Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19861014Continued Meetin4 -As~aen--Eity Council Oc~..ober 14, 1986 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. at t he Wheeler Opera House with Councilmembers Collins, Fallin and Isaac present. CONCEPTUAL SPA - Roaring Fork Railroad Mayor Stirling stated there will be two separate questions on the November ballot regarding the railroad. The city question will ask the voters if they are willing to give up open space at the Shapery property and the Rio Grande f or rail road use . This will be an advisory vote to the Council. Steve Burstein, planning office, said this is the second step of the SPA process; this has been to P & Z. This step is a statement of intent with a conceptual description of the development proposed. This discussion is general and the staff has tried to identify all the issues and concerns and has tried to work out methods by which these can be mitigated. The P & Z held 3 meetings on the conceptual presentation and passed resolution 86-10 recommending approval with 22 conditions. Burstein said there are two more steps in this process; precise plan at P & Z and Council. There is a question regarding the GMP, whether this is to be handled as a commercial GMP application or as an exemption. There is also a 1041 review in the county, addressing the environmental impacts, as well as a stream margin review within the city. Burstein told Council staff solicited referral comments from a number of agencies, which will be used during the process. Burstein noted there are a number of state and federal reviews also associated with t he process. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, stated both the Shapery and Rio Grande properties have an SPA overlay. City approval will also be required to enable the train to cross Mill and Puppy Smith streets. The railroad proposal will also use a portion of the Creektree property below the Eagle's club. Vann pointed out there is a question on the county ballot about transferring the trails to the city. If the city's jurisdiction is expanded, the city will have to grant permission to use the trail system. Vann said their application has outlined the extent to which other city-owned parcels will be effected in order to disclose the entire concept. Vann pointed out a single track would enter at the intersection of the Shapery property and the Roaring Fork river, which will follow the Shapery property, enter Puppy Smith street, split into two tracks and enter the Rio Grande property. The layout on the Rio Grande property is determined by the engineering requirements of laying out track, and the operational characteristics of the applicant' s proposal. The specific area on the Rio Grande is 1 Continued Meetinq__ Aspen City Council October 14. 198 dictated by the turning radii. Once the track enters the Rio Grande property, there are 4 tracks involved. The first 2 tracks will handle the largest train to be run of approximately 18 cars. The train would split outside town, the front half of the train will be pulled onto the Rio Grande property on track 1, the rear portion of the train will be pushed on track 2. The third track is for operation of the railbus; the fourth track is required for emergency and safety purposes and also allows a locomotive to bypass a standard train. Vann told Council there would be about 7,000 square foot station for boarding and baggage handling with outside covered deck area. The tracks would exit a small portion of the Creektree property to allow the engine to pull f orward to make the switch. Vann said the applicant does not envision the locomotive would idle overnight in town. Vann pointed out the station, sitting approximately where the playing field and parking lot are located. There will be a transportation plaza in front of the building for limousines and through traffic. An extension of Spring street is envisioned to allow more efficient circulation. Vann noted this plan is conceptual and indicates the activities that will have to be addressed at precise plan. One of the requirements P & Z placed on the property is that the applicants come up with a detailed transportation site plan and study to document the turning movements, impact of traffic on the adjacent streets, etc. Vann pointed out the high priority items identified f or the Rio Grande parcel are parking structure and some public facility, and this proposal would not impact the areas identified for public uses . P & Z has identified the area adjacent to the r fiver f ront for active or passive recreational uses. Vann told Council it is physically possible to relocate the playing field. The applicants will evaluate the alternatives for relocation of the field. The applicants have tried to maintain the historic and mostly recently supported priorities for the Rio Grande in their application, those being transportation center for rail purposes, passive or active recreational areas, parking structure, internal circulation system, and an area reserved f or a public facility. The applicants have tried to maintain the existing trail system currently on the property as well as the existing vegetation. The track lay out has allowed for the maintaining of the large cottonwoods and the trail system below the Eagle's club. Vann said the plan will continue to provide pedestrian travel from Galena street north. Vann said the applicants are not anticipating parcelling of the property but are discussing a lease rather than fee-simple conveyance. The applicants concur with the recommendations from P & Z, and have amplified the issues pointed out the in the 2 C~~ntinued Meeting Aspen City Council October 14. 