would be completely cov- ered with a building 64 feet square which would be the Daggs - Eubanks space. Stated that the applicant would almost undoubtedly treat the roof line differently in the end than the model shows. Stated that Ordinance #19 makes specific reference to encouraging arcades. Molny stated that the open space required is 2,125 square feet, and stated that the building is, in its perimeter is 6,400 square feet, leaving 2600 square feet of open space, in addition to the arcade. Molny stated that the owners had some reservations a- bout the arcade, due to winter conditions of snow and ice which get trapped into the arcade. Stated that they had come up with the idea of putting a glass skirt from a certain point down, which would be open from -5- ,."" -'........ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOECKrL B. B.& l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 the bottom edge down in the summertime and closed in the winter. Stated that the following idea, which he is proposing at this meeting, is to glass from the bottom half way up. Stated that this glass screen would be permanent. Stated that by definition, this would not be an arcade. Felt that if it was glassed in, the owners would feel obligated to rent that space to uses which are compatible with a professional office building. Stated the reason they would do that would be to justify the cost of doing the installation and heating in the winter. Vidal questioned what that proposal would do to their Floor area ratio. Molny stated it would still be under the necessary square footage. Stated that if approval was granted, the applicant would like to have the option of renting the arcade space. Stated that total space, including the basement would be 20,700 square feet or at the most, 22,500 square feet, not including the enclosed arcade. Vidal questioned how many square feet would be below grade and not included in the Floor Area Ratio. Molny stated that that would be 7,200 square feet. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office would not sup- port a cabaret in the lower level of the building. Further stated that all of the referral letters had come in. Chairman Gillis stated that at this location, would favor no parking. Molny stated that that was the position of the appli- cant. Further stated that the owners would like to purchase parking and would like the support of the Commission in the application to the Board of Adjust- ment. Stated that the owners are willing to provide 12 bedrooms off site. Molny stated that he felt the answer to the parking situation was the alley. Jenkins stated that he felt it was very inconsistent to consider something which is one block away from the City Market as not requiring parking and a project which is half a block away as being a completely dif- ferent thing. Vidal stated that he agreed with Jenkins, partially because this building is further removed from the core. Feel that parking would be appropriate in this location. Molny stated that he felt the automobile was respon- sible for making Aspen a dirty community, and felt that it would be better not to provide parking and let the problem increase. Molny pointed out that the owners are willing to cove- nant the uses of the arcaed space. -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning February 19, 1974 FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CD. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Code Amendment 8040 Greenline Molny stated that the applicant would make a proposal to the Commission about the uses which would be ex- cluded or included in the arcade space. Vidal questioned if the applicant was requesting ap- proval of an enclosed arcade at this point. Molny stated that that is what the applicant wished. Eubanks stated that if they were required to provide on site parking, would not be for employees, but for clients. Schiffer made a motion to approve this project at the preliminary review stage subject working out the re- view and covenant of the enclosed arcade uses and that there be no on site parking and that the appli- cant provide 12 bedrooms of employee housing. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who abstained. Motion carried. Schiffer stated that the reason he made the motion is that it appears to him that the applicant has satis- fied all of the pertinent criteria under Ordinance #19. Landry stated that the reason she voted for the pro- posal was for the same reasons. Vagneur, too, stated that those were the reasons she had voted in favor of the motion. Bartel requested the Commission set a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Trail Plan. Stated that the first date available in which the Commission could meet the publication requirement would be March 19, 1974. Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing on the trail system plan amendment for March 19, 1974, at 5:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing for the zon- ing code amendment - 8040 Greenline. Stanford submitted a map showing the surveyed lines. Bartel stated that at the time the Commission made its recommendations to Council on the downzoning of Aspen Mountain, one of the things was included, also a re- quest of the Planning Office, was that there be a building permit review procedure along the line. Bartel stated that the 8040 line does not fit each par- ticular ownership as carefully as it might. It cannot take into consideration variations in slope, geology, avalanche, access, etc... Bartel stated that what they have proposed is that, as part of the downzoning of Aspen Mountain, that there be a building permit review along the 8040 line. Stated that the matters which would be considered as part of the review are outlined in the ordinance, and this is a follow-up to the Commission's initial recommendation -7- ..."