Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740402 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'" C.F.HOECKELB.B.aL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:07 P.M. with members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. Set Public Hearing Date Chairman Gillis stated that it was necessary to set a date for the public hearing to consider the pro- blem of off street parking and the leasing program with the City of Aspen. Jenkins made a motion to set the public hearing for amending Chapter 24 of the zoning code in regard to the problem of off street parking and leasing pro- gram with the City of Aspen for 5:00 P.M., May 2, 1974. Motion seconded by Bryan Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Larkspur Subdivision Kit Mason stated that the subdivision plat had been seen and approved on final by the Planning and Zoning commission. The plat, however, had to be filed within ninety days, which it was not. The attorney for the project stated that the pre- liminary plat would be valid for one year, and noted that the changes are changes of form which do not affect the public. There were no changes in substance. City Attorney Sandra Stuller stated that the City has no interest in requiring the applicant to dup- licate the review procedures, if he can satisfy his buyers and sellers that he will not, in fact, create a defect in the title. Bryan Johnson made a motion that they approve this final plat again. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. County Certification of Master Plan - Aspen Planner Herb Bartel stated that no action was re- quired on this, but had been referred to the City Planning and zoning Commission due to the County requirement that anytime a plan is adopted, it be sent to the P & Z of the adjacent municipality. Subdivision Referrals from County P & Z - Silver King, Phase IV Assistant Planner Donna Baer stated that the County requires that these be referred to the municipality within three miles of the boundary. This was the last phase of the project. Gillis asked that Ms. Baer show the original plan and the show how they developed into the green space and open space. Ms. Baer stated there was no increase in density over time, that the project remained 438 units. Since the original building on the site, the buildings have been changed in architecture and size so that the later buildings have been replaced and moved. Vagneur asked why the Phase IV couldn't be placed in the original position to leave the open space. Ms. Baer replied that the difference in the building -......."..... _u._~,._ '"'_._''''''''''''''~;''''''''' .,......."""~_...~ ....".-.,....,_'..~I r" -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.KOECI';ELB.B.ll L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Silver King, Phase IV, continued shapes as the project evolved required different placement on the site. It was a case of different shaped buildings fitting differnetly on a site. Jim Reser, representing the Silver King project, stated that basically, it was a planning and archi- tectural decision. The more lineal form of build- ing as opposed to the square, blocky one in the Phase II took more room. He further stated that the original master plan, which was approved, showed buildings over the entire area. Reser explained that it was during Phase II when they decided to tighten things up. However, they changed to modular construction and linear type buildings, and it became impossible to stay with the site plan situation, and leaned more toward the original idea. Gillis asked about the parking situation, and men- tioned that what is currently being used for parking was also to be used for parking for Phase IV. He felt that parking for Phase IV was already over- capacity. Reser responded by stating that through Phase III, there were existing 480 parking places and 304 units. Some are not bona-fide parking places according to the plan. What they were trying to do to alleviate the situation was to apply for exemption from sub- division regulations, which would allow them to gain another small parcel for another 50 cars to use for Phases I and II. Phase III people wouldn't be using this parking lot. He further mentioned that at present, they have l.3 spaces per unit. After Phase IV, with the exemption and the extra ones designed into Phase IV, they would have 1.4 spaces per unit. If they did not get the exemption, they would be down to one place per unit approximately, 573 places for 438 units. Vagneur stated that this possibly could be controlled by management control. Reser replied that they had tried parking stickers to control. Anyone who was a resident of the complex and has a car would get a sticker, which would allow them to park in the provided spaces plus on Silver King property out- side the comples to store it. Anyone without a sticker would get towed away. Vagneur asked how many total bedrooms would there be when the project is completed. Reser replied that there would be 439 bedrooms in 304 units. Phase IV consisted almost entirely of two bedrooms (ll6 units) which makes an additional 232 bedrooms plus the existing 439 units, plus l8 studios in the new addition. Vagneur stated that in parking discussion, the figure had been mentioned that almost every bed- room produces a car in a rental situation. Reser stated that he would like to see both the -2- ...___.._..__,~~...,_~....... ,..........,w.;, /.