1986 c~~nceptual submission as areas requiring further studies. These include existing utilities, trails and street network, turning m~~vements and transportation impacts on the surrounding street s~~stem, drainage master plan for the Rio Grande property, further architectural study on the building to minimize the impacts, landscaping plans, mass transit study to document the benefit accruing to the commuter system. Vann told Council they have not i~dentif ied all the impacts of this proposal at this time, but are providing as much information as possible. The applicants will b~e working with Council to balance the impacts to the community at large versus the impacts that can or cannot be mitigated. Randy Parten, applicant, told Council they would like to provide two types of rail service to the community. One, an airline interconnect direct from the Denver airport daily during the high seasons leaving Denver at noon and arriving in Aspen at 7 p.m. The other service is a rail bus service between Aspen and G.Lenwood Springs at a frequency indicated by future studies. Parten said the rail bus service would have to be phased in over 3 years due to the manufacturing schedule. Parten told Council it will be possible to retrofit the locomotives with electric block heaters for their system so they do not have to be run at night. Parten told Council the rail bus manufactures they have investigated have rail road f rames with bus bodies. The wheel s are rail wheels but the engine and transmission are standard diesel engine and a bus automatic transmission. There is an operating booth on either end. The units are made in single units, comparable to a bus, a double unit comparable to an articulated bus, and a triple unit. Parten said these units can accelerate and decelerate like a bus but woul d not have as much reason to do so as they would have right of way at crossings. Parten said these rail buses have better pollution standards because they do not start and stop as often. Parten told Council these rail buses carry from 65 to 240 passengers, depending upon the size of the unit. Councilman Isaac asked who would be buying the rail buses. Parten answered he has discussed this with RFTA, who has indicated they are not interested in buying the rail buses. Parten said the applicants would buy the rail buses and would ask for the same subsidy per passenger that RFTA gets f or their down valley service. Parten said RFTA would continue to service down valley. There is no way that the railroad can provide attractive service to Snowmass. Tom Baker, planning office, outlined the issues to be addressed; transportation issues; parks, recreation, open space and trails issues; utilities; environmental, employee housing; economic; land use; growth, and code interpretation issues. Baker told Council under transportation issues, P & Z was concerned about impacts on the adjacent streets, Mill, Puppy Smith, Spring, 3 Continued Meetinct _ Aspen Citv Council October 14. 1986 Bleeker and Galena, and how the circulation in the area will be effected. Condition 3 in the P & Z resolution asks that the applicant prepare a study of the combined impact on the site as well as Cemetery Lane. Baker pointed out another issue is potential shared use of the terminal facility. A number of uses are targeted f or the Rio Grande, including transportation center. Baker noted the railroad terminal will only be used twice a day, and would like the applicant to investigate shared uses. The terminal is proposed to be 7,000 square feet. Baker told Council the P & Z was concerned about integration of the railroad with other public and private transportation options on site. Condition 3 in their resolution addresses that. Baker told Council 850 passengers is a maximum number the train will handle. P & Z was concerned about moving the passengers from the Rio Grande to their destinations, as well as how baggage will be handled. Condition #17 addresses getting people to Snowmass and Woody Creek. Baker said there have been representations that railroad transportation is more reliable during bad weather. The staff would like some verification of this, either through an existing rail operation or historic information of the train operation in Aspen. Parten told Council he has discussed this with Rio Grande, and the necessity of being late may occur 4 or 5 times a year. Baker said staff feels the potential for a Roaring Fork Valley rail service is a significant benefit; however, the magnitude of the benefit is unknown. Staff and P & Z would like the applicant to work with RFTA to develop a commuter operating plan to determine whether this is the benefit it seems to be. Burstein pointed out conditions #1 and 2 in the P & Z resolution address this, asking for a study of reduction in vehicular traffic, and for the basic operation plans to evaluate this. Baker