_..-._,,----,_.....,-<-_.._-_..........>....-."_._",,"_...~'~._.~'-'_. ,.-- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR"''' C.F.HOECKEL6.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 on the downzoning of Aspen Mountain. Stated that the downzoning has been acted on on second reading by the Ci ty Council. Dunaway questioned how far on either side of the 8040 line would this review be in effect. Bartel explained that it would be everything above the 8040 line and everything 50 yards below. Bob George questioned the Commission on whether any study had been done as to what the affect of the 50 yards on the downhill side of the 8040 line is in true feet down the hill. Bartel explained that that was taken into considera- tion generally with the placement of the line in that it was so in order that there could be some develop- ment occuring below the line without damage as far as access, water pressure, etc.. are concerned. Stated that the problem with the line is that there are some spots above it that are more buildable than the spots below the line. Stated that the review procedure is to allow for better placement of the buildings along the line. Bartel pointed out that it was when the base of the building was within 50 yards of the 8040 line that the building came under review. Chairman Gillis questioned if the Commission would ad- dress itself in the review to revegetation. Bartel explained that that would be contained in the review. Further explained that one of the standards is water shed protection. Johnson made a motion to approve the amendment to the zoning code concerning the 8040 Greenline and re- commend approval to Council. Motion seconded by Landry. All in favor, motion carried. PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN - GOLF COURSE Ted Armstrong, head of the Parks,' & Recreation Depart- ment, was present to give the presentation. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing on the zoning code amendment - 8040 Greenline. Armstrong gave a brief history of the project. Stated that two years ago he presented to Council this area, and they appropriated $4,000 for a comprehensive study of area I (Golf Course Area). Armstrong stated that this proposal was for the devel- opment of area I. Stated that the purpose of develop- ment of area I will provide a recreational complex for the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin. Stated that the development of area I not only will ' provide numerous recreational facilities but open space for leisure use and insure a greenbelt area north of Highway 82 between Castle and Maroon. Stated that the reasons for this were: (1) To provide the citizens of Aspen with additional recreational facilities, which -8- ,,-, - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORN" C.F.tJOECKELB.B.!lL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 are currently lacking; (2) To provide the City of Aspen a source of revenue that can be used with cur- rent maintenance cost as well as development cost of additional park and recreation facilities (Example: the City of Vail Golf Course in 1972 took in $126,000 in green fees and $60,000 gross revenue off of golf carts - does not take into consideration revenues de- rived off of driving range, bar facilities, etc.); (3) To insure the residents of area I that the fire hazards of non-irrigated land will be properly main- tained; (4) To have a plan in which the City can, from year to year, budget major improvements. Stated that this would eliminate the unnecessary spending of City funds for its projects, which are currently changing from year to year. Armstrong stated that the City has inadequate facili- ties in the way of baseball, softball, rugby fields, etc... Stated that the development of area I would also provide playfields for ever increasing demands by the City recreational programs, rugby club, etc... Stated that this would also provide a basis on which the City can continue its Master Trail Plan. Stated that it would also provide playgrounds for residents of Area I, which are currently non-existent. Pointed out that there are 578 people in that area. Armstrong stated that this plan will take into consid- eration the ultimate development of Area I. Armstrong submitted map and overlay of proposed plan for the Golf Course Area. The plan would include the enlargement of the current golf course from 9 to 18 holes. Stated the cost would be approximately $280,000, but stated he felt that it could be done for considerably less. Armstrong stated that the plan had been designed and approved by Robert Wolf, current PGA pro and currently the golf pro at Vail. Stated that his associate is Johnny Bensel from Glenwood Springs. Armstrong sub- mitted four letters of reference concerning this deve- lopment. Armstrong pointed out on the maps the areas that can be developed according to community demands. Stated that they are proposing the addition of 12 tennis courts, a maintenance building, rugby field, softball facilities and passive park areas. Stated that they would utilize the water rights and take away the fire