Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740305 ,,-., / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 c. r. ~OECKEL B. B. III L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:20 p.m. with Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, Geri Vagnuer and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford, City Engineer David Ellis, Economists Yank Mojo and Larry Simmons, and City Manager Mick Mahoney. MINUTES 1/29, 2/5, 2/7, 2/19 vagnuer made a motion to approve the minutes of Janu- ary 29th, February 5th, February 7th and February 19th. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Memo to City Council Chairman Gillis submitted a letter from the Commission to the City Council. Stated that it had been dis- cussed that day at the luncheon study session. Stated that to the memo had been added that the Com- mission hoped the Council does go ahead and form a Regional Planning Commission for the County. Concensus of the commission was for Chairman Gillis to sign the letter and have it forwarded to the City Council. Molny Office/ Residence Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had dis- cussed the matter and decided that this project would be continued until Thursday. Bartel explained that City Engineer David Ellis had a study session with the City Council concerning the water service plan, rate studies, plant investment fees, all as part of the water program. Stated that in September of 1972, the Commission recommended to the Council that they not extend the water line to the Woody Creek area. Stated that as part of that resolution, asked that the Council not make any major water extensions into the unincorporated area of the County until there was an official water plan. WATER UTILITY SERVICE PLAN Bartel stated that as part of the work that Ellis has been doing with Briscoe Management, has prepared the map with the Planning Office input for the water service area of the City. Ellis stated that basically, they want to present the proposed service area to the commission and get com- ments and hopefully their approval on it. Stated that it has been presented to Council at a study session. Ellis explained the location of the proposed service area and submitted a map. Stated that the most im- portant reason for choosing this area is that it con- forms to the current proposed zoning infue County. Stated that the overall water utility analysis, de- mandes and so forth, the study was made on a projec- tion of population within the area bounded by the solid line on the map. Ellis briefly went through what the boundary for the propsed water utility service plan would be. Ellis explained that basically there is no area within the proposed service area that would have less den- sity than one dwelling unit per acre, which is basic- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR"" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 ally the criteria which they used. Felt that at that density it would be reasonable for the City to serve water and it would be beneficial to the parties re- ceiving the water. Ellis stated in the area where the 8050 was followed that was thought to be the developable area and what is proposed for development, even though 8040 is real- ly the maximum elevation to which they could serve by gravity. Ellis pointed out the areas on the map where, should there be any PUD development under the proposed zon- ing or should the proposed zoning not be finalized within the next six month, that the City water utility would want to immediately amend the service area to include those areas where greater densities would oc- cur. Stated that basically what is shown beyond the solid boundary is all that private land in the Roar- ing Fork up to Difficult, and on Castle Creek up to the first intersection with the Forest Service Pro- perty, and on Maroon Creek up to the Forest Service Boundary just above the T-Lazy 7, and the OWl Creek Area, and the Woody Creek area. Ellis explained that the large rectangular area which is marked Ellay Corporation, is that area described in the service contract the City has with Elay Corpo- ration. Stated the City Attorney has not made a spe- cific comment on that, but there seem to be several conditions in that contract that would probably re- lieve the City from serving them. Stated that it is beyond where the City would really like to serve un- less there was some high density development there. Ellis pointed out that the existing City water trans- mission mains extend to just slightly beyond the en- trance to Sardy Field. Chairman Gillis request that Ellis explain where the water extensions existed and were proposeq within the City limits. Ellis explained that within the City limits, the big area which is not served is the Benedict parcel that is separated from the rest of town by the river. Stated that the new office building is to be serviced by an extension from the domestic tap. Schiffer questioned how it is determined when the service is extended. Ellis explained that they have a proposed extension policy and are currently trying to establish a defi- nition for an extension versus a tap. Ellis stated that what they have proposed is that for the purpose of extension policy, a waterc_main service be i:considered an extension if the primary location of usage is out- side a platted townsite or subdivision, except in a single family and duplex dwelling on individual tracts could be serviced. The service would provide water to more than two dwelling units, either presently or in the future, the property does not abut on an exist- ing water main or primary location of usage is over IJl -2- ... ---""'_.,_.~-~', ,"'-."-'--'~"-~ ,,-., - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORIoIIO C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 100 feet from the nearest main unless the service is to a lot in a platted subdivision. Ellis stated that the basic feeling of the consultants is that anything outside the City is an extension and the reasoning behind that is primarily in Boulder they have had experience to back this up - they require a specific contract for water service. Bartel reviewed the water utility service plan in re- lation to proposed density in the County and City. Gillis questioned Ellis on the supply of water. Ellis stated that presently, raw water rights far ex- ceed the amount of growth that would conceivably take place for many years. Stated that in order to prove due diligence under the existing State water right laws, must show due diligence, which would mean re- servoirs, raw water pipelines, etc... Stated there is no way we could justify using all the water rights within this service area, or probably even within the areas enclosed by the dotted lines on the map. Felt that in the short run, have done adequate amount of work. Stated that 3/4 million dollars on raw water transmission lines is probably the biggest project which shows due diligence in the Maroon Creek Basin. Stated we have almost three times as many water rights in Castle Creek as we do in Maroon Creek. Stated we could service far in excess of what is shown. Bartel pointed out that the City Council in June of 1973 by Resolution agreed that they would not make any waterline extensions in the County for any tap ons where there were a substantial number of new users without first referring it to the County Planning & Zoning Commission, and were the County comments nega- tive, would not make the extension unless necessary for the City interests. Gillis questioned if it had been figured out on a build out just how many people were being considered within that service area. Ellis stated that by 1985, it is a projection of be- tween 26 and 28 thousand. That would be within the solid line on the map. Bartel stated that that is substantially the area that based on the metro flow check has 18000 people at peak periods. Ellis pointed out which sections within the solid red line on the map are not presently being served. Felt that with the exception of the Airport Business Center, the largest area not being served presently is north of the highway until you get to the Racquet Club. Johnson questioned what the priorities would be as far as future service is concerned. Ellis stated that within the capital improvements pro- gram, have priorities for projects to improve the sys- tem as a whole, and as those improvements are made, -3- ,-.. