Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740307 /"' ",...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F.HOEClIELD.B.IIL.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:10 p.m. with Com- mission members Bryan Johnson, Spence Schiffer, Geri vagneur and Janet Landry. Also present Assistant City/County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and City Economist Yank Mojo. OLD BUSINESS Agenda Items Jack Jenkins arrived. Vagneur questioned when the Commission made the deter- mination that they were going to cut off all new ap- plications coming forward as of March 19th, whether or not new applications means new applications for approval of buildings or whether it means all new business. Chairman Gillis stated that his interpretation of that was that it would include anything which takes the time of the Commission which has not been discussed before. Vagneur questioned if that meant that anything that would be an exception to a subdivison request or any- thing of that nature would be out until after this period of time. Johnson stated that that was not his feeling. Felt that it just affected buildings coming in for concep- tual approval. Schiffer stated that he felt exemptions were small items and the Commission could handle them in a short time. , Landry made a motion that under the new policy where any new projects would not be admitted to the agenda, that exemptions be made an exception. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Council Meetings Landry stated that the Commission needed to appoint one of its members to attend the City Council meeting on Monday officially to be there as a resource per- son. Chairman Gillis stated that he did not feel this should be on a permanent basis, but only for two or three meetings. Landry suggested that it be a member who knew the en- tire process that the proposed rezoning went through. Schiffer stated that he would attend the meeting on Monday, but could not commit to do it for more than that. Johnson stated that he, too, could attend the meeting. Molny - Exemption & Stream Margin Ordinance #19 Conceptual Molny read the letter which is required under appli- cation for exemption: "Gentlemen: This letter represents our request to you for exemption from subdivision under the provisions of Chapter 20-10 of the Aspen Municipal Code for Lots R & S, Block 33, East Aspen Addition, and Lots 6 & 7, Block -"...",,,. r- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 5, Riverside Addition. Our general reason for making this request is that the subject property does not fall within the intents and purposes of Chapter 20 - Subdivisions - of the Code. More specifically, our reasons for this request are as follows: (1) The property is already platted and recorded. (2) All utilities are in place and are a- vailable to the lots. (3) The alley is permanently unusable for access and its isolation from the southerly lot is of no importance. Providing the northerly lot with access to the street has been satisfied by a 14' driveway easement. A variance would be sought to satisfy the technical requirement of a lot fronting on a street. The lots border on the Roaring Fork River. Dividing them in half in an east-west direc- tion enables the improvements to be placed in such a manner as to increase the area of river frontage left undisturbed and, in so doing, would greatly increase the degree of compliance with the intent of the stream margin ordinance. It should be noted here that a build- ing could be constructed solely on Lot 7 in strict compliance which would be located a minimum of 30' closer to the Roaring Fork River from the buildings as proposed. A suggestion has been made by the Plan- ning Office that we apply for a subdivision. We respectfully submit that as a matter of timing necessity, there is nothing to be gained by requiring that the property be sub- divided and it should not be made a condition of approval. Such a requirement would only place an increased burden on us and on the time of the Planning commission, the Engineer- ing Department and the City Council. What is being proposed is the division of already subdivided lots in variance with exis- ting lot lines. There are many such divisions in the City of Aspen which are not platted and recorded. They create no inordinate problems. We feel a personal comment is in order. Obviously, the best use of the piece of land would be to leave it as it is. It is unlikely to so remain. Our project is modest in scope and impact and it attempts to minimize the dis- ruption of natural features of the site. At the direct request of the Planning Of- fice, we accepted the approach evidenced on our site plan, even though it was immediately apparent that increased cost and greatly in- crease difficulties in executing this project were inevitable. The requirement to subdivide, however, would create an undue hardship and yield, as I have suggested, no benefits. Unfortunately, we are now almost out of the time necessary -2- ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMlij C.F.HOECKELB.B.8:l.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 7, 1974 to execute this project. The moving of the buildings must be completed by 5 p.m., April 15th. We ask for your decision at this time or we will be forced to abandon the project. There is a very distant possibility that the house proposed for the southerly lot would be demolished to make room for the Stevens-Ginn project, which is scheduled to begin on April 16th. This is a fact." Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission would han- dle one request at a time. Stated that the Commission would begin with the exemptions. Schiffer stated that he had no problems with the rea- sons stated, but was not certain whether or not it falls within the perview of the exemption that is being discussed. Stated he was not clear which one Molny is requesting. Molny stated that according to Chapter 20-10, there are exceptions and exemptions. Felt that they would like to avoid going to City council by using the word "exception" would like to. Stated that the strict reading of it would be under 20-10(b), which was the City Attorney's note to him. Ms. Baer stated that the item Molny was referring to as exemption is when it is the intent and purpose, like in an exchange to satisfy a boundary dispute. Stated that she would recommend that they apply under an exception, and that does not go to the Council. Stated that there is a change and there is a division, and the design requirements are involved. Molny read the three items under "Exceptions". Felt that they would qualify under 20-10(a) or 20-10(b). Stated that as far as the design requirements, there is no language which he is aware of which would apply. Ms. Baer stated that that would be contained in 20-7. Molny stated that he had met with the City Attorney on the 26th of February to see if this would be a good candidate for exemption or exception. Stated that Ms. Stuller agreed that it was. Stated that Stuller had said that the application was within the intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations and that the design requirements in 20-7 are satis- fied, and believe the reason she said that is because it has already been platted with streets, etc.., that Molny should review the design criteria and that the subdivison regulation deals with impact and that the impact of what they are proposing is reduced rather than increased. Stated these were his notes on her comments. Schiffer stated that he felt Ms. Baer could address the design requirements, but do not agree that they have been met. Also, have a problem with whether or not items 1, 2 and 3 of Subsection (a) are read to- gether or as "or". Ms. Baer stated that they are separate. that it would -3- ----...."..," ~ \. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. KoreK EL B. B. Ii L. CO. continued Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 be any of the three. Stated that that is the way it has been interpreted in the past. Ms. Baer stated that if the Commission approves the conceptual presentation under Ordinance #19, the Plan- ning Office has no desire to hold up the project and recognize that he has a hardship. Stated that she has discussed the matter with Bartel, and the Plan- ning Office has felt from the beginning it is suit- able for subdivision application. Bartel stated that it would satisfy him and the Department if Molny could submit a preliminary plat, and then move his building before the final plat is approved. Stated that the timing is the element which is involved here. Stated that although they do not want to foul up the project, feel that there is an impact, there is a change in lot line, there are drainage considerations, it should be reviewed in depth by the Engineering Department, and feel it meets all the criteria for subdivision. Ms. Baer stated that the Engineering Department had looked at it briefly this afternoon and for example, the applicant will have to move the houses approxi- mately 4' over because it would be impossible to open a car door. Molny stated that in actuality you could because that is a standard 9' drive. Stated that if the lefthand side of the car were against the righthand side of the roadbed, you could open the door. Stated that cars are generally 6 or 7 feet wide. Stated they were trying to keep as far from the river as possible. Further pointed out that they were using 2 feet of the 14' easement for parking. Stated that they had dis- cussed with Ms. Baer moving 2' so they would be com- pletely off the easement. vagneur questioned if the studies are not done prior to subdivision approval, how could you put foundations down and put the houses on them. Ms. Baer questioned the applicants as to whether or not they could get financing with the conditions rec- ommended by the Planning Office. Eubanks stated that if they had the first step of ap- proval and some reasonable assurance that they would get subsequent approvals, felt they could get finan- cing. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office did not anti- cipate anything in the course of subdivision which would require denial. Eubanks stated that ultimately they will have to sub- divide - in order to get financing must have separate title to the property. Ms. Baer stated that since there were lot line changes, since one lot does not front on the road, the fact that they have some drainage considerations, etc.. is the reason that they are recommending subdivision. Felt it typically lends itself to subdivision. -4- ,^_~",__,,,,~_'_"^'_~_'~U'"_'_';'_''''''' - I - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.8.81L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 Schiffer stated he felt the Commission must apply the statute the way it is written, and questioned if the design requirements had been fulfilled. Jenkins stated that if the Commission gave preliminary subdivision approval, and the applicants went ahead and placed the houses, there would be no way the Com- mission could deny at a later stage. Would be the same as giving final approval. Would be committing the Building Inspector to a foundation. Vagneur questioned what the timing would be for the drainage approval before the foundations went in. Del Duca stated that he did not feel there would be a major drainage problem, but feels the location of the foundations are very important. Schiffer stated that he felt the Commission could not grant an exception or and exemption. Stated that un- der (a), could only grant if the strict application would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land - the applicant does not own the land at this point. Could grant if the exception was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant - do not own it, so where is their property right. Stated that under (c) the applicant would have to fulfill the design requirements first. Schiffer made a motion to deny the exemption or ex- ception. Motion seconded by Johnson. Jenkins stated that the uses, as far as he was con- cerned, are no .problem, but felt the density was a step in the wrong direction. Molny reminded the Commission that the applicant was following a direction of the Planning Office. Took this approach because the Planning Office requested them to do so, in the interest of preserving as much as possible the stream. Felt that when an applicant is asked to cooperate, you can reasonably expect some cooperation in turn to make what is sort of an unusual project possible. Landry request that Schiffer justify his reasoning that it would not deprive the applicant of the reason- able use of his land - does not say owner. Schiffer stated that although he may not agree with the criteria in the ordinance, that is the way it is written. Stated that it is not the applicant's land. Molny reminded the Commission that they are attempting to save two old houses and that they are coming in with a density which is much less than the density which is currently allowed. Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Landry who was opposed. Motion carried. Molny - Stream Margin Request Chairman Gillis stated that the considerations are whether removal of trees, slope or grade changes pro- -5- ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMID C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 duce erosion. Chairman Gillis stated that he felt it would be an engineering consideration and questioned if Del Duca had reviewed the site. Del Duca stated that he had just looked at the pro- perty that afternoon and did not really have time to make a decision. Johnson questioned how much the setback was. Ms. Baer pointed out the high water mark on the plans. Pointed out that anything within 100' of the river is subject to review. Chairman Gillis questioned how close the high water mark was to the building. Molny stated that in the case of the Eubank building, it is 11' from one corner of the house. Gillis questioned if the 10' trail would be in the flood plain. Ms. Baer stated that it would be. Schiffer stated that his only concern was that the ordinance states that vegetation should not be re- moved or any slope and grade changes made that will produce erosion of the stream bank or area adjacent to the stream. Stated that Molny had mentioned that he had to remove some trees and there would probably be some slope and grade changes, and wanted to know if that would have any deleterious affect on the stream. Ms. Baer pointed out that there would be considerable removal of trees and vegetation, and stated that the Planning Office is not equipped to evaluate that con- clusively. Felt that for structures of this size, to the best that they can evaluate, will not cause any deleterious affects. Chairman Gillis stated that if the Engineering Depart- ment is not prepared to give an opinion on the stream margin request, did not feel the Commission should vote on it. Johnson stated that he felt it would be difficult for the Engineering Department to review this site until after some of the snow has melted. Del Duca stated that he did not foresee any big pro- blems, and felt the removal of the trees which Molny proposed would not cause any erosion problems. Molny pointed out on the plans where the trees were located that they plan to remove. Johnson made a motion to grant the stream margin re- quest, seconded by Jenkins. Del Duca stated that he felt there should be some type -6- -'"'.., -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. tlOECKEL B. O. Ii L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 of provision to maintain the trees between the trail and the house for the purposes of erosion and esthe- tics. Chairman Gillis stated that this could come under sub- division. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Molny - Ordinance #19 - Conceptual Molny stated that the original application for con- ceptual review was for a total of five units and an office. Stated that at that meeting, the Commission said that they would feel better if it was a total of four rather than six. Molny stated that in the Eubanks project, the exist- ing upper two levels would remain basically as the house is now, making one unit. The basement would be Eubanks' apartment. In the basement there would be a living room, kitchen, 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. Upstairs it would be kitchen, living room, 2 bedrooms and a bath, and the top floor would have two additional bedrooms and a bath. Molny stated that his house would be to have a living area for himself with a kitchen and a bathroom in what is now the attic space, with the office the same way it is now. On first level, would be a 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment. This would be Phase I. Molny stated that Phase II, were he to sell the build- ing, would give up the use of the building as an of- fice. The top floor would be living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom. First floor would have 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Basement would have 2 bed- rooms and a bathroom. This would be two apartments. Schiffer asked Molny if he had discussed with the City Attorney the professional office use in the area. Molny stated that he had not discussed that matter with the City Attorney. Schiffer stated that he was concerned about the pro- fessional office use in that area. Jenkins pointed out that there would be 4 units, 7 baths, 11 bedrooms on substantially less than 12,600 square feet of land, with only five parking spaces. Molny pointed out that currently, the right that goes with the land is B unlimited units, and the applicant is cutting that in half. Johnson made a motion to deny the conceptual presen- tation under Ordinance #19, seconded by Jenkins. Landry stated that she questioned requiring the cove- nant of the changeover from commercial use to resi- dential use because it appears that residential use has more impact than the professional use which is being discussed. Vagneur stated that she did not feel comfortable with -7- I"" - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIl C.F.HOECKELB.B.a:L,CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 7, 1974 totally denying the project since the Commission did encourage Molny to return with a cutback on the den- sity, which he did. Chairman Gillis stated that he liked the idea of sav- ing the houses, and he did cut the density. Feel it complies with what the Commission is looking for. Schiffer again expressed his concern on the interpre- tation of the mixed-residential and the use of the professional office in that area where it does not already exist. Would like the opinion of the City Attorney. Johnson stated that he felt if the Commission allows this project, are effectively allowing two duplexes on 6300 square feet each. Schiffer stated that although he agreed with Jenkins and Johnson, did not feel the Commission should act in an arbitrary fashion and feel they should set some definite criteria. Feels that it is too dense, but not certain what is the right amount. Vagneur 'pointed out that presently, can build a duplex on 6,000 square feet in the west residential area. Main Motion (Motion to deny conceptual approval). Johnson and Jenkins in favor, Landry, Schiffer, Vagneur and Gillis opposed. Motion NOT carried. Schiffer made a motion to approve the conceptual pre- senation under Ordinance #19 conditioned on an opin- ion from the City Attorney that this is a use that would be justified in that area within the purview of the mixed-residential definition. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exceptions of Johnson and Jenkins. Motion carried. SUBDIVISIONS Aspen Commercial condominium - Exemption Dr. Robert Barnard was present to make this presenta- tion. Location of property: 307 South Mill, City of Aspen, premises presently known as Aspen Medical Center, situated on Lots H & I, Block 82, including said real property and improvements thereon as the same now exist. Barnard stated that he was asking for exemption on the basis of Chapter 20-10(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code, namely, if a piece of property was platted into lots and blocks before the subdivision law was passed it is entitled to an exemption. Pointed out that it must, however, meet the building design requirements. Barnard stated that his plan is to sell the building in three parts to the tenants who presently occupy the building, so the project would have no impact. Barnard pointed out that the first recommendation of the Engineering Department was that no provision has been provided to control the storm drainage run-off from the site. Submitted a bill for storm drainage -8- .~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.e.81L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 service which is paid to the Aspen Sanitation District and has been paying for 10-12 years. Del Duca stated that he had inspected the building and saw a downspout which drains onto the ground. Barnard stated that the storm drains were on the roof, central drains which drain into the storm sewer. Barnard pointed out that the Engineering Department's second concern was that some of the sidewalk is in poor repair and creates puddles in the walk as deep as 3 - 4" and no walk exists on the Hyman side of the property, however this walk is promised by Dr. Barnard in an agreement dated 12/18 which will be built later this year. Barnard submitted the agreement for the construction of the sidewalk. Stated that the poor repair which was referred to by the Engineering Department, takes the position that the sidewalk is in as good a repair as the average sidewalk in the City of Aspen. Stated that it is not true that there are puddles 3 and 4 inches deep. Stated that if there is any water on the sidewalk it is because of the ice and snow ac- cumulation which is a common problem. Del Duca pointed out that the sidewalk is cracked. Pointed out that the Municipal Code requires that the sidewalk be replaced. Barnard stated that it did not mean that to him. Next consideration of the Engineering Department - there are no garbage facilities on the property. Pre- sently the adjacent alley is being used for the dump- sters. This has not caused a problem since the alley has been blocked for quite some time by two trees, however, use of the alley for storing dumpsters is a violation of the Code and should be remedied. Barnard presented for the examination of the Commis- sion a letter which was acted on in 1961 by the City Council, signed by Mayor Garrish, in which the alley was closed. Stated that putting a dumpster in a closed alley is insignificant. Pointed out that there are dumptsters in many alleys downtown. Del Duca stated that the alley was closed for a spe- cific reason by Resolution in 1961, and was supposed to be landscaped. Do not landscape with dumpsters. Pointed out that it is on the alley, rather than to the side. Barnard pointed out that it is not an alley in the common sense of the word. Del Duca stated it is not a vacant alley, although it is closed, it is to be opened for emergency ve- hicles. Barnard stated that if an emergency vehicle needed to use the alley, could drive out into Wagner Park. -9- ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.!l:L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 Next consideration of the Engineering Department - Section 24-96 (a) and (b) - In that there are several signs which are hazards hanging less than B' above the walkway. Could not find any records of sign per- mits ever being issued for these signs. Barnard stated that in the first place, signs are not a design requirement of the building, and secondly, if there is a sign violation, the people who own the shops are the ones who should be contacted. Stated that there are provisions in the law and in the ordinances to control this. Stated he would be willing to speak to the shop owners, but will not take the responsibi- lity for the moving of the signs. Felt this was a matter of policing and not his concern. Next consideration of the Engineering Department - The Popcorn Wagon has several encroachments on public right-of-way. The City should be exempted from any damages or injuries due to or involving these en- croachments. Barnard stated that the Popcorn Wagon was sitting en- tirely on his property. Understands that the problem is that there are two benches between the sidewalk and the curb that people sit on and stated he would have those moved. Next consideration of the Engineering Department - Electric utilities are not underground. Del Duca stated that usually what is done in a case like this is that they agree that if the City ever goes underground, will agree to participate in the cost. Barnard stated that he would agree to something like that. Barnard stated that he agreed to participate in a Hyman Street Sidewalk District, if there ever is one, and if there should be one on Mill Street, would par- ticipate in that, but will not tear the sidewalk up and replace it. Del Duca stated that joining an improvement district is all that they would ask. Landry asked if the building is condominiumized, what would happen to the property that the Popcorn Wagon is on. Barnard stated that the property would be held in com- mon interest by the people who own shares of the con- dominiums. Del Duca stated that if a sidewalk is in need of re- pair, the City Manager can order the owner to replace it, or replace it at the owner's expense. Vagneur made a motion to approve the exemption from subdivision for Aspen Commercial Condominium based on the fact that Dr. Barnard and that location will be part of any future sidewalk district, that the -10- I"" -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \0 C. F. HOECKEL B. B.ft L. CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 7, 1974 signs are put in a safer manner, that the benches on the City property are removed and that the electrical utilities in that area, when put underground, that they will covenant to buyer or buyers to participate in that program. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 REVIEWS Bergman Building - Preliminary & Final Ken Hubbard, attorney representing Bergman, was pre- sent along with Bergman and Russ Pielstik, architect. pielstik pointed out that the Engineering Department had expressed concern with the problem of drainage. Stated that they had proposed putting a flow meter on the drainage from the building into the storm sewer, and tell the applicant how much that flow should be. Hubbard questioned what they should do about the Stroud decision. Felt that, at the very least, the applicant would be entitled to an off-street parking contract which would be contingent on that case being reversed. Felt that even if that case is reversed, there is a question whether or not the Commission would still want an off-street parking arrangement. Hubbard stated that if they do have a contract, how many spaces. Stated that there were 20 in the pro- posed agreement, but on Pielstik's calculations should be lB. Hubbard questioned how to handle the use covenant ques- tion. Stated that he had included the use covenant in the proposed off-street parking agreement. Chairman Gillis questioned Ms. Baer as to whether or not all the required referral letters were in. Ms. Baer stated that they were. Stated that now that trash has become a major issue, would like to hear how applicant would handle their storage and removal. Fur- ther stated that after the subcommittee looked at this, felt there may be a problem with access from alley. pielstik stated that this would not be a problem since they are talking about auto-size vehicles. Stated the truck would stop in the alley, unload, and then proceed. Ms. Baer expressed concern with deliveries tying up the alley. Bergman stated that he felt this was his concern more than a concern of the City. Stated that they could work that problem out. Chairman Gillis questioned if this would interfere with the Bank of Aspen's drive-up window. Bergman stated that it would not. Stated that he felt everyone would agree to making that a one-way alley. Pointed out that the Bank of Aspen had requested that the City make that a one-way alley. Bergman pointed out that he handles his own trash re- moval, and stated that he would remove it as often as -11- '0 ..__'~"'__~ . ~ - I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. co. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 necessary. Ms. Baer pointed out that the sidewalk on Main Street would be a condition of building permit, but is not certain if curb and gutter is. Stated they would like the applicant to close up and put in a curb and gutter on the cut where they are going to parking. pielstik stated he felt it was ludicrous to put a flow valve on a storm drainage system. Felt that al- thoug the cost is small, is setting a ridiculous pre- cedent. Ms. Baer stated she would like to defer to the Engi- neering Department on that matter since they are very specific in what they want on the basis of the Wright-McLaughlin concept of on-site retention. Would not like to see the commission overrule them on some- thing they require routinely. Stanford stated that he did request to pielstik that in order to communicate better to the HPC exactly what kind of impact it would have with respect to the historic district, to provide them with a drawing of how it would look on the street. Submitted the draw- ing. Stated that the HPC did not have a quorum at the meeting, but did ask that their considerations be heard. Did not make a recommendation, but their concerns are those which were listed in their memo. Chairman Gillis read the list of considerations from the HPC: (1) The building should have come to the HPC before the final plans were prepared. pielstik stated that those have been in existence for almost two years. Started them before the historic aspect was of real concern. Pielstik stated that he felt the overall building size and appearance of the building is about the same height as Elli's and is set back further from the street, so would say that the apparent height of the building is probably below Elli's, and do not feel that Elli's building is inconsistent with the rest of that block, although there is a rather significant difference in the kinds of buildings that there are. pielstik stated that they went to the vertical pat- tern on the side of the building, which goes the full length of the building. Stated that they have con- crete blocks which have six cuts in the block to give it a vertical pattern on the side of the building. Stated that that is one way to accentuate the linearity of the wall. will be painted to match the brick. Bergman pointed out that they had also moved a large tree, at a great expense, for the same reason. Ms. Baer questioned if the HPC was also concerned a- bout the material. Stanford stated that the HPC had said that they would prefer to see the sides in the same brick as on the front facade. -12- '" , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&:L.CQ. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 pielstik stated that was a factor of cost. Chairman Gillis stated that one HPC concern was the impact of the size of the rear on Hopkins and Mill. Pielstik stated he felt that was stretching a point when you compare the backsides of other buildings in the area. Stated that he felt theirs is better than most. Did not feel this should be a concern. Applicant submitted drawing of proposed building. Stanford stated that the primary concern of the HPC is that they feel these things could be taken care of sooner if, as soon as an applicant comes in after con- ceptual, comes into HPC with conceptual drawings. Stanford stated that the HPC was also concerned with the large amounts of glass. pielstik stated that one of the initial considerations was to make the building sympathetic with the Jerome. Stated that the area of glass on the ground floor of the Jerome is about the same as the area of glass on this building, although the Jerome is a much larger building. Jenkins stated that he felt the concern was with the amount of light that would be shed from the building. pielstik stated that there would be lights on at the rear of the building at night. Stated that it was designed for daytime use. Stated that there would be small lights on the columns which are merely there to light the column itself. Johnson questioned Bergman as to whether or not he planned to open the building at night. Bergman stated that he did not plan to do so initially, but could not guarantee that for the future. Chairman Gillis questioned what one would see through the windows. Bergman stated that they would see large chandeliers and display windows. Stanford stated that the concern of the HPC was more with the fluorescent lights. Ms. Baer stated that this project came before the City had acquired economists. Stated that therefore it is too late to talk about housing, but felt that for the record, wanted this included. Questioned Bergman on an estimate gross sales. Bergman stated that he had no idea. Ms. Baer questioned how many employees this building would have. Bergman stated that he felt they would have about 6. -13- -,~>-~-_..._-,----~""~'~ - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. ~OECKEL B. 8. 