said another claim is that rail service may be an auto disincentive. P & Z would like a realistic view of what the train can do for highway 82 and the cars on the road. Baker said the long train will have a minimal impact on auto traffic. The commuter service may have a more significant impact and could make a dent in the peak hour traffic movement. Baker said staf f and P & Z would like more information to understand the exact benefits. Baker told Council P & Z and staff feels the most significant benefit is the potential for the second transportation corridor. Staff feels it would be appropriate to find out what terminating the service at the airport or Woody Creek would means to traffic coming into the entrance. However, they also felt terminating traffic service outside if Aspen was not desirable. Vann pointed out there is no application for an alternative destination. The proponent would like to bring the rail road service into town for commercial reasons as well as 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 14, 1986 commuter service. Vann stated the proponent is not interested in operating a service to Woody Creek; therefore, studying that destination is not in his best interest. Baker said in the parks of the downtown area or be addressed. It has comprehensive plan that available for the numbE carried on. Losing a ~ recreation programming. downtown a r ea may have available. Burstein pc concern and asks that tr staff on the trail, snow the applicant has not mac field. Vann said the ap the costs for the reloca~ and recreation issues, displacement out .oss of Rio Grande playing field should been documented in the Aspen area aspen has the minimum number of parks r of recreational activities presently laying f field would have an impact on The removal of a playing f field f rom an effect on the type of programming inted out condition #5 addresses this e applicant work with city and county dump and playing f field. Burstein said e a commitment to relocating the playing ~licant has represented they will assume .ion of the Rio Grande trail. There are other activities that may be ettectea IJJy tnls apps icanL, clilu 1.110 applicant will work with staff to identify mitigation or relocation, to identify the costs associated with this, and to present a specific proposal how these costs would be mitigated. Vann said this way the full range of activities effected can be identified by applicant where they can make a positive contribution and can be evaluated on the merits. Vann said he feels there will be trade-offs in the final analysis. Baker said the next issue is the relocation or loss of the Rio Grande trail. Baker said this trail has been identified as vital, and loss of this trail is unthinkable but should be relocated properly f or all season use. Baker pointed out trail contiguity throughout the entire Rio Grande site must be maintained. The applicant is willing to do this. Burstein noted condition #6 addresses this and recommended the city get a more firm commitment regarding the realignment of the trail. Vann said there are flags indicating a trail could be accommodated; this has not been engineered or surveyed. Baker said other issues are environmental issues, like air, water, noise and solid waste. Burstein pointed out conditions #9 and 11 in the resolution address the drainage plan as there are major drains in the Rio Grande area. Condition #10 speaks to environmental issues like noise, air and water pollution, disruption of mine tailings, solid waste generation and management, and vibrations. Burstein noted the P & Z spent considerable time discussing these areas and tried to make them more specific. Burstein noted condition #12 identifies the stream margin review, which will be part of the precise plan. 5 Continued Meetinct Aspen Citv Coun~~. October 14, 198 Baker told Council there are several utilities located on the Rio Grande site, under Mill and Puppy Smith streets, and along the Rio Grande right-of-way. The main trunk line to the sewer treatment plant and electric cable are in the Rio Grande right- of-way. Burstein pointed out condition #7 specifically addresses the sewer trunk line; condition #8 regards all public and private utilities. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to see some detail from the sanitation district. Vann said the Sanitation district is concerned about the location of the train and the sewer. Vann said the applicants will provide a detailed engineering analysis acceptable to the Sanitation district and to staff, identifying the impact of the train. Vann said the Sanitation district will review the findings of this and make a recommendation. It is not known whether this will involve relocation of the sewer trunk line or merely mitigation. Mark Freidberg said he has a letter from Wright-McLaughlin to the Sanitation district stating they will not allow the track to be put over the sewer trunk line and will require a minimum distance of 12 feet from the rail bed. Baker said regarding employee housing, they would like the applicant to address these requirements and condition #14 in the resolution asks this. In economic issues, compensation for the use of public land, P & Z asked the applicant to identify ways to compensate the city and