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. ~OECKEL B. B. Il L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 will allow City to better serve the fringe area. Chairman Gillis stated that he would like to see a map coinciding with the Land Use Map with current waterlines, proposed waterlines, and priorities. Feel this would be the strongest input of the Commis- sion. Ellis stated that he could corne back with this infor- mation. Stated that the first priority is a new 20" transmission line from the filter plant into town across Castle Creek and it would connect on the end of South 7th Street. Stated that that is budgeted for this construction season. Ellis stated from that point, in the next construction season, would want to continue the transmission line into Monarch and Hyman, where it would be joined with existing transmission line in town. Stated that those two major improvements to the system would take place in the next 2 seasons. Ellis stated that the other major project would be a storage tank where the Ridge of Red Mountain is, to double water storage capacity. Would be a reserve capacity for supply during peak demand periods. Ellis stated the City would also like to place the line on North Mill Street basically from Cap's to the hospital, would like to put in a 12" line. In regard to the raw water supply, would be putting in five years from now, a diversion darn on Maroon Creek, which would enable the City to utilize the full design capacity of that transmission line. Johnson stated that he agreed in general with the pro- posed area. Felt the priorities should be upgrading the service to what is already served before any ex- tension work is done. Schiffer stated that he felt the same way, but would like to see more definitive map of the City itself in terms of where there are lines in existence. Also questioned how it is determined whether or not to ex- tend to a specific area. Ellis stated that that is a problem which has not been fully addressed, and that is the question of whether or not wells should be allowed within the City water service area. Stated that in general, any subdivision would have to put in mains that would meet the utili- ties specifications. Within the City, there are few areas that are not presently equipped with mains abutting the front footage of the property. Feel that generally, are leaning towards a position that wells would not be acceptable. Have history of wells going bad. Ellis stated he would return to the Commission when there was room on the agenda. Gillis suggested Ellis return to the Study Session the following Thursday. -4- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR!Il\O C.f.1l0ECKELB.D.IlL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 5, 1974 Jenkins made a motion to adopt the proposed water ser- vice area with the condition that the Commission has a closer look at the area within the City of Aspen and the direction it is going in. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Agenda Items Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had decided at the luncheon study session that day that for the next possibly 6 or 7 meetings, will not accept any new projects for the agenda. Stated that there are too many items which the Commission needs to consider in order to revise the Land Use Plan and the Master Plan. SUBDIVISIONS Margaret Meadows - Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Meadows - preliminary Plat. Gillis stated that the applicant was not prepared for the presentation at this point. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing on Margaret Meadows - Preliminary Plat. Johnson made a motion to continue the public hearing on Margaret Meadows to March 19, 1974, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Aspen Center - Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Aspen Center - Preliminary Plat. Ed Del Duca, Assistant City Engineer submitted com- ments to the Commission. Del Duca stated that basically, most of the problems have been resolved. Del Duca stated that he felt there was an error on the dedication, in that the entire right-of-way, intent was that entire right-of-way be dedicated, but felt that it was an error on the plat that it was not shown. Stated that must be corrected. Del Duca further stated that easements for the exist- ing sewer lines and propsed storm drainage facilities in lot 3 should be granted. Stated that they have had a drainage study by Wright-McLaughlin and they conform with the intent of the study. Further pointed out that an easement for the water line in Lot 2 should be granted upon relocation. Also, a dedicated 40 foot right-of-way for access from Mill Street to the existing access easement should be pro- vided. Del Duca stated that the 10 foot trail easement shown within the proposed roadway should be removed from the roadway and a separate easement should be provided for the following reasons: (1) Presently proposed is a 40' right-of-way which is to be used for a 10' trail easement and a 30' roadway. The subdivision regula- tions require a minimum of 42' roadway, excluding curb and gutters, within a 60' right-of-way, so the proposed roadway does not meet the regulations even if -5- - "'- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 the entire right-of-way were used exclusively for roadway; (2) The present proposal does not allow ade- quate space for pedestrian access to and from Lake- view; (3) The minimum roadway acceptable for access is 32' excluding curbs & gutters. This would not al- low any parking but would allow for auto breakdowns, snow removal, etc... A bike and trail easement re- quires a minimum of 10' and a pedestrian walk requires a minimum of 6' totalling 50'; and (4) The proposed roadway will serve Smuggler Street in the Lake View Addition, which has a 45' right-of-way and which has as its only access the proposed 30' of road right-of- way. Del Duca included the following comments: (1) The landscape plan presented is not adequate; (2) The area to be vacated by the City should be designated; (3) a portion of Lot 3 is presently being considered for purchase by the school board; and (4) Improvement district agreements are not in the best interest of the City in this particular project: An agreement to do the necessary improvements in coordination with the City would be a much better arrangement. Schiffer stated that under the subdivision regulations it requires 60' unless there is some unusual topography size or shape of the property, etc.. Questioned Del Duca if that is how he felt and why he was recommending less. Del Duca stated that since Smuggler does not go through and probably never will, the Engineering Department feels that a 40' road is adequate. Schiffer questioned if there was anything about the site itself that would preclude this requirement. Del Duca stated that there is also a site plan problem as far as land use. Stated that originally 60' was required, however, there has been a lot of coordina- tion between the developer and the City, and this rec- ommendation is the result of that coordination. Felt the trail should not be included within the roadway. Felt the trail should be someplace else. Schiffer stated that rather than set a precedent by allowing less than the required 60', felt the Engineer- ing Department should explain their reasons for their recommendation. Del Duca stated that he did not feel the full 60' was necessary because of the limited area of service. Chairman Gillis questioned if the drainage was sub- surface. Del Duca stated that the Wright-McLaughlin study showed these as surface drainage. Stated that he had sketched them on the plat, with the exception of one which they feel is not necessary. POinted out that the 30" pipe would be shared expense between the owner and the City. Stated this would be in the subdivision agreeement. Del Duca stated that the developer has agreed to con- -6- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.!'tL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 5, 1974 form to the intent of the Wright-McLaughlin study. Schiffer questioned if the deficiencies which were pointed out in the January had been corrected, with the exception of those pointed out at this meeting. Bartel stated that there were three things which he had comments on under subdivision: (1) Will need language on the final plat saying that no develop- ment is to occur on Lot 3 until City has site plans submitted and approved