hazard. Armstrong stated that he had 342 signed petitions to leave the area as an open space and to put it into a golf course. Also has a survey done by the League of Women Voters showing that 80% of the people are in favor of this. Also showed letters from organizations and interested people indicating approval to develope 18 holes of golf. Vidal questioned how many of the existing holes would be moved to accommodate this plan. Armstrong stated that there would be three holes moved. -9- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIII ~I C. F. H DECKEL B. B. & L. CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 Schiffer questioned how long it would take to get the golf course in shape. Armstrong stated that would depend on how much funding was available. Pointed out that there would be people who would donate labor and trees. Schiffer stated that he felt a really good golf course would be valuable. Expressed concern that this might not be a really good golf course. Felt that $280,000 does not appear to be much money. Armstrong stated that he thought, after discussing the matter with City Manager Mahoney, that they would start breaking ground in the spring. Schiffer stated he would like to see it laid out so there would be more options. Armstrong pointed out that the driving range would be 300 yards. Gillis stated that he felt there were higher priorities in the community without recommending that the City Council spend a lot of money on this project. Armstrong stated that he was not asking for funding right away. Stated that if the plan was adopted, could start without any money. Gillis stated that he felt the donated labor could do better things for the community. Vidal made a motion to approve the plan in concept, but to recommend holding back approval on money to be spent. Motion seconded Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur expressed reservations on the priority of this project. UTE AVENUE REZONING Chairman Gillis stated that no new evidence could be put into this discussion since the public hearing has already been held. Vagneur stated that she felt the public in general, the concerned citizens, the Councilmembers, have no idea what sort of soul-searching a decision which might be made at this meeting involved. Stated that a great deal of time and effort had been involved in drawing a conclusion from the discussions. Stated that the members have concerned themselves with the fairness to everybody, the possible position they might be putting ~he City in, the position they might be putting the public in. Stated it was difficult to come up with a decision, and feel that a former Commission may have put this Commission in a position of making a decision here tonight which might affect one project mostly. Felt that the new members feel very strongly that they have been put in a terrible position. Schiffer stated that he was a very strong advocate of extremely limited growth for Aspen. Stated he liked -10- _..,.,._"'.._"""..,,'.._--'......-"~_..., ,- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 the recommendation for the rezoning of Ute Avenue, per se. Stated that he was not prepared to say that that is the solution without taking a look at what the re- zoning is going to be for the entire City. Would like to see the entire mixed residential area zoned the way the proposed rezoning is for that particular area. Stated that he did not believe in zoning on a neigh- borhood by neighborhood basis. Stated he felt this would be the first step in that direction. Feel that what the Commission must do is go ahead and complete the studies on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis and when they have taken a look at the entire City from a rezoning point of view then put together a comprehensive rezoning ordinance, have hearings on it, etd... Would recommend and would like to see the Com- mission do would be to take the proposed rezoning for the Ute Avenue area and instead of recommending to the City Council that we adopt that as permanent rezoning, take that and recommend that they amend the 1973 Land Use Plan in conjunction with Ordinance #19 specifically for that Ute Avenue area, so as to implement those specific recommendations under Ordinance #19 rather than under the heading of permanent rezoning. Feel that the Commission has enough information to do that wow and would suggest that the City Council do that through the emergency provisions of the Municipal Code. Schiffer stated that he would like to emphasize that he does like the rezoning proposal conceptually, but do not feel that it can be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Suggest that once this is taken care of, the City amend the Land Use Plan for the en- tire mixed residential area under Ordinance #19 when there is sufficient information to do that. Vagneur made a motion that: (1) the permanent re- zoning not be adopted; (2) that the Planning Office draft a resolution that the Ordinance #19 Land Use Map be amended so as to incorporate specific recom- mendations of the Planning Department; (3) that the amendments be done under emergency provisions of the Municipal Code. Motion seconded by Schiffer. Roll call vote - Gillis, aye; Vidal, abstain; Johnson, aye; Jenkins, aye; Schiffer, aye; Vagneur, aye; Landry, abstain. Motion carried. Gillis stated that the meeting would be continued at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 21st. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.