county for use of public lands. Burstein pointed out condition #4 asks an economic feasibility study be done. The P & Z wants the applicant to demonstrate the economic needs for the scale of the proposed operation. There has been some question if there is a need for an 18 car train and 4 tracks. riayor Stirling asked what means the applicants has used to determine the feasibility of the operation. Parten said the applicants have done two separate studies. Parten said they have taken a historical analysis to give a load factor, multiplied by the projected prices for an income analysis, and done a cost analysis. Parten pointed out the cost side is easier to come up with than the income side. Parten said what they have done shows the plan is very feasible for the main train to Denver. Parten said they have dome preliminary studies on the rail bus indicating they will carry more passengers than RFTA; with the RFTA subsidy but no federal subsidies, they will break even. Baker told Council the P & Z felt because the city is a potential partner due to using public land, the community should require information showing the ability of the applicant to successfully complete and operate this project. P & Z would like some mechanism to eliminate the public expense from removing the physical facilities, should the venture fail. Vann said performance bonds and other mechanisms will be part of the final agreement. Baker said there are indirect project costs that need to be addressed, like parking on the Rio Grande, who pays for 6 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 14, 198 relocating the playing field, assistance in terms of the snow dump location. Baker said the land use issues cover neighborhood compatibility and P & Z asked the applicant to demonstrate what landscaping, site design and building design techniques will be used to minimize the structure's visual impact and also asked the applicant to investigate ways of reducing the number of tracks on site. Another issue is compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning. P & Z asked the applicant to demonstrate physical and functional compatibility with surrounding landuses. The S/C/I and NC zone district as well as the size of the structure indicate there is compatibility. However, there is concern that if a performing arts center were established, what impact wold the train have on that. Burstein noted condition #11 asked as part of the precise submission for a landscaping, site and design technique plans. Councilman Isaac said impacts on wildlife, Hallam lake, and Jenny Adair park have not been mentioned. Baker said the 1041 special review in the county will address Hallam lake and environmental issues. Staff is looking to the joint review process to address these types of concerns. Councilman Isaac said he feels the environmental issues should be addressed in Council's resolution. Baker said the train as a transportation mode has been looked at not in itself being a growth generator; however, people will come to Aspen specifically because of the train. Burstein told Council staff looked at the train station as a project subject to commercial GMP or as an essential public facility and exempt from the GMP. Burstein pointed out to be exempt from GMP, one must be a non-profit organization. The airport terminal is a county- owned, non-profit organization, but the train station would not be. P & Z felt the general intent is that the essential public facilities exemption would apply to a project of this sort. Burstein said the staff would have to draft a code amendment to deal with this project, which could be done during precise plan. Councilwoman Fallin asked if the depot will have other commercial uses. Vann answered they do not envision any retail uses. P & Z suggested some snack bar accommodation for visitors. Vann stated their position is that the depot is not a commercial structure and does not meet the criteria of a commercial operation. Vann said the railroad is not a growth generator and suggested the potential impacts of the rail road should not be dealt with in the commercial GMP. The design criteria, impacts, employee housing, etc. will have to be addressed by the applicant under an essential public facility. Vann said at precise plan stage, they will make arguments this is exempt under other than essential public facilities. 7 Continued Meeting --Aspen City Council October 14. 1986 Vann said this project can be compared to the Rubey park transit center, both using public ground. The difference is that Rubey park was a public sector applicant. Burstein stated the staff's position is that this is a commercial facility as best defined at this time. However, staff will investigate code amendments to address this situation. Baker addressed compatibility with past and current plans; past planning efforts in the last 20 years have identified fixed rail as a preferred conveyance in the Roaring Fork valley. Baker said the plans have identified a regional rail system, the extension to Denver does not seem to be inconsistent. Baker concluded staff and P & Z recommend approval of the Roaring Fork rail proposal. Baker said staff feels there are 8 keys areas that need to be addressed early in the precise plan. Staff and P & Z