because the only area that have detailed site planning is Lot 2; (2) Stated that have discussed with Schottland on the dedication requirement that it be cash rather than public land dedication; (3) For the final subdivision plat agree- ment, will need a landscaping plan because cannot be definitive at this scale, so that a dollar amount can be assigned to be included in the subdivision agree- ment for landscaping. Bartel pointed out that there is one ownership that fronts on Monarch and another ownership that fronts on Mill Streeet. Stated that this is an issue for the regrading. Schiffer questioned if all the referrals were positive. Bartel stated that the school's comment is not a con- dition for preliminary plat approval. Chairman Gillis stated that according to the Code, the developer has followed everything and things look good from a subidivision standpoint for preliminary plat. Schiffer stated that he would like to specify on the right-of-way where the 40' is being recommending plus the 10' trail easement, that Commission specify that there are conditionp that warrant that kind of vari- ance from the subdiyision regulations for this pro- ject. . Schottland questi~ned what he was to corne in under for the main part of Lot 3. Bartel stated that this subdivision plat not be used as the site plan. Stated that they would be required to have a detailed site plan for Lot 3, the same as for Lot 2, before development can proceed. Schott land questioned what would happen in the event they do not subdivide Lot 3. Bartel stated that the City would want the same re- view, and stated that if they condominiumize, they would be required to return anyway. Attorney Art Daily was present, representing the de- veloper, and questioned if that Lot was not subdivided, is it really appropriate to require site plan review in the future of that. Bartel stated that he would like Ellis to comment on that, but felt that a great deal of the work which was done in Lot 3 area was really done conceptually. -7- ""..........._~'_'_.e._.~........'._.____ ~;....._-_.--_.._.,~...~. -.~ .- - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 5~ C. F. ~OECKEL B. B. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Was not done as the only opportunity to look at drain- age, easement alignment, etc... Ellis stated that the only alternative to that would be absolute dedication of all those rights-of-ways and easements which are at this point not contemplated to be dedicated absolutely. vagneur questioned if the developer were to sell a por- tion of that property to the school, would that im- mediately mean subdivision of Lot 3. Bartel stated that it would. Schott land stated that, in reference to the additional 10', just found out about it today. Architect Torn Wells stated that they had spent a great deal of time with the PlanninglOffice determining their site plan, the location of the road, the possible Railroad right-of-way, etc... and the possibility of the Sinclair Station. Stated that it is all fairly tight design through there. Stated that the addition of the 10' is a last minute thing. Ellis stated that the developer had been notified con- cerning that easement previously. Wells stated that if the easement goes exactly as the Engineering Department had indicated, the property is certainly usable, but would question whether or not there could be a Sinclair Station. Stated that at this point, Schott land does not have assurance that there will be a Sinclair Station. Stated that that easement would give them 90 feet rather than 100. Schott land stated that originally the Engineering De- partment had informed them that they wanted 60 feet. That was to include a 20foot railroad. NOw up to 70 feet. Del Duca stated that 60 feet including the railroad, trail and road is different than 20 feet for the rail- road and 40 feet for the road. Schottland stated that they are providing lots of trails through the property and this would destroy what they are trying to do here. Feel it is not cor- rect to put the 10' trail easement on. Wells stated that in their original conversation with the Engineering Department, they discussed 60', in- cluding road, trail and railroad, so either the trail is going to break that into 40' and 20'. Feel the trail should still be in that total. Felt that may- be it is possible that the trail could go on the other side. Schottland pointed out that the existing right-of-way is 16'. Ellis stated it was 25' dedicated easement. Schott land stated that they have, according to what -8- -~._.....~-...". ....~ ,.,.-.---- ~-- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~I C. F. HOECK EL B. B. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March S, 1974 Del Duca stated at lunch, 32'of paving and 8' of side- walk. Questioned why they are requesting sidewalk for pedestrians and additional 10' for trail. Del Duca stated that it was poor design to put bicycle and pedestrians on same easement. Stated the 10' ease- ment would be all-purpose. Stated it would go across the river. Stated it would be part of the overall trail system. Schiffer stated that his problem was that the subdi- vision regulations require a 60' road right-of-way, and instead, they are talking about 40' plus 10', which is still below the 60' required. Wells stated that he had always thought the agreement was for 24'. Ellis stated that there was not one plan where he had put his okay on a 24' right-of-way. Ellis stated they need either a specific easement for trails or need to work out an on-site agreement guaranteeing that there would be public access along the frontage through the site for pedestrian traffic. Wells stated that they would not like to commit to something which would prevent the Sinclair Station from corning in. Feel they could work something out. Wells pointed out that they have provided SO% more parking than is required for the project. Ellis stated that the idea of no parking on the street he felt was their agreement and hoped it would be in the subdivision agreement. Stated that 24' in his opinion would be inadequate because of necessity for any type of vehicles to stop, etc... Do not feel that you can totally preclude the fact that there might be loading zones, either passenger or freight at the curb. Schott land stated that he felt they had worked every way they could with the City, and now it is getting to the point where it cuts into their property and precludes one of the major things they are trying to get in, which the City has requested they include. Wells stated that their site plan, allow for the side- walk to be on the property on the one side. Stated that until they really get down to a site plan all the way across including the Sinclair Station, really do not know what to do about the situation. Feel it is a matter of design where the trail easements go. Ellis stated that he felt the situation could be worked out. Ellis stated that the Railroad right-of-way seems to be a problem in trying to utilize that far north- easterly corner of the property. Bartel stated that Del Duca had looked at about 3 dif- ferent alignments for a possible RR right-of-way, and this particular one would require acquisition of ad- ditional property. Stated that when Kravatsky did the site plan for the ll~ acres felt that the place to -9- ~- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOf:CKELD.B.Il:L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 terminate the rail might be back further because of the problems with crossing Mill Street and problems on the ll~ acres. Johnson questioned how long it is reserved for. Bartel stated it is reserved until Lot 3 is resub- divided, when the decision would have to be made. Ellis pointed out that it could not be reserved in- definitely. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. Schiffer made a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat on the condition that the Engineer- ing Department's conditions be met and a solution is arrived at to the trail. Motion seconded by Vag- neur. All in favor, with the exception of Landry who abstained. Motion carried. ASPEN CENTER Ordinance #19 - preliminary & Final City Economists Larry Simmons and Francis Mojo sub- mitted an evaluation of the economic impact study sub- mitted in support of the Aspen Center and Aspen Center Apartments. Complete evaluation is available on file in the office of the City/County Planner. The conclusion is as fol- lows: "We do not wish to be derogatory to the effort put in by Peter Cunningham. The task is extremely difficult even for one with wi- der-ranging experience in this field due to a lack of data. Given this difficulty and the magnitude of this project, we feel that the impact statement should have been writ- ten by a professional. As we collect more data and refine our conceptualization of the Aspen economy, there will be a far better basis on which the professional can operate. Overall, we must have better data estimates and better conceptualization than exists in this study. We would also like to point out that there were many points of ommission in this study such as effects on traffic, the need for such a center to increase the shopping opportunities of residents, the positive impact of greater selection and conveni- ence to the people who have done without or wasted time in getting wanted items. Though some of these are not quantifiable, they do have an economic impact by chang- ing resident spending patterns and general consumer behavior. One very positive effect of the Aspen Center that was not noted in the study is the development of resident oriented con- sumer outlets. This has the effect of keep- ing Aspen income in the Aspen economy and lessening the dependence on tourist spend- -10- - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKEL8.B.lllL.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 ing while making the economy more vi- able and more respondent to resident needs. It should be noted that the impact of this center is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 in that it affords an opportunity for greater utilization of existing services and facilities, while providing for a more balanced economy as it pertains to the tourist and non-tourist elements." Simmons did add that it would seem possible in terms of the Sinclair Station and parking and traffic in the downtown area that it would also fit in with the concept of the mall. Felt this should have been in- cluded in the study. Bill Dunaway, editor of the Aspen Times, pointed out that at one time, the Commission for the County, had said that a second market corning in would be allowed to have the same amount of square footage as City Market. Pointed out that this was at the time of the Safeway proposal. Stated that he understood City Mar- ket had over 14,000 square feet. Questioned what the limit on the grocery store in this particular pro- ject would be. Johnson stated that he thought the limit on a build- ing for one particular use was 12,000 square feet un- der the existing ordinance. Ms. Baer agreed. Stated that the ordinance was writ- ten after that discussion took place. Johnson stated that he thought City Market had 13,200 square feet, and further stated that he felt 9,000 square feet of total space for a food outlet would not be adequate. Johnson stated that a grocery store along the same line as Safeway or King Super would not even look at a site unless they could look at 19,000 to 21,000 square feet. Stated that that would be in a place like Grand Junction or Denver, and the situation here would be different. Schottland stated that in reference to his approaching various market operators, almost all of them say that they are not able to operate in a 12,000 square foot store, so it means that they have become very limited as to the type of operation that they would be able to accommodate. Stated that since the City Economists have said that they feel that the possibility should be explored of a larger store and the Commission, if they feel this is something the developer should look in to, would possibly help if they had a recommendation from the Commission to the Board of Adjustment to per- haps allow more square footage for the market. Felt that it is something that should be resolved fairly soon. Chairman Gillis stated that when he heard the concept felt this would be a placement store. Stated that -11- ~~-~~-,.~~~.,-~_..--"""....,"." ,,"- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECKH B. e. a L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March S, 1974 there were two problems which he hoped would be dealt with - the Sinclair Station and Torn's Market. Stated that this would not be a replacement for Torn's Market. Schottland stated that he had discussed the matter with Curt Baar, and Baar stated that he was not a young man and did not want that size of a mortgage on his business, and offered to sell Schottland his business. Schottland pointed out that he was a real estate developer and not a market operator, and it was left at that. Johnson stated that it would still solve a problem downtown in that it would alleviate a lot of traffic downtown. Chairman Gillis stated that there would still be the problem of Torn's Market. Schottland stated that he felt what was needed was a first class market operator in a good size store. Stated that everyone knows the problems at City Mar- ket because of the small size of the store. Stated that he had discussed with City Market the site and it does not really help them because they need a lar- ger store. Feel that based on what Simmons had said, if the Commission felt that it was something they should explore, feel they would be interested in looking into that because they are having problems getting a market operator into 12,000 square feet. Stated that because they are required to have stor- age, it cuts their floor space down to 8900 square feet. Dunaway questioned if the ordinance was written to provide for storage space. Bartel pointed out that it could not be warehousing type storage. Johnson stated that you cannot build a building twenty thousand square feet and say 12,000 square feet is sales area and the rest of it is storage. Stated that the ordinance is not written that way. Dunaway pointed out that the ordinance is written to provide for supplemental storage. Johnson questioned how you define warehousing storage. Bartel stated that he felt it was primarily space for the transition of items from the truck to the shop. Johnson pointed out that City Market transists those items every day. Felt that if you are saying that what you put in your back room and put out that day is not warehousing then feels that the Commission should be able to look at something a little bit larger. Feels this town needs a larger and better equipped supermarket. Schottland stated that they would look into the sto- rage business, and see about lS,OOO or 16,000 square -12- -" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIG C.F.HOECKELa.B.IlL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March S, 1974 feet. Johnson stated that he thought in a grocery operation and most supermarkets today do not look strictly at grocery sales as their business. Stated that most supermarkets have what is known as general merchan- dising departments, which take anywhere from 3 to 4 thousand square feet in the store. Stated that if you are just looking at a grocery outlet, felt that in the area of lS to 16 thousand square feet could adequately serve and do a good job of just grocery sales. Economist Mojo stated that the definition of ware- housing space is space for hire. Bartel stated that there were two things specifically that the Planning Office followed up on and a third that he had called Daily and mentioned to Schottland his concerns. Bartel stated that Schottland had written a letter as part of the handout given to the Commission at the luncheon that day saying that they will agree to parking management consistent with an overall park- ing plan for the open parking provided that it is applied uniformly downtown. Stated that it covers all the private spaces. Bartel further explained that he and Schottland had discussed the housing and there would be 13 units with either 19 or 20 bedrooms. Stated that he had indicated to Wells approximately a month ago that it really changes the concept that he worked out breaking up the bulk of the project if they tried to add more housing here, plus having, he felt, some really detrimental spillovers to the adjacent resi- dential neighborhood. Stated that Schott land has: (1) Submitted in a drawing the location of housing for the next phase, which is near the existing area zoned for residential development; and (2) submitted after checking with Silverking and Silverking is leasing apartments for certain businesses in town, and the business then makes those apartments available to employees, so there is that additional opportunity for housing in the project. Bartel stated that he had called Daily and asked that they take another look at the Sinclair Station pro- blem and indicated his concern to Schott land and would like them to respond to that. Schottland stated that he had discussed the situation with Torn Wicks today. Stated that wicks' lease comes up for renewal in June and Wicks said that what he would like to try to do is he felt the timing for him would be to pour the footings this fall so that he could be in early next spring. Felt that if he could do it earlier, would be advantageous to him, but that at the latest he would like to see it done in the fall. Stated that that was the second dis- cussion they had had in reference to this. Stated that he had discussed with Wells, and Wells felt that what was very important for them to do is to do a -13- _..,.....