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 FORM \0 C.F.HOgCKELB.B.6lL.CO. Silver King, Phase IV, continued City and County regulations in regard to parking revised to one parking place per bedroom or l.5 minimum per unit. Vagneur stated that his would mean that Silver King would be far under what's necessary to park the cars generated. Reser replied that from the standpoint of a designer, he would like to see more parking, but parking is expensive from a developer's standpoint. Vagneur inquired about underground parking. Reser replied that at present, it was too expensive. Gillis asked how many people live in the complex during the peak season. Reser stated a census had been recently polled, and that projection was necessary because they didn't get a total response on the questionnaires. How- ever, out of 304 units, 252 units responded. A total of 563 were living in the units, a projected figure, or l.3, approximately, persons per bed- room. Vagneur stated that she felt a real effort should be made between the management company and the employers in Aspen to contract blocks of apartments for employee housing. Reser replied that at the beginning of the project before approval, Herb Bartel did a canvas of busi- ness people in town to see if such a program could be set up. They were willing to work this out, if the arrangement didn't violate the terms of the agreement with the County. Lease agreements were for six months. The County would have to say you could rent shorter term, or businessmen would have to agree to a six month rental lease. He noted that some businesses do lease individual apartments for employees. Gillis asked Reser if he would agree that there were many problems. Reser replied that they had a hard time this winter, in that ice and snow couldn't be removed, as towing could not be done since no tow truck was available and the impound lot was full. The snow blower was broken, and they had to hand shovel. Gillis asked why they should get more problems, when the ones they have can't be solved, the biggest one of these being the parking situation. Reser replied that they felt more comfortable with the parking situation now than they did last winter. Johnson asked how prople were selected for living in the complex. Reser stated that it was basically on a first come, first serve basis, with a waiting list. The only -3- ."....... ,""'" ....._~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a l. CD. Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Regular Meeting Silver King, Phase IV, continued policy they had come up with was that two and three bedroom apartments were first rented to families as opposed to a group of adults. Landry mentioned that she felt approval should be based more on viewing the problems that this devel- opment creates for the city in terms of the traffic it creates and the transportation problems, plus other social problems. Rather than in terms of on site concerns. Reser stated that he could not address social pro- blems. He stated that he had given a $50,000 outlay on the hospital road and bridge. It was found in a study that 36% of traffic on the hospital bridge is generated by Silver King, 49% of traffic is generated by Red Mountain and the hospital (30 and 19% res- pectively) and l4% goes to Smuggler or on past. He stated that 36% of the traffic generated goes to Silver King, but that they had supplied the only cash outlay except what the City and County has come up with. Ms. Baer stated that this was a three way thing, with Silver King doing appoximately one third. Reser mentioned that not only was cash involved but time spent in engineering studies and his free time. Johnson noted that it was 36% before the l30 new units. Vagneur stated that the open space was to serve as a buffer zone for the next project that was to be built. Reser replied that this project was not approved as yet, and no development had taken place. Noted that if this development does go in, there will be a buffer zone. They have been working with Ted Armstrong to put a recreation area of some kind in. As the plan stood, there would be 400-500' between the developments. Actually, a buffer zone is more a devleoper's worry, whether they want to develop land adjacent to another development. A member of the public asked how this study of traffic patterns was made. Reser replied that two guys sat there and counted the people that came across the bridge, and noted where they went for a two day period. It was noted that there was never a traffic problem here until Silver King was put in. Gillisthen stated that he felt it was the City Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to the County P & Z that they not go ahead and approve Phase IV of the Silver King project until some of the current problems are improved; and solutions to the parking and the housing problems be handled jointly with the Silverking, with the County, and with the City. That these solutions be proven be- fore allowing them to add any more problems or -4- - -.._._,.~,,~~;.._.."...,_....--_.. .... .........,... -."., FOR'" 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. -.