recommended approval of the conceptual plan, changing condition 5 to reflect the applicant's commitment to relocate the Rio Grande trail. Al Blomquist, P & Z member, told Council he voted against the proposal mainly because of the long list of negative impacts from Stein park into town on all the adjacent properties, the trail, the vegetation. Blomquist said the healing of a riparian zone is a difficult, long-term thing to achieve. Blomquist told Council his primary reason for voting against the proposal was that the applicant refused to provide a full analysis and alternative for using the Airport Business Center. Blomquist said these two alternatives could then be judged and compared. Randy Parten, applicant, said they have not made a detailed study of the airport alternative because their initial study indicated this was not a feasible alternative. It is technologically feasible but the applicant feels it is not feasible politically, environmentally and economically. Parten said the track from Woody Creek to Aspen is running at 2 percent compensated grade, which is very steep. Parten said there would have to be switchbacks across the river, the track would have to be 33 feet above ground across from the airport, would have to cross the Roaring Fork on a bridge 120 feet above water. Parten said the community would not stand for this plan, nor could the applicant afford this plan. Parten said the cost for this alternative would be far more than bringing the train into town. David White, P & Z member, said he, too, would like to examine the alternative of ending at Woody Creek. White said he feels a performance bond is essential. Mayor Stirling continued the public hearing to October 27, 1986, at 5 : 0 0 p. m. 8 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Octo,~er 14. 1986 ORDINANCE #46. SERIES OF 1986 - Code Amendment, Bakery in O, Office Zone Mayor Stirling told Council his wife, the owner of explore booksellers, had been approached informally about rezoning this entire block along Main street. Mayor Stirling withdrew due to a conflict of interest. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council one alternative is to rezone 201 East Main street from 0, office, to C-1 with a historic overlay as well as amending the permitted use list in the C-1 zone to include bakeries as a permitted or conditional use. The other alternative is to leave the property zoned 0, off ice and amend the off ice use table to include bakeries as a conditional use in that zone. Richman told Council P & Z is recommending the second option. Richman told Council this proposal arose out of relocating Little Cliff's bakery. The staff determined a bakery use is only allowed in one zone, CC, in the city, and looked at other zones that may be appropriate for a bakery. Richman said the most appropriate zones for bakery use are C-1, and 0, office. The applicant requested staff look at the existing zones and amend the use tables to include a bakery. Richman suggested the applicant also investigate amending the C-1 district and to amend the use tables and to rezone the property. Richman explained the corner on the east end of this block was rezoned to C-1 a year ago, limiting it to the 0, office area and bulk requirements. Richman told Council the owner of Explore books was approached in an effort to have the entire block rezoned C-1. Richman said the property owner declined, due to a lack of information and options to be pursued. Richman told Council the C-1 rezoning is not before them at this meeting, as it has not been noticed, but is still an option. Richman said he would prefer the entire hal f block t o be zoned C-1; however, P & Z has recommended to add bakery as a conditional use in the Office zone district. Richman suggested Council also add bakery as a conditional use in the C-1 zone district. Richman said the staff will return with the rezoning issue and allow this application to move forward under a use table Code amendment. Richman pointed out this action is also to add an individual historic designation to 201 East Main street. Having individual historic designation gives the owner significant property rights, like obtaining a GMP exemption for expansions, the right to conditional uses. Councilman Isaac asked if the staff was comfortable adding bakery in both C-1 and Office zones. Richman said currently bakeries are allowed only in the CC zone, which seems unreasonable, especially for a local-oriented bakery. Richman pointed out C-1 is the zone most related to mixed local and tourist uses, and the Mesa Bakery is a historic use in the __ Office zone . Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 14. 1986 Council they are working within a very tight time frame. They would prefer the C-1 option; however, with the constraints , they need to move f orward with the conditional u se application in the Off ice zone. Kaufman said it makes sense to rezone the entire block C-l, but this will take more time. Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance #46, Series of 1986, as amended; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in f avor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #46 (Series of 1986) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 24-3.