~--,~._....._~_.._.'~".... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIol ~I C. F. ~ OECK EL D. D. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Master Plan on the site and feel they could have that done within 90 days, and then could see how that fits in with what they are doing. Gillis stated that the Commission, etc.. had all a- greed that they wanted the Sinclair Station in that area, but also all agreed that they did not want to see anything else in the remainder of the property until the 1st phase is approved. Felt that it is premature to discuss the remainder of Lot 3. Bartel stated that the agreement is for 52,000 square feet not including the housing. Feel there is only one possible location for the Sinclair Station and that is on Mill Street. Stated that he would want that access to the arterial street and feel what the site planning really involves is taking a look at how that relates to the adjacent use, and does not feel that must involve all of Lot 3. Schottland stated that before they do anything else, feel an obligation to Master Plan the rest of that. Stated that to put in a specific use without that Master Plan would be a mistake. Feels that now is the time that they need to do this and have always worked very hard with the Engineering Department and the Planning Department to keep that 100' open for the station and would like to study the possible air rights over Sinclair and how that relates to adjacent uses, etc... Chairman Gillis stated that the developer could Mas- ter Plan if for himself, but felt that the concensus of the Commission was not to look at anything beyond the first phase. Jenkins stated that he concurred with Gillis. Schottland stated that he was not asking about any future phases. Schiffer questioned if the numbers question had been resolved regarding the housing and the parking. Bartel stated that the Planning Office is not recom- mending additional housing units as part of this building. Feel that it destroys all of the quality and good work that Wells has done. Stated that the Planning Office had asked them to show the location for housing on the next phase. Bartel stated that the parking spaces exceed the mini- mum Code requirement. Stated that on the Sinclair Station, his concern is that going throught the first phase, we are not relocating use which has been a problem use downtown for at least 4 years, and feel that it is important to get the committrnent to the extent that Schottland is able to make it, that he will make a site available for the Sinclair Station. If the Sinclair Station rejects it, then must state the reasons for it. Does not want to see another building season go by with no committment that that is one of the uses which will be relocated as part of this project. -14- ____1>-..."."0 " - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKElB.B.al.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Schottland stated that he wants the Sinclair Station in the project and would make a committment that they would use their best efforts to get the station down there as soon as possible, hopefully within 90 days can have concrete answer. Jenkins stated that he felt the housing was inadequate. Simmons stated that basically, it is a matter of pri- orities, whether greater shopping facilities for the residents as contrasted to creating more employee housing. Stated that he did not feel there would be anyone who could afford to put in total employee hous- ing - not in Aspen with these land prices. Jenkins stated that in effect, are telling people to go down the valley to find housing. Simmons stated that he felt it would have to be dealt with as a regional concept of Aspen versus down the valley. Wells stated that this has been a very conscious to be part of the overall plan. Felt the Commission should look at housing areas shown on the Master Plan. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Jenkins to a point, but would not say that we should eliminate something that this community needs just because we are going to create another problem in another area. Schiffer pointed out that the Commission gave concept- ual approval conditioned on working out the housing and parking problems and those have been worked out. Bartel stated that the specific proposal was to show the location for the housing for the next phase and the letter of intent to agree to the parking manage- ment. Johnson questioned if the management parking would in- clude that which is in the building. Bartel stated that it would not. Del Duca stated that he felt the Commission was making a mistake by not looking at the whole plan. Felt that it would be possible for businesses to lease housing. Schiffer stated that he felt that would be a problem for businesses owning spaces in the project. Do not think you can ask a developer to guarantee employee housing when he does not know what employees are going to be there and what kind of uses are going to be made. Bartel pointed out that this is the final phase of Ordinance #19, but not the final phase of subdivision. Schiffer questioned if they now have a final site plan. Bartel stated that there is a separate site plan on file with the Building Inspector and this is a rep- resentation of it. Stated that everything is avail- -15- --"~,.,,-"--. '-"~.-,"~'''''''-~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOECKELB.e.ft L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 able that is required under Ordinance #19. Schiffer questioned what had been decided about the proposed market. Schott land stated that he would research what is in- volved as far as how much space the law allows. Johnson quoted from the zoning ordinance (Commercial Core): "All permitted and conditional commercial and retail business uses shall be restricted to a maxi- mum gross floor area of 12,000 square feet, excluding any basement area used exclusively for storage pur- poses or underground parking, etc..." Felt that 12,000 square feet is the gross allowable. Felt that the only thing that might except that is public tran- sportation facilities, City or County Buildings, ware- houses, and all uses of the AR-l accommodations- rec- reation district permitted under paragraph 24-7(c), shall not have a square footage limitation, which might mean that they could build a warehouse. Pointed out that a grocery store could not operate on two levels. Schiffer stated that he would like to recommend a variance to provide for more square footage for the market. Feels it is essential to have an efficient type of market in that area. Landry stated that she was abstaining from discussion and voting on this project. Schiffer stated that since the planning Office had recommended no more employee housing in this phase, would go along with that. Schottland stated that what is happening, is that they will provide the housing, just not at this point. Vagneur made a motion to approve the preliminary and final under Ordinance #19 presentation for the Aspen Center with the recommendation that the Commission would encourage a variance for a reasonable increase in the grocery store space should that be needed to make it more feasible and that the developer make best possible efforts to work with Sinclair. Motion seconded by Johnson. Jenkins stated that his vote would be conditioned not on whether or not Sinclair should be down there, but until the Commission faces the problems which they create when they permit this to happen, cannot vote on another project like this. Feels that it generates too