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 19/4 Regular Meeting Silver K1ng, Phase IV, continued Ridge of Red Mountain Replat density to that area, and add1ng any more problems to the City of Aspen. Johnson asked Ms. Baer to address the water question. Ms. Baer stated that originally, a contract was agreed upon by the City and the developer to supply this project w1th water. She noted that City Engineer Dave Ellis stated that with the given im- provements this summer, the City should be able to serve this by fall. Developer puts in all the improvements up to city standards, so the City can accept the lines, all at no expense to the City. Johnson stated that he would like to see something in the recommendation to the County to that etfect. Reser noted that they can't apply for city water until after the County approves the project. That was the agreement with the County -- that before they are given any water, they must have County approval. Johnson stated that he telt discouraged 1n that they failed to stick to the Master Plan and were encroaching on the open space. Jenkins rooms. bedroom reemphasized the ratio of parking to bed- He stated that anything short of one per was not enough. Vagneur mentioned that 1f the County does grant Phase IV, would like to have them work with the Silver King development to find a method to house full time permanent residents. Reser stated that they would like to work w1th the City and any employers in the area regarding th1s. It was the consensus of the Commission that before approval ot the Phase IV, answers to certain pro- blems needed to be established. Bill Dunaway stated that no vote was taken, and asked how this could be transm1tted to the County without a consensus of the group. G111is replied that a vote could be taken, but would only be put in the form of a letter of recommendation. He stated that an informal consensus could be come up with without taking a vote. Ms. Baer stated that this situation was s1milar, a subdivision in the County referred to the muni- cipality for comments. The replat would reduce the total number of ,lots from 34 to l7. The orig1nal lots were an attempt to do a cluster type of development on small lots. The new developer intended to purchase these areas and replat them into new configurations, reducing the total lots for single family dwellings trom 34 to l1. Vagneur stated that since the 1mpact of the devel- opment WOUld be cut in halt by the replat, she would agree. -5- ~ ...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.1l0ECKELB.B.&l.CO. Aspen Plann1ng and Zon1ng April 2, l~74 Regular Meeting Ridge or Red Mountain Replat, continued Ordinance 19 Exemp- tions; Brinkman Building Francis Whitaker Ms. Baer remarked that she felt 1t betters the situat10n; the project could be served bY City water. Also, the road was being reviewed by the State Geologist as far as grade was concerned, as was the whole site. Gillis stated that he felt a consensus had been reached in that the Commission encourages this kind of subdivision, where the number of lots has decreased from 34 to 17, with the addition that any of the roads, the drainage and engineering be carefully looked over. Ms. Baer explained that the applicant was requested to come back to the planning and Zoning Commission if any further development took place in the back lot. Proposed was a greenhouse addition to the restaurant. Ms. Brinkman explained that the additional dining area is small, and would mean only 200 square feet being added on the building. This would still keep the building under the 6,000 square foot zoning re- quirement. Brinkman further stated that since the P & Z had not allowed parking on the lO,OOO square foot back lot, she had worked out an arrangement with the Mother Lode and the City to clean up the alleyway behind the Mother Lode and on to their property. Brinkman requested that she be allowed to landscape the lot and put a nursery on it. Gillis stated that the lot would not remain open space if the nursery would be placed on the lot, and that if Brinkman wanted to build a building on the back lot, that she must go through the regular procedures of conceptual approval under Ordinance 19. Brinkman stated that this was a temporary building. Jenkins replied that there was no such thing as a temporary building, as they all must meet building code requirements. Gillis stated that he had understood that they were talking about a park. He reitterated that this was not the time to bring in a new building. He stated that the Commission could handle the extension, but that this would need to be handled at another time. Gillis stated that patio extensions should be encouraged. Vagneur stated that it was within the space limitations. Bryan Johnson made a motion to approve the garden greenhouse on the back of the building. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Whitaker proposed an addition to the back of the existing Mountain Forge. The main purpose of the addition was for storage of materials and equipment. Mr. Whitaker further stated that he complied with all the setbacks and provided more than 25% open space. -6- ~..._, .~.....,.,--, ".. ',. ,'."~." < -...._.~........,^".,..-.".;....,..... ...., .,..,.... "~,, ... - ...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKElB.B.I:lL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Francis Whitaker, continued Gillis noted that surrounding it is residential area. Johnson asked if you would be able either Monarch or Hopkins Street. that it was completely hidden. to see this from Whitaker replied Gillis observed that the use is just an extension of what was already being done on the property. Johnson stated that an extension of a non-conforming use would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Jenkins asked if this would come under the juris- diction of the Historic Preservation Committee. Whitaker replied that he felt it would not. Gillis stated that one concern would be handled by the Board of Adjustment. However, what was the attitude of the resident neighbor. Whitaker res- ponded that they have all been notified of the hearing of the Board of Adjustment. Whitaker further stated that it is extremely dif- ficult to work without the addition. The main purpose of it was to get everything under cover. Noted that it will match the existing building. Geri Vagneur made a motion that they approve Francis Whitaker's extension onto the back of his existing forge shop. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Jim Worrell Ms. Baer stated that this was an exemption to allow the applicant to add a second story to an existing duplex on North Street and Pearl Court. Vagneur asked if, actually what he was doing, was taking one bedroom out and adding one and a bath. Worrell replied that he was adding one and a living room. Jenkins stated that somewhere they should start considering the parking situation on the basis of the bedrooms and the areas involved. Vagneur observed that this was a residential area. Worrell stated that there was a garage present. Jenkins stated that no matter what they do on all of these considerations from now on, they should not consider it if putting cars on the street. He asked how many parking places there would be if they insisted on one car space per bedroom. Worrell replied that there would be four bedrooms. Jenkins stated that the Commission has created the situation of more cars on the street. Somewhere this may happen in a location where this is fine, but when does this become a problem. If this is not considered, then the Commission is stating that on street parking is the mode. Johnson asked if this was traditionally a single -7- -- ."', RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 FORM 10 C. F. HO~CKEL B. B. l:ll L. co. Jim Worrell, continued Subdivisions; Clarendon Preliminary Plat family permanent residence or a rental dwelling. Worrell replied that the one side is a permanent, the other side is empty 2/3 of the year. The permanent residents have lived there for three years. Ms. Baer stated that the building has traditionally been a duplex, and felt that the circumstances that exist have been as they are for quite a while. Johnson made a motion that they approve the exemption of Jim Worrell's project from Ordinance 19. Vagneur seconded the motion. Jenkins observed that soon the Commission would have to start establishing a policy on parking in this type of condition. He stated that each time they did this, they put one more car on the street. If the Commission didn't face the problem of getting them off the street, then they create the condition of putting them on the street. The more density you have, the more cars you have. Johnson stated that if he had four children and wanted a five bedroom house, he could not under- stand why he would be required to have five off- street parking places. Jenkins responded by saying that this depended on the ages of the children involved. A vote was taken. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on the Clarendon Preliminary Plat. Ms. Baer mentioned that an additional item, point lO should be added to the memorandum received from the Planning Office. This item considers that the Fire Marshall requests that 12' of road be maintained on Wagon Road, this resulting from the fact that the Gant did pave eight feet at the time the City Council requested that this remain closed. This was not to suggest that it become open, but only be maintained so that a fire vehicle could get through. Rick Ferrell was present representing the Clarendon. Ferrell stated that he had talked to City Attorney and understood that she had explained the Quiet Title situation in terms of the pending quiet title suit. Gillis asked if that was a consideration of pre- liminary plat or final. Ferrell stated that this was final. Ferrell stated that there was a dispute between the survey done by their surveyors and the one done for the City by Pesman. The difference was an area about 6' wide. This would make the setback not proper in a certain area. Their surveyor was Jim Reser, who had some comments to make on the difference in surveys. -8- ,...-'''''.. r -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M M C. F. HOECKEL B. 6. Ii L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Clarendon Preliminary Plat, continued Reser stated he had spoken with Pesman, and told the Commission that the two of them were going to meet next week to see if they could resolve the problem. He stated that at this time, he was not sure how the problem would be resolved. Ferrell stated that he had discussed this problem with the architects, and that there was a very simple solution in terms of the building location. If their line is right, the townhouses are properly siutated. If the Pesman line is correct, they could just then be shifted the appropriate distance to maintain the proper setback from the Pesman line. Gillis asked if this wouldn't throw off the easements in the front. Ferrell replied that that building wouldn't move. Ms. Baer stated that this would cut down that patio. Ferrell stated that at the time of final plat, all the boundaries would be shown exactly, and an attorney's certificate to the title of the property would be included. He stated that he felt the proper thing at this time would be conditional approval of this location, depending on the