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, TO MAKE A BAKERY A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE OFFICE AND C-1 ZONES was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #46, Series of 1986, as amended, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Collins, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #50, Series of 1986; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #50 (Series of 1986) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE WEBBER BUILDING, LOTS A, B , AND C , BLOCK 7 4 , ORIGINAL TOWNS ITE OF ASPEN AS AN H ISTORIC STRUCTURE AND S ITE PURSUANT TO SECT ION 24-9.7 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 1986, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Collins, yes. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPT ION - Wogan Lot Split This is a lot split request at 240 Lake Avenue for the southeast 1/2 of lots 12, lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 103, Hallam addition of 21 , 67 5 square feet zoned R-6 . The applicants are requesting a GMP exemption and subdivision exception for this lot split into two lots 13,000 and 8400 square feet. Steve Burstein,- planning office, told Council the applicants have amended their proposal on where the lot line would go. Michael Lipkin, representing the applicant, told Council the lot with the exiting house would be 14,209 square feet and the smaller lot 7400 square feet. 10 Continued Meeting As ep n City Council October 14, 1986 Burstein told Council the GMP Exemption allows for splitting a merged lot. The sections of the code that deal with subdivision exception are 20-19(a), P & Z review and 20-19(c), Council's review criteria. P & Z recommended denial of the proposed lot split and made findings that it was inappropriate. Burstein told Council P & Z voted that denial of the subdivision exception would not deprive the property owners of the opportunity for reasonable use of their land, and granting of the request would be injurious to neighbor's properties. P & Z noted the maximum allowable FAR may not be compatible in this area. P & Z was also concerned about the existing house, as it was designed in part by Herbert Bayer and ought not to be demolished. These lots have an unusual shape and do not follow the basic lot lines in that area. Burstein told Council this property is relatively flat on the edge of the mesa and there are no special environmental impacts on this mesa. There are valuable trees, and the proposed building envelope is important to save these existing trees. Staff recommended the building envelope be pushed back from the rear side of the lake so there will be as few impacts as possible on Hallam lake. Burstein pointed out Section 13.76 does not allow removal of trees with a diameter over 6 inches without staff ' s approval . Burste i n said staf f does feel the Herbert Bayer house is an important resource, and that both the zoning code's intent and the historic preservation element of the plan give reasonable ground to ask not to demolish that structure. Burstein told Council the applicants received a demolition permit prior to the moratorium. As a condition of approval, staff would ask that the applicant void that demolition permit. Burstein recommended in support of this application with 9 conditions of approval; 1) the building envelope be adjusted 45 feet; 2) placement and illumination of lights, 3) agreement to join any future improvement district, 4) submittal of a subdivision exception plat, 5) statement of subdivision exception shall be filed, 6) park dedication fee, 7) restriction to single family residences of both structures, 8) environmental impacts of dirt and debris being dumped into Hallam lake, 9) agreeing to void the demolition permit for the existing structure. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, reminded Council the issue of lot splits was recently examined by Council after a moratorium, resulting in a Code amendment. Kaufman told Council this application qualifies in the lot split criteria as recently adopted. The subdivision exception regulations have also been changed to state, "If the requirements are found to be redundant, sere e no public purpose and be unnecessary in relation to land use policies, and if the proposed subdivision will substantially comply with design standards, an exemption may be granted." 11 Continued Meeting - Aspen Citv Council October 14. 1986 Kaufman submitted a memorandum outlining the reasons thi s application qualifies for an exemption under 20-19(c) . Kaufman said the reasons for P & Z's denial have changed after the changes in the application. Kaufman told Council they have moved the building envelope an additional 45 feet back from the edge from Hallam lake, which addresses concerns about development close to the lake. Another concern was the size of the house; the applicant has further reduced the size of the new lot by 1, 000 square feet so the FAR will be smaller. The applicant is willing to comply with the request of staff to give up their demolition permit, which will mean the house will be subject to the City's regulations. Kaufman said these are important changes. Kaufman said he feels two single family dwellings of moderate size are better than a large duplex from