much of a problem for the City. Main Motion All in favor with the exception of Jenkins who voted nay and Landry who abstained. Motion carried. STEVENS ANNEXATION Bob Stevens was present and submitted map of the pro- posed annexation. Stevens stated that they were trying to annex the Pride of Aspen, the Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim, Sibling Lode Mining Claim, etc... -16- --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.O.II:l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Stevens stated that basically, are looking at the City purchasing a 10 acre claim from Loewe Ringquist for $60,000, which would ~e $10,000 down, the ba- lance over 5 years with equal annual installments with 8% interest. Stevens giving the City of Aspen 2.01 acres (Little Cloud) as a park. Stated that presently there is a road into the Little Cloud. Stated that this could be utilized to the City for trash removal, etc... Stevens pointed out that the trails which go all the way to the base of Strawpile start at the Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim, curve into the Pride of Aspen, and go up through the 66. Stated that he has given the County the 66 and the B & S for parks-recreation. No buildings can be constructed on those pieces of property. Stated that moving from the Little Cloud, go over to the Copperopolis, which is owned by the Quaker Realty Company, which is in fact J. Christopher Brumder. Stated that Brumder has been asked to give this to the City. Stated that Brumder has an access problem in that he would have to go through private condem- nation through Shaw, Ringquist and Stevens. Stated that Brumder has applied to the BLM Office in Glen- wood Springs for access twice and has been turned down both times for access into the Copperopolis. Stated he probably would not have gone to that trouble to get access into that claim if he thought he had access in any other manner, because access through BLM is a perfect cliff at almost 90Q. Stevens stated that he has contacted an attorney in Denver and a law firm in Aspen and asked about the question of Brumder getting access to the Copperopolis for the purposes of developing it. Stated that it was the general opinion that he has a form of access, a donkey trail which is for the removal of ore from his property if he should mine it. Stevens stated that when Brumder purchased the property he was told that he had no access. Stevens stated that he offered $25,000 (the amount which Brumder had paid) for the same land. Stated that he felt Brumder is landlocked for development. Stevens stated that the City would end up with a park trail system, which would amount to approximately 24 acres. Stated that that was including the Brumder pieces. Stated that less the Brumder pieces, would be around 16 acres. Pointed out that in turn, the City would then be able to run there waterline through, would be able to utilize area for the change of mass transit easement. Stevens stated that they would in turn move the rail- road right-of-way over so that the new right-of-way would go through BLM and still connect with the same right-of-way, giving Stevens a parcel of land in the south for development. Stevens located the 8040 line for the Commission on the map. Stated that all the monuments are in place -17- ..-.-- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM II C. F. HOECKEl 8. B. II< l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 5, 1974 and concreted in with brass caps. Stated that below the 8040, they are allowed under the proposed County zoning 3 dwelling units per acre. Stated that they would like to transfer the development rights from the tract that they would be donating and put it in that section. Stated that this would be talking 47 units in that area. Reitterated that this would be giving the City the waterline easement, the mass transit easement, would have their settling pond easement as recommended by the Wright-McLaughlin plan, would get a large park, and Shadow Mountain would not be built on helter-skelter. vagneur questioned if Brumder would be building this as a joint venture. Stevens stated that he would not. Stevens stated that he was not going to purchase the Brumder property. Stated that Brumder's only use for it to get his money out of it is to probably spread that out over a five year period on a land gift situation as a tax write- off. Felt that he could get the land appraised for a couple hundred thousand dollars. Stevens stated that he had an agreement with Ringquist for the Pride of Aspen as far as accesses, etc... Stevens stated that the City would be getting a park which would be worth approximately $150,000, a water- line easement which would be worth approximately $10,000, a mass transit easement which would be worth approximately $30,000, a settling pond which would be worth approximately $10,000, the 10-acre Pride of Aspen worth $60,000, and all the upper Sibley Claim which is worth $50,000. Stated that the City would be getting approximately $300,000 worth of land for $60,000, and transferring the density allowed from below the 8040 on these claims and forgetting the density on the upper part of the claims, to the piece of property Stevens proposes to develope, which would be 47 units. Further stated that in this, would not be dedicating 4% land or cash. Gillis questioned if he had a use for the alley. Stevens stated that he would not have a use for the alley if the City Council would grant this annexation and say that they could put in the units. Stated that there would be a great number of ramifications and he considers himself to be in the hands of city Council and is passing the buck back to Council and telling them to inform him what to do about approving the alley. Stated that the City must say what they are going to do with that alley, and he will go along with it provided he gets what he wants in the area he proposes to develope. Stevens stated that basically what they are ualking about building there are rental-income producing units. Stated that in other projects he has done in Aspen, they are totally occupied by local residents, and will continue to do so. Stated that at some fu- ture date would like to be able to convert to condo- miniums. Would give the tenants first shot at buy- ing the units. Felt that he would get 60% of the -18- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIII,~ C. F. HOEC~EL B. B. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 people who are living in the units. Stated that the units would be designed for permanent residents. Would hope to start construction a year from this spring. Stevens pointed out to the Commission that the City stands first in line for the BLM tracts of land. Schiffer questioned how many units would be allowed on the land proposed for development without the density transfer. Stevens stated that figuring 2 units per lot, could build 18 units. Chairman Gillis stated the Commission would be unable to give approval to this proposal at this meeting. Feel they would like to see a site plan for the en- tire project, and would like to see a topographic map for the area. Stevens suggested the Commission have a site inspec- tion as soon as the snow is melted. Landry stated that she did not agree with this pro- posal even to the point of asking for a site plan. Gillis stated that if the Commission were to consider this proposal, would want a cost evaluation from the City Economists as to the ramifications of costs to the City. Landry stated she would also like information concern- ing the cost of annexing undeveloped land as opposed to developed land. Stated that there is developable land which could possibly be annexed. Stevens stated that he agreed with the economic study and would agree to do a site plan for the Commission. Felt that it would be beneficial for the Commission to make a site inspection. Felt that in dollars and cents, if the City is ever going to put a mass transit system in and the waterline, etc... the City would need this land. Felt that this would be a way of not having to condemn property and saving a cost to the City. Johnson questioned how something could be written off for $200,000 that was bought for only $25,000. Stevens stated that he took the lowest appraisal of three MAI appraisals on half of the claim, which was $35,000. Stated that the MAI will back this up and the IRS approves that. Stated that under the IRS ruling, could take advantage of that without capital gains tax. Stated that this is how cities acquire some of the things which they need to acquire. Stevens pointed out that his gift is not tax deductible because the City would be giving him some kind of zoning for it. Stated it must be an outright gift in order to be tax deductible. Simmons stated although he did not know too much on -19- -.'