resolution of the Pesman line. Ferrell stated that at one time he had suggested that the property that they would reserve for future access extension of West End Street would be traded. However, the City does not own the property in question, so that the trade is not a possible alternative. The City has a prescriptive easement to a fence, and there is a no man's land in between this and the Clarendon property line. Ferrell felt that this was probably owned by the City, but it was not a clear title, so they left it as open space. Another issue is the trail easement, proposed between the tennis court and the property line. At present the plat showed a lO foot easement, but with sub- sequent conversations with City Engineer, it was discovered that at some future date, the City would need to put a storm sewer in, which would require a 20 foot easement. This had been remedied by shifting the tennis courts 10 more feet. Condition 1. The proposed 10' sidewalk and utility easement on the Ute Ave. frontage should be a dedication for public right of way. Ferrell stated that if they dedicated lO feet, the front yard set back would then not be appropriate. This was discussed with the City Attorney, and it was suggested that they give the City just an ease- ment, because then the set back would be 15 feet. However, in subsequent conversations with Dave Ellis, the City did not really want an easement. One thing they were concerned about were the two 50 foot tall, 24" diameter spruce trees. Ferrell stated that whatever is decided, they would like the easement or the dedication to include language -9- ,",._"_..___._.,c,.,,,,-__. ..'''.....".."._.........,......-."..,.''..'''."''"......"..- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlMIil C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Clarendon Preliminary Plat, continued that these trees would be preserved. Ferrell continued that they preferred not to give the full lO feet, which forced them to get a variance. City Engineer suggested at the last meeting that they dedicate 5', then give a 5' easement. They would then have the required lO' line. The City owned already 63' and 58'. An additional 5' would give more than enough dedicated land for any future need. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office had no problems if the City Engineer was satisfied. City Engineer stated that after thinking about the problem, though functionally they are the same, he would prefer that the City get a dedication of lO feet. The reason for that is that ultimately the street improvements or the sidewalks can come within five feet of the building, so that if the Commission is satisfied that 5' is enough separation between the ultimate improvements, he would just as soon have the dedication. As noted, this would mean going through the Board of Adjustment for a variance in setback. Ferrell asked what the width is of a municipal street, plus curb, plus strip, plus sidewalk, assuming sidewalks on both sides. Ellis answered that the sidewalks in that area would be probably 5 feet, which would imply a 5l' minimum width. In the downtown area, the streets vary from 52 to 58 feet in width, and Ellis stated that he thought that in this area under consideration, that the width would probably be more than the minimum 5l feet. Ferrell stated that the point was that the City has 58 feet and 63 feet already. The 5 foot dedication plus the existing street, and assuming five feet are given on the other side of the street, provides an excessive width. Ms. Baer stated she was not sure the Board of Adjustment would grant such a variance. Landry asked if he would be imposing traffic on Ute Avenue. Jenkins stated that this was one of the points made in the conceptual presentation. Landry stated that her question was necessity -- would the impact of this project necessitate the widening of ute Avenue by itself. Ms. Baer stated that if the City Engineer would want a 10 foot dedication this should not be over- ruled. Chuck Vidal asked if the decision could be made subject to going one direction if the variance is granted, and going the other direction if the Board of Adjustment acts in a different manner. A member of the public asked if the Planning and -lO- -,---","",""",",_.._~.,'. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F,HOECJULa.B./tl.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Clarendon Preliminary Plat, continued Zoning Commission did not have the power under Ordinance 19, in a Ordinance 19 review, to adjust setbacks. Ms. Baer stated that the Commission can be more restrictive, but not less restrictive. Johnson asked if they could go through the Board of Adjustment before they came back with the final plat. Ferrell stated that their basic problem is that they have a view corridor which defines that part of the property as the only developable portion. Asked City Engineer if they needed the dedication for the utilities rather than for the sidewalk. Stated that the 5 feet plus the existing margin was enough room for the utilities. Dave Ellis stated that 5' of dedication and 5' for public right-of-way easement could definately work. If the Commission approves it in that manner, the setback is effectively 5', so that if the worry was with the setback, that could be gotten around. Further stated that he could build the street within the 68', and always tried to build it in the center of the right of way; but that the street as built tends toward the side of the Clarendon, and