neighborhood and planning perspectives. Kaufman pointed out both lots being created exceed the minimum lot size in the R-6 zone. The lots will be restricted to single family, and the applicant is willing to go along with the list of conditions presented by staff. Kaufman stated the granting of this lot split is within the intent of the Code. Lipkin went over the plot plan with Council, showing the proposed lot line and proposed building envelope. Ronnie Marshall, adjacent property owner, noted the reason for the 1/2 lot is so that no one could build a house between this 1 of and her 1 of . Kaufman said this was a verbal agreement and was not made of record. Councilman Isaac moved to grant subdivision exception and GMP exemption to the Wogans for the purpose of a lot split, subject to the conditions 1 through 9 in the planning office memorandum of October 9, 1986; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Andy Hecht, representing Mrs. Paepcke, told Council Mrs. Paepcke wants to protect Hallam Lake. Mrs. Paepcke would favor the lot split if it is possible to preserve the Bayer house as it is. Mayor Stirling read a letter into the record from the Lundys opposing the lot split, feeling Lake avenue has become overbuilt. The Lundys state a duplex is better than two houses, and the future of Lake avenue will be better protected with a denial of this request. Mayor Stirling read into the record letters of support of the application from Charles Nicolo and Phillip Holstein. Welton Anderson, chairman P & Z, told Council P & Z was faced with two options; a lot split with the verbal understanding the _ Bayer house may be threatened, or denial and the Bayer house 12 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 14. 1986 would be demolished and replaced with a duplex. Anderson said he has since spoken with Michael Lipkin, who told him the Bayer house would be preserved as a condition of the lot split. Anderson informally polled the P & Z after this information, and the poll was 4 in favor of the lot split and 2 against, with the understanding the Bayer house be preserved. Anderson requested the Council put some teeth into the condition that the Bayer house be preserved and not just be a starting point for another structure. Mary Martin asked what guarantee there would be that in the future there won't be more additions to each of these structures. Mayor Stirling said on the smaller lot, the floor area ratio will dictate the size of the structure. Tom Cardamon, A. C. E. S., told Council he has discussed this with the architects. One of the remaining concerns is that the facade of the Bayer house as faces Hallam lake remain the same. Ann Altemus said she feels this is a ruination of Lake avenue to start this type of subdivision. Hecht asked if the Council would consider further restricting the renovation of the Bayer house to make sure there are no changes made. Kaufman said the applicants are willing to be treated 1 ike any other applicant before HPC and would not like to be precluded from applying for changes. Kaufman said to condition approval at this stage upon absolutely no change to the structure is unfair. Burstein said the condition should be changed to indicate that the applicant will accept historic designation of the Bayer structure. Kaufman said they will be willing to accept designation, if after the study staff decides the house is deserving of historic designation. Kaufman pointed out it is not just to pre-judge. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac said he would 1 ike to add condition #10 to the motion that the Bayer house be examined for historic significance and if it meets the criteria, be so designated, and any improv ements go through the HPC procedure. Richman suggested it be designated for the period of the moratorium, and at the end of that period either let the designation continue or not designate it historically. The applicant will voluntarily agree to for the period in which the moratorium subject to the review procedures of the or alternation of the building. At the the building will either be designated Council decides to designate the Bayer will be no objection by the applicant. the designation procedure is in effect and to be HPC for any modification close of the moratorium, or not. Taddune said if building historic, there Councilwoman Fallin asked if there is any way to redo the building envelope so that it does not encroach on the buffer zone 13 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Qctober 14. 1986 with the lot to the west. Kaufman said they are inhibited by preserving the trees, dealing with Hallam lake, and the neighbors concerns. Kaufman said the priority has been Hallam lake and the trees. Lipkin pointed out, as far as designation, they would like to be able to do research, find out Bayer's original intentions for the design, and start from there. All in favor, including the condition #10 that the property owner volunteers to be subject to review during the moratorium, at which time the structure will be designated or not, and the applicant will not opposed designation, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adjourn at 7:55 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ~~ ? Kathryn ~ Koch, City Clerk 14