~-- -~,----,..._~~----"'--"""'-'~." -., -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM'~ C. f. H OECKEL B. B. ill L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March S, 1974 the concept of transferrable development rights, but his understanding at the moment is that it is illegal. Stated that the City of Boulder has requested that the State consider passing a law to make it legal, which would mean that the only way this proposal could corne about would seem to be through zoning changes. Stevens stated that it could also corne about through PUD. Further stated that in Denver, they have done some transferring of development rights and there are three specific cases which he has record of. Simmons stated that as far as the study is concerned, was told this morning to conduct a cost-benefit study of this with an annexation aspect of it, to be com- pleted sometime by August or September. Questioned when the Commission would like the study completed. Stevens stated that for planning purposes, would like to move on this as quickly as possible. Jenkins questioned Stevens on what his alternatives to the annexation would be. Landry stated that she does object to the use of the land which Stevens proposes to develope, and stated that she did not feel the Commission had made any decisions about the possible rezoning of that area. Stated that she would hesitate because of the lSO people the project would generate and the lSO cars. Stated that she would not like to encourage Mr. Ste- vens. Stated that if she were asked to vote at this point, would vote no. Would like to wait and see what the City decides in the way of rezoning and the use of the automobile. Chairman Gillis pointed out that this situation and proposal involved a different trade-off than what most developers present. Vagneur stated that she had no problems with pursuing the matter as far as the economic study was concerned if it fits into the list of priorities. Questioned Simmons on where it would fit and how much he could do. Simmons stated he would like to check with the City Manager, etc.. to see where it would fit into the list of priorities. Jenkins stated that he had reservations about that density in that area. Johnson stated he did not have the same concern and felt that if the City could get assurance that a lot more property would not be developed, would be in favor of looking into the matter further. Simmons pointed out that he felt the major issue in terms of a cost study is really how much it is going to cost the City relative to what else will happen. Stated that we do not have to concern ourselves with how many jobs it is going to generate, for the most -20- .--~,-,~...---,~-~~-~,..,.. -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 part, and that type of consideration. Should concern ourselves with items like sewer, etc... Stevens stated that he has investigated water, sewer, natural gas, etc... Stated that this is the last piece of developable property which he owns in Pitkin County. Has considered selling it to an outside de- veloper, thought about leasing it to the City and they were going to do a study on that which never really got off the ground. Stated that the price he gave the City at that time looks extremely cheap at this point. Bartel stated that he had discussed the matter with City Manager Mick Mahoney, and he had agreed that the cost analysis was in order. Stated that his only concern in that matter is that does not feel that the final decision on annexation can be based on the cost alone. Feel there are social considerations, environ- mental considerations, etc... Stated that have made in a County application to lease those BLM tracts. Stated that cannot do much additional work on the plan- ning without getting to some conceptual maps. Feel the next sequence would be to have Simmons start and give the Commission a preliminary report as quickly as possible, and hopefully within that period of time can resolve some of the use questions, and from that go into the site plan. Schiffer questioned how this would affect the priori- ties as far as Simmons and Mojo are concerned and the economic impact studies on rezoning. Questioned if this project was something which the City felt should be done immediately. Bartel stated that he felt this is more of a continu- ing project. Landry pointed out that this was on the agenda as an annexation at the request of City Council and should go back to City Council. Stated that the Commission has said that they did not want to review any new things until have had a chance to work over some of the old problems. Felt that it would be the decision of the Council. Schiffer stated that he felt they were discussing some- thing which may have some real benefits to the City, and would like to get more information, but would not like to tell Stevens to forget it. Johnson stated that he felt the Commission should vote on it, and expressed interest in looking at the pro- ject further. Jenkins stated that he did not feel this required a vote and stated he would like to inspect the property. Simmons stated that most of the work he would be doing over the next month would be directly applicable to what the Commission has asked him to do. Stated that it would be preferrable to build this within every- thing else and let it flow out of the total work he would be doing, rather than concentrating on it. -21- ,,~~'~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR!IlIO C.F.1l0ECKELB.B.aL.CO. Aspen planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Regular Meeting ORDINANCE #19 REVIEWS 3rd Generation Building - Preliminary & Final Simmons further stated that in terms of a cost study per se, feel that when all is said and done, the Commission will ask which they want, the high density in a small area with a lot of open space or the sprawl type of approach. Geri Vagneur withdrew from discussion and voting due to conflict of interest. Neil Pitman, representing the developer, was present and submitted a model for the project. Ms. Baer stated that the plans conform to the con- ceptual presentation and that the referral letters are positive. Stated that the Planning Office con- siderations were as follows: (1) Engineering De- partment recommendations re: run-off retention and ice build up as shown on plan; (2) Method of trash storage and removal - building is not located on an alley; and (3) parking - to satisfy the regulation, applicant must contract to buyout parking (in numbers required by the Code) if the Court case is decided in favor of the City. Pitman stated that he had talked with Vie Goodhard and Goodhard stated that there would be no problem with trash removal, that they could use the vestibule (ser- vice entrance). Rather than having a stoop like they had previously planned, will have a ramp so they can use the one yard trash container on wheels which they can rollout. Stated that Goodhard thought it would be better from the City's point of view, not to have trash containers out it the open. Would corne inside and get it and roll container back. Pitman pointed out that they do not have access to an alley. pitman stated that he did not know what kind of requirements they would run into if they were to run the ramp to the street. Stated that Goodhard felt that was a minor consideration, but would be better to eliminate the curb there to street level, but if they could at least get a ramp down to the walk, that would be sufficient. Ms. Baer stated that she did not think they could eli- minate the curb. Felt it might be undesirable from the point of view of the Engineering Department and parking. pitman pointed out that there would be an extra charge for the service, but would be willing to pay that. Commission expressed doubt that Aspen Trash would real- ly do this. Further felt that snow build-up could be a problem. Pitman pointed out that snow build-up would not be a problem because the walks are heated. Johnson questioned how they would get the container across the snow build-up and into the street. pitman stated that they would just have to keep that cleaned up. -2"2- ,~""-......,.,,,.,.,-,...........