there are large trees on the other side. The street could possibly be much closer to the site. He further stated that if they chose the 5' of easement, this 5' should not be limited to sidewalk or utility, it should be dedicated as a right-of- way easement which would give the City all the same perogatives. This would also give them the advantage of not having to go to the Board of Adjustment, as they would have the legal 10' set- back from the property line. Chuck Vidal commented that if the City was thinking of putting utilities in, they could not cut down the trees. A utility line fairly close to the trees, having any depth at all may eliminate the trees. Dave Ellis stated that he did not think the City could take the responsibility of the trees dying if the City would build a street there. Ferrell asked the City Engineer if point four was the radius for the fire trucks. City Engineer replied that was the strip in the quiet title where the description now extends into what would be a 75' right-of-way. Ferrell agreed, and was trying to arrange a meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the quiet title, and stated that this could be established as part of that. Most likely, the City would have a dedica- tion of that through the quiet title action. He further stated that he would give the City 4 feet. Ellis stated he just wanted to straighten out the -11- - -""-..., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.f.HOECKELfl.B./tL.l:O. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Clarendon Preliminary Plat, continued the line. This might require as little as two feet. A member of the public stated that if they dedicate this land, they must establish their title to it, and certify ownership. If the City already owns it or if a conflicting claim exists between the City and the applicant, it seems that a disclaimer, quit claim deed or conveyance of the applicants rights would suffice. Vidal stated that it would be satisfactory if they just gave the City the title, whatever title they may have. Condition 5. A new fire hydrant should be installed adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. Ferrell stated that they have amended working drawings to put a new fire hydrant in and that it will be shown on the final plat as a fire plug. Condition 6. A drainage plan must be approved prior to final plat approval. Ferrell stated that he had had discussions with Dave Ellis on this and that by the time of the final plat they will have a detailed drainage study. Considerations of the Planning Office. Consider- ation 3. Shown on the map was primarily existing vegitation. Ferrell stated that the only vegitation on this property is along ute Avenue. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was interested in screening the fences in the View Plane and the tennis courts. Ferrell stated that they have committed that all improvements will be under the View Corridor and that engineering studies show that putting up a fence that's slightly substandard by tennis rules will work and that none of the improvements in the View Corridor will penetrate. Ms. Baer stated that at the time of the final plat, the Planning Office would like it landscaped. Consideration 6. 4% Cash dedication. Ferrell stated that he had talked to the City Manager about that and had indicated that he preferred the 4% cash dedication. There was some question in regard to market value. Ferrell stated that at the time of original presentation, they had had a value on the property. However, the number of units had decreased, and therefore value related to use had decreased. Consideration 7. Separate out lot solution to accommodate ROW expansion. Ms. Baer stated that this was a technicality. This could be done as an out lot. It's shown as a lot on the subdivision and can be easily deeded to the City upon request. Vidal explained that the City wanted to call it -l2- ~<<~.,.,~-,,,,---......,,...,.,.....-_._." ,.-. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.l>L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Clarendon Preliminary Plat, continued a separate lot so that at some point in.time, it could be conveyed to the City if they needed it. Consideration 9. Consultation with Holy Cross to underground utilities. Ferrell stated that he had talked to Holy Cross and they recommended a transformer location and whereto bring in the underground electric power. The architects stated that they could incorporate the transformer in the stair building. This would be noted on the final plan. Gillis asked if any other utility companies made any comments on the project. Ferrell stated that City Engineer said that the new water. he had discussed with the the water situation, who had improvements would satisfy the Consideration lO. The Fire Marshall requests l2' of maintained road on Wagon Rd. Ms. Baer stated that they want a total of 12'. Ferrell stated that this would be accommodated. Gillis asked if there was any comment from the pub- lic. Steve Marcus asked about the fireplace. issue. Chuck Vidal responded by saying that the way they had addressed to this was that they assumed the Planning Office was operating under the recommenda- tions of the State Pollution Control Board, who had recommended that fireplaces not be eliminated in resort areas. Ms. Baer stated that this was their recommendation, but that the Planning Office did not accept it. Marcus stated that putting more fireplaces in the tightest part of the valley was ridiculous. He stated that not only would the project generate 35-40 cars, but 27 wood burning fireplaces as well. He felt that the purpose of Ordinance 19 was to make Aspen a better place. Gillis responded by stating that this is not an Ordinance 19 review, but a subdivision consideration Mr. Vidal stated that they had addressed themselves to this problem in terms of where pollution occurs, and where are the significant pollutants. He stated that where pollution really occurs is not necessarily where you see it. Gillis stated that these comments would be enter- tained when they discuss that particular problem. Ms. Baer stated that she felt it was taken care of at the conceptual. Gillis stated that he felt this could be brought up again at a later time. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. -13- ,.,"- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 FORMSiI C.F.HOECKElB.B.IllL.CO. Clarendon preliminary Plat, continued; Main Motion Aspen Center; Final plat ..'-'.--..-- Vagneur made a motion that the Clarendon Preliminary Plat be approved conditional on the property owner- ship questions being resolved and that the site plan corrections be given to the City Clerk as a part of the public record, andfuat the site plan is subject to revision depending on the that a 5' right-of-way easement on ute Avenue be granted and a 5' dedicated right-of-way; that the proposed lO' trail easement on the north side should be a 20' joint trail and utility and storm drainage easement; that the question of the property description for the Glory Hole Park that overlaps the Clarendon property be clarified; that on the east side abutting West End St. the City would want to have a narrow strip of land 3-4' wide dedicated to pro- vide the full width right-of-way; that a new fire hydrant should be installed adjacent to the north east corner of the property; that the drainage plan be approved prior to final plat approval; that a detailed landscape plan be approved prior to final plat approval, and with the condition that any trees that die as a result of the development be replaced; that there be a 4% cash dedication, which will be worked out between the applicant and the City Manager; that a separate out lot solution to accom- modate the right-of-way expansion on Wagon Road be worked out; that the consultation with Holy Cross to underground utilities be worked out, that the 12' maintained road on Wagon Road be worked out so that fire trucks can get through; and that the right-of-way easement and dedication be subject to the preservation of the two trees. Johnson seconded the motion. Landry stated that she could find no objection to the subdivision. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that remaining considerations were of an engineering type. Clint Sampson was present, stating th~~ Aspen Metrowbuld be willing to re- locate the sewer line so that the builing can go up. City Engineer's main considerations included an ommission on the final plat of a grant of easement for a 40' public right-of-way; lot 3 would require approval before a P & Z review to meet all sub- division requirements before a building permit were issued; and that the trail easements be given to the City without qualification as a full dedication. These conditions had all been agreed to by the applicant. An adjusted landscaping plan to allow for a new sidewalk would also be submitted by applicant. Richard Schott land was present to submit the plat. These considerations were included in a letter from City Attorney to applicant's attorney, Art Dailey of'April 2, 1974, relating to conditions and or requirements outstanding on the subdivision applica- tion, City Engineer then reviewed briefly with the Commission the lengthy subdivision agreement. -l4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 FORM50 C.F.HOECKELO.O.IlL.CO. Aspen Center; Final Plat, continued Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision; Jordan/Hecht Chestnut-Weimann Ordinance 19 Reviews; MOlny/Eubanks Residence office Vagneur made a motion that the Commission approve the Aspen Center final subdivision plat with the condition that all the conditions are met per the letter from Sandra Stuller to Art Dailey, that dealt with the plat specifically. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur stated that there was a conflict of interest, and left the meeting as she represented the realtor involved. Ms. Baer stated that this was a request to con- dominiumize a duplex, which technically would be subject to subdivision regulations. Neither the Planning Office or the Engineering Department had any considerations that needed resolving. Johnson made a motion that the Jordan/Hecht application for exemption from the definition of subdivision be granted. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that this project was similar to the Jordan/Hecht application. Johnson made a motion that the Chestnut-Weimann application for exemption from the definition of subdivision be granted. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that this was the preliminary and final approval under Ordinance 19. Robin Molny was present presenting the plan. Mr. Molny stated that vegetation between the house and trail would remain as it was presently. In regard to the Planning Office's consideration of trail dedication, Molny presented a~_proposal that instead of granting a ten foot easement from the mean water line, an easement be granted from wherever the water is on a given day. Molnystated that if at one time the use would become non-conforming, and he would abandon the use, he would waive the non-conforming status. Other considerations included the variance received from the Board of Adjustment concerning the parking area, and the covenant required to run with the deed that the parking area be kept open and adequately plowed in the winter. Molny briefly reviewed the plans of Mr. Eubank and himself. Jenkins stated that the project was too dense for the lot and that parking was not adequate to -l5- ".-.. /~,"'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELD.D.Ill.CO. Molny/Eubanks Residence Office Ordinance 19 Reviews; Hopkins Four-Plex accommodate the cars that would be generated. Johnson stated that in a family situation, there was a possibility that not so many cars would be generated by the project. However, what was to guarantee that the project did not turn into a SilverKing type of facility, where many people, typically single people, would live. This type of living situation would generate more cars. Chairman Gillis stated that they should try to rework the parking situation in some manner, and that the matter should be tabled until such a time. Molny stated that rather than table the matter, they would like to get approval at this meeting. He felt that both he and Mr. Eubank would be willing to drop one bedroom out of each of the houses, to help alleviate the parking generated. This implied five bedrooms in the Eubank project and four in the Molny. Johnson noted that for final approval, a finished set of plans must be submitted. Consensus of the Commission was that conditional approval be given and that completed plans be submitted April 4, 1974 for review for compliance with the changes. Landry made a motion that the Commission approve the project, conditional on the applicant bring- ing the Commission final development plans and working drawings on Thursday, April 4, reflecting the following changes: That the total project contain nine bedrooms, five in the Eubank house and four in the Molny; that the vegetation on site, especially that between the house and the trail be left in place; that the trail dedica- tion agreement should be submitted, a ten foot easement at the high water mark at any level of the water mark; that Molny should make a record to waive non-conforming status at the time he abandons office use, if it is in fact a non- conforming use. Vagneur seconded the motion. Jenkins stated that he did not feel the changes made a better parking or density situation. A vote was taken. Vagneur, Landry, Johnson, and Gillis, yes; Jenkins, no. Ms. Baer stated that this was a revision of a previous application for II units on Hopkins Street. P & Z had requested applicant come back with two single family dwellings or a four-plex. The complex would be three levels, with three bedrooms per unit and parking off the alley. Paul Hamwi was representing the project. The project presented would have four units on three lots. Jenkins stated that he felt the project was too dense in that area, for there was much undeveloped land nearby. He felt that allowing this density -16- ~ ,~ -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELD.B.IlIL.CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning April 2, 1974 Regular Meeting ordinance 19 Reviews; Hopkins Four-Plex, continued Christiania Lodge, Preliminary and Final would be a mistake when it was known that this type of density would not be allowed when new zoning densities were set. Another question was whether the project would lend itself to a dorm like situation and how many cars the project would generate. Applicant projected a parking area for eight cars. It was noted by Mr. Hamwi that the layout of the project lends itself to family dwellings, which would imply that each bedroom did not generate a car. Geri Vagneur noted that something needs to be done about the housing situation for single families in the Aspen area. Johnson noted that the housing situation here implies a different answer than one in Grand Junction or Denver, especially for long term, single family housing. Johnson made a motion that the Commission approve the Hopkins Four-Plex on conceptual approval, with the condition that the applicant come back and can demonstrate that a minimum of eight cars can be parked on the lot in the winter, that snow removal is possible, and that there is a deed covenant re- stricting the use to long term rentals. Vagneur seconded the motion. A vote was taken. Vagneur, Johnson, and Gillis, yes. Jenkins and Landry, no. Motion carried. Mr. Ganzel was present to show the plans for the Christiania Lodge. He stated that the plans were exactly as outlined previously. Gillis asked how many parking places were being provided. Mr. Ganzel stated that it should be kept in mind that the people who would be using the facilities would be transient, and many would not come with cars. Plus the cars that were present would be on a one car, one family basis. However he would be willing to supply the number required by the Commission. Johnson stated that four should be provided. Vagneur made a motion that the Commission approve the Christiania Lodge preliminary and final under Ordinance 19, for four additional units with the condition that he have four parking spaces, one per unit, and that the.applicant wbuld agree to join future sidewalk and drainage districts. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. -~ ;p~ Recording Secretary