6< L. co. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 Vagneur questioned if the trees died, would Bergman be willing to replace them. Bergman stated he would be willing to replace them with good-sized evergreens. Ms. Baer pointed out that when this building first came before the Commission, the Commission was con- cerned about the amount of traffic it would generate. At that time, the Planning Department recommended an excess number of parking spaces of that which the Code requires. Stated that it was mutually decided that a buy-out solution would have considerable ad- vantages over an on-site parking solution. Stated that there was an agreement to negotiate the number and the cost. In the interim, the City has had the Stroud case and now the Ingham case on the buy-out parking. The Planning Office has in the interim also taken a position about parking. Stated that covenant- ing of the deed of this property was based on the need to determine parking spaces, felt that fewer places would be generated by large appliances than by the kind of use that Bergman has at the drugstore. Stated that the City Attorney has recommended that should the Commission require a buy-out of parking, the applicant sign a contract dependent upon the out- come of the court case. In other words, if it were resolved in favor of the City, the contract would then take affect. Jenkins stated that the number has not yet been de- termined. Ms. Baer stated that the Commission has several al- ternatives. Can go the buy-out route (determine the number and ask the applicant to sign a contract), can adopt a policy similar to that which the Planning Of- fice has been recommending for which both of these alternatives require Board of Adjustment decisions. Stated that the Commission could, in conjunction with the no on-site parking, ask the applicant to agree to join any future parking-transit districts. Stated that she had discussed this matter with the City At- torney, and was told that it would be similar to a future street improvement district, etc... Chairman Gillis pointed out that whatever number of parking spaces are required, three still reflect back to Carl's Pharmacy. Ms. BAer stated that in that respect, feel the Com- mission should ask Bergman to sign a contract for those. Jenkins stated he did not feel comfortable with penal- izing new buildings when the old buildings exist and generate as much of a problem. Feel this should be handled now. Ms. Baer stated that the reason they would want an agreement is because if it worked like a street im- provement district, it might have to go to a vote, so you should pick up these agreements as you go a- long. -14- ,- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIoI'O C.F.tlOECKELS.O.1t L. CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 long. Johnson questioned if the Commission asks for the con- tract on the buyout, and in the event the court de- cides against the City, could they then ask them to agree to join a future parking district. Ms. Baer stated that should they sign the contract and the case be decided in favor of the City, the ap- plicant would be exempted from any future parking dis- trict, at least to the extent they had already parti- cipated. Schiffer stated that he agreed with Johnson's sug- gestion. Hubbard stated that he felt, the off street parking agreement, as long as they are not treated any dif- ferently than anyone else, would be acceptable. Stated he did not feel it would be just for Bergman to have to do that if others are not required to. Ingham was present and stated that the lease which he entered into with the City did specify that in the event a district was formed then the lease would be null and void and could participate in the district. Stated that there was no provision for a refund. Stated that if the City forms a district 10 years from now and he has put in $36,000, will not get any back. Hubbard stated that that is how the contract reads. Ms. Baer stated that parking would ultimately be de- cided by the Board of Adjustment. Stated that she would discuss with the City Attorney that particular aspect of the contract. Chairman Gillis asked Ms. Baer if there was any way the Commission could avoid the question of parking at this meeting until they have established a policy. Hubbard suggested that the Commission require the parking agreement and the agreement become null and void if a district was formed and the money would be refunded. Chairman Gillis stated that he felt the City Attorney would have to handle that. Johnson made a motion to approve the preliminary and final presentation under Ordinance #19 conditioned on working out the parking problem, and that the curb and gutter situation be taken care of, and that if any of the trees in the front that were transplanted die that the applicant replace it with a sizeable tree and that the trash be kept on the inside. Motion seconded by Jenkins. Hubbard questioned how long it would take for the Com- mission to arrive at a solution on the parking. Chairman Gillis stated that it was one of the top priorities of the Commission and have a study session -15- ____--...,0...-'-.--- ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 addressing that matter the following Thursday. Ms. Baer questioned the Commission if the applicant could arrive at a solution, transmittting that to the Commission, could they start on the Board of Ad- justment process. Chairman Gillis stated that he wanted it understood that when the Commission deals with the parking pro- blem in general next Thursday, do not want to see anything on this project specifically. Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Landry who ab- stained and Schiffer who abstained. Motion carried. Aspen Auto Supply - Exemption Ms. Baer stated that there were no plans or maps. Stated that the applicant would like to go underground to build a recreation room, laundry room and furnace room, which the Planning Office feels is suitable for an exemption. Extension of existing lodge, Buckhorn, which does not include additional units. Schiffer stated that he might have a conflict of in- terest and requested the Commission decide. Stated that he used to be partners with Steve Weir, and Sy Kelly is a client of Steve Weir, and Schiffer once worked on a case for Kelly. Commission decided there was no conflict of interest. Johnson stated that he had no problem with approving the exemption. Jenkins stated that he would like to go on record that he sold the Auto Supply to Kelly. Jenkins made a motion to approve this Ordinance #19, seconded by Johnson. motion carried. exemption under All in favor, Marcus Building - Conceptual Steve Marcus was present to make the presentation. Marcus reminded the Commission that he had come up with a building on two lots with a square, simple de- sign which the Commission had objected to. Further pointed out that the recommendation of the Commission was to Master Plan the block with something more ex- citing. Marcus stated that they started to Master Plan the block and were told that they would be allowed to go higher than 40 feet, but in the middle of that, a view plane ordinance was passed. Decided to come in with a building under the 30 foot view plane, and sub- mitted plans for the building. POinted out that they did not draw another building to match it, but stated that it is understood that when he buys the additional property the building that will go on the property will match the first building. Chairman Gillis questioned if Marcus had a site plan for the half block. Ms. Baer stated that the last site plan which had been -];6- ,,.,,-~.~---._-~..._,;.,...,.,..,",-...........,....._-~_.,,,.... , -- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 51 C.F.HOECKELB.B.l!.L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 submitted to the Commission had been for 2 lots. POinted out that this site plan was for three. Stated that this was not the entire half block, but that Mar- cus has an option for the rest of the site block and is willing to build anything the Commission would like to see. Chairman Gillis stated that the applicant was sent away and requested to come back with a site plan for the entire half block, which is not what he is pre- senting. Johnson stated that the Commission could only look at what the applicant is presenting. Chairman Gillis questioned the applicant as to what is different about this presentation other than an option to buy the rest of the half block. Marcus stated that no one would purchase the whole block if they know they cannot even possibly build the first building. Johnson stated that he felt the applicant had been sent away before because he had a block building which no one liked. Jenkins stated that he agreed with Marcus. that as long as there would be continuity block, felt that would be sufficient. Stated on the Marcus stated that he would contract for the continu- ity and the present owner would contract for the con- tinuity. Vagneur stated that she still had a problem with what the Commission had sent Marcus away to do. Stated that the Commission had told him to go out and leave open space and stack up some buildings because it was the last control the City had of a half a City block. Marcus stated that he was now coming in with a commer- cial building. Stated that there was a main floor, an upper level and a lower level. Stated it was all com- mercial use and plan on doing shops which would be com- patible with Ordinance #19. Stated that they are ac- tually allowed IB,OOO square feet usable on three lots and have cut down to approximately B,OOO usable and a basement of approximately 5,000 square feet usable. Felt the density was as low as it could possibly be. Stated that he would be willing to contract to the Ordinance #19 uses. Stated the building was all brick, beam, deck and glass, roofs are all pitched, is set- back and will be landscaped nicely. Marcus' architect stated that they have designed the building to be as multi-directional as possible. Stated that there was also a setback on the east side of the property. Marcus stated they would like to do the project in two phases. Stated that he felt they would be prepared to come back next year with a plan for the other 6 lots. -17- ..,-~~-.,............,...",...",...".._,-.- -. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM5G C.F.HOECKELB.O.&L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning March 7, 1974 Marcus stated that they were told they were not re- quired to have parking, so it is not included, but would be willing to buy it out if the law changes. Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that the applicant would still have to go to City Council about their plans on that site. Johnson questioned what type of uses would be in the other part of the block. Marcus stated that the Commission had originally told him they would like a hotel, and stated that would be willing to do that and have people interested in doing that with them. Schiffer questioned if there would be any professional office space in the building. Marcus stated that there was a possibility that there would be one or two offices. Ms. Baer explained to the applicant that his project would have to be reviewed by the Historic Preserva- tion Committee. Schiffer request the applicant lies with the review criteria dations of the Land Use Plan. to describe how it com- and the use recommen- Marcus stated that he had written a letter to that effect, which Ms. Baer had sent to the Commission members. Schiffer stated that he would like to see the appli- cant's committment which he offered that the rest of the block be developed in a nature which preserves the continuity. Ms. Baer stated that she felt a project of this size would be suitable for a study session. Schiffer stated that he felt this project complied almost exactly to the use recommendations and the re- view criteria. Commission agreed that this project would be suitable for a study session. Jenkins made a motion to approve the conceptual pre- sentation of the Marcus Building under Ordinance #19 with the conditions that parking be discussed later, that Marcus does have an option on the remaining 6 lots of that half block. Motion seconded by Schif- fer. Landry questioned if there was an alternative to mak- ing a decision at this meeting. Ms. Baer stated that they had thirty days to make a decision. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. -18- '"' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORill 10 C. F. ~OECKEL B. O. II L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 Paragon Restaurant - Use Review Jean Ingham and Attorney Robert Gruetter were pre- sent to represent the Paragon Restaurant. Chairman Gillis stated that the reason this project was being reviewed by the commission was because when the Goomba's Restaurant made their presentation, the representatives from the Paragon Restaurant stated that their situation was the same as Goomba's. At that time, the commission asked the applicant if they were going to have a discotheque and they replied that they were not. Gruetter stated that he did not remember the discus- sion. Ingham stated that he, too, did not remember the ques- tion. Ingham stated that he was under the impression that being licensed as a bar and a restaurant, there was no specific designation for the dancing aspect of it. Stated that it was of no significance whatsoever as far as the dancing went to the applicant. Chairman Gillis stated that the only thing which oc- curred to the Commission was that they had approved one thing and had an understanding and it turned out to be something else. Ingham stated that as far as recalled at that meeting there was no discussion at all other than between Gruetter, Ms. Baer and the Commission that they were complying with the parking requirements. Felt the major thrust of the questioning was that they were working with the Planning Office and complying with the parking lease and that type of thing. Chairman Gillis stated that if it was just a restau- rant, that would be one thing as far as the affects on other owners in the area, but since there were residents living upstairs, the situation was different. Ingham stated that they had installed a lead ceiling at a great expense to minimize this problem. Ms. Baer stated that in order to deal with these types of problems, the Commission can request the Building Inspector to revoke the occupancy permit, which would be the most drastic measure. Jenkins questioned if the uses were specified for the building. Ms. Baer stated that the building permit said restau- rant remodel. Ingham stated that he did not realize that having people dance would be a different use because they are licensed by the City and the State as a bar and restaurant. Gruetter stated that he and the City Attorney had both researched the law and have not found a distinction between a restaurant where there is dancing and one -19- /", -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 c. F. ~OECKEL B. B. ft L. CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 where there is not. Ingham stated that the Parlour Bar had approximately 1600 square feet and the Oyster Bar is approximately 700 to 800 square feet. Stated that the other side where the new bar is and where they dance is 25 x 100, of which the dance floor is only 200 square feet. Ingham submitted photographs of the interior of the Paragon. Ms. Baer stated that she thought it might well be a misunderstanding. Stated that the essence of the pro- blem is the Commission's ability to enforce uses. Vagneur stated that in a situation where it is really an obviously flagrant misrepresentation then should request building inspector to revoke occupancy per- mit, but did not feel that this was. Johnson stated that he agreed with Vagneur. Ingham pointed out that as they were in the process of the remodel, the Fire Marshall did come in and the building department did go over it and the health de- partment went over it. Ms. Baer stated that the Building Inspector thought this was a restaurant. Stated that the Planning Of- fice was not particularly concerned about this pro- ject, but concerned about enforcing uses. Schiffer did not participate in this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Aspen Center - Food Store Johnson request the following statement, by him, be read into the record: "It has come to my attention that our meeting of March 5, 1974, has cre- ated a situation in regard to the Aspen Center that I never intended to create and don't believe the rest of the Com- mission intended. I have received information that Mr. Schottland is contacting parties interested in the grocery aspect of the Center and telling them there is a pos- sibility of having a 20,000 square foot supermarket. Of course this makes the Center at- tractive to all the big chains and puts Mr. Schottland in a much better bar- gaining position. It was never my intention to allow this size of an operation in the Center, or indeed, the whole City, even if a size variance were allowed. I was think- ing in terms of a food store, not some- thing you would find in Cinderella City. My idea, and I realize I speak only for myself, was to allow a store of about 12,000 square feet of selling area and perhaps 3,000 square feet of -20- I"" .- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HQcCKELB.B.a,L.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 storage, if it could be allowed. I think if this is what the rest of the Commission envisioned that we should go on record to that affect, and put to rest any further speculation to the contrary. As for myself, I want to go on record as being completely opposed to any store having more than 12,000 square feet of selling area or a total square footage in excess of 15,000 square feet." Vagneur stated that she thought the Commission had said 16,000 square feet. Johnson stated that the 20,000 square feet was what he had mentioned as what Safeway of King Super would want and would provide the large general merchandise areas, and that is not what he had in mind, and that is what Schottland is approaching operators with. Vagnuer stated that she did not feel any of the Com- mission members intended to see a huge chain like a King Super. Landry stated that she recalled the Safeway argument at the shopping center, and at the time of the last discussion, wanted to ask Schottland if he had a serious offer from Safeway. Johnson stated that he was certain Schottland never has, but is now approaching them. Johnson stated that he himself has been quoted to people at City Market as having said that he favored 21,000 square foot supermarket. Chairman Gillis stated that he thought the motion did say that the Commission would endorse a variance which would allow them to go somewhere in the vicinity of 14,000 to 15,000 square feet. Johnson stated that he did not think the Commission put a square footage limit in the motion. Ms. Baer suggested the Commission write a letter to Schottland to clear up the matter. Johnson made by Jenkins. adjourned at a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded All in favor, motion carried. Meeting 8:35 p.m. r1 6ase ,/ _____o..._.w...