~.~ -- " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'D C.F.HOECKELB.a.&L.CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Johnson pointed out that it would not work on the day when the trash removal man comes because if they corne in and plow the street, the build up is such that it would be difficult to get the container to the street. pitman questioned if it would be acceptable to extend the walk out to the curb. Ms. Baer stated that the building that is there now just places its container out on the curb, and that is the situation which they are trying to avoid. Feel this should be considered a major problem. Further pointed out that there is not a no-parking zone there. Schiffer questioned what would happen if someone was parked there when the trash people carne or if there is a snow build-up after the streets have been plowed. pitman stated that Goodhard had said he could not handle underground trash pickup. Chairman Gillis pointed out that this was a major de- sign consideration and did not feel the Commission could give approval without a solution. Ms. Baer stated that because this problem has not arisen before, did not know what to suggest. Stated that she could see problems with Goodhard getting in there. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office would really like the applicant to sign the contract for buying out the parking, but in order to get the applicant started, this is the only way they can do it. They should agree to sign a contract to buyout their park- ing, should the court resolve in favor of the City. Stated that the planning pffice would prefer, if it were possible, that they weren't-required to buyout parking, however, if the .1applicant is willing to do this at this time, it would at least solve his pro- blems and the City's, in lieu of making a final de- cision. The City would not have lost any options. Pitman stated, that being satisfied, how should he proceed on the application. Chairman Gillis stated that until the applicant could find a solution for the trash, it is not the kind of conditional approval he felt the Commission could give. Felt that it is major enough that no decision could be made at this meeting. Ms. Baer questioned if a solution could be found which would be acceptable to the Planning Office and the Com- mission, could do this by mail. Chairman Gillis stated that it could be handled under Old Business, and the applicant would not necessarily have to return to town for the presentation. Schiffer questioned if all the other criteria have been satisfied. -23- -~....."-^"...._-._...~-_.__.~..,~...,.," ....~'..... " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" \0 C. F. ~OECKEL B. B. !; L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that they had. Johnson made a motion to approve the preliminary and final presentation under Ordinance #19 for the 3rd Generation Building conditioned on a solution to the run-off retention and build-up problem, trash removal and that they are willing to sign the contract for parking. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, with the exception of Landry and Vagneur who abstained. Motion carried. Tree House - Conceptual Charlie Weaver was present representing the project. Ms. Baer explained that the subcommittee recommended conceptual approval of this project. Reminded the commission that it had corne to them previously and was tabled, Commission had a site inspection of the property. It was then withdrawn at the request of the applicant, and is now corning back for conceptual review. Ms. Baer stated that the only condition the subcommit- tee recommended was that those leases be covenanted for no less than a year. Further, reminded the Com- mission that this project would be subject to subdi- vision conditions where the site constraints are con- siderable. Stated that the topography is a considera- tion. Vagneur questioned where the waterline is located. Ms. Baer stated that the waterline is located in the street, but do not know whether or not the pressure is adequate at this time. Stated this must be tested. Johnson questioned if there was anything beyond this project on the waterline. Landry stated that there was a fire hydrant beyond it. Schiffer questioned if the applicant has described how the intended development complies with the use recommendations of the Land Use Plan. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant is proposing this project be for permanent residents in the mixed-resi- dential area. Johnson request the applicant address himself to how it applies to the proposed rezoning. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has 18,000 square feet approximately. Stated that the proposed zoning would be R-15, so would have duplex density. Vagneur stated that she felt that that sort of density there where there is a zoning proposal is not correct. Can not go along with it when other projects have been refused in that same area. Landry stated that she agreed with Vagneur. Stated that she has reservations about the physical aspects of the site. Expressed concern with avalanches and snowslides. Stated that when the CSU students did -24- ~ ""'"'\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSI C.F.HOECKELB.B.SlL,CO. Regular Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 their Resource Inventory and showed the 300 grade in the area above this, felt this area was subject to snowslide. Weaver stated that 3 years ago had discussed with Benedict and Larkin the possibility of buying their piece of adjoining property. Stated that on the plat of the subdivision it is stated that certain lots, not these, requirement that an avalanche expert certify that the area be avalanche-free. Stated that Benedict had hired an avalanche expert and the expert reviewed Benedict's property. The expert said that it was definitely in an avalanche area, but that was only half of the property. Stated that the property ad- jacent to his own was not included in the avalanche area. Stated that therefore, his property would pre- sumably be avalanche-free. Weaver submitted brochures to the new members of the commission showing the type of buildings he proposed to build, adding that they are ideally suited for a sloping lot. Jenkins stated that he was concerned with the density, and whether or not the slope was subject to snowslides. Stated that at the density which Weaver is proposing, not even close to what the commission has expressed as what they feel right for that area. Johnson agreed that the density was a concern. Felt it is much greater than what the Commission has corne up with for that area. Stated that the parking was a further concern and felt it would create a problem. Stated that Ute Avenue was another concern as far as traffic. Schiffer stated that he agreed with the concerns the members had expressed, that there is a problem with the density and felt that under Ordinance #19, the Commission must address themselves to the density subject to modification as determined by the physical conditions of the development, i.e. slope, access, drainage, terrain features and the impact resulting from the development. Felt it would have the same type of constraints as Ute Village Condominiums. Feel the density is too much for that site. Bartel stated that the recommendation of the Commission for this area is on the City Council agenda as an or- dinance to amend #19. Stated that Mayor Standley has also placed on the Council agenda the zoning of the total Ute Avenue area for the next regular meeting of the Council. Weaver questioned what would be acceptable to the Com- mission for that site. Johnson stated, and it was the concensus of the Com- mission, that R-15 would be acceptable for that area. Weaver pointed out that the house itself only takes up 800 square feet. Ms. Baer stated that Del Duca had been to avalanche -25- I"'"' " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 5~ C. F. HOECK El B. B. II L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 school, and it would not appear that there would be active slides. Johnson made a motion to deny the Tree House project under the conceptual review of Ordinance #19 on the basis of the density. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the meeting would be con- tinued on Thursday, March 7th at 5:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~