Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960319PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30p.m. present were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Steve Buettow and Timothy Mooney. Excused were Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska. STAFF COMMENTS Isis Theatre Insubstantial Amendment Dave Michaelson, Staff, stated that the Isis Theatre would like to amend its recent special approval for renovation, expansion and the GMQS exemption to increase the number of theatres from four theatres to five and reconfigure the seating. Michaelson said that the only change will be the FAR, from 1.81:1 to 1.82:1. Staff considers this an insubstantial amendment. Sunny Vann, public, commented that the reconfigured seating will be more like an auditorium and the lobby has been improved to allow more holding capacity and circulation through the theatre. Garton inquired about the impact of traffic and parking by adding one more theatre. Vann responded that impact associated with the theatre being completely full was discussed with Staff and Council, the applicant has agreed to discuss incentives to encourage the use of the parking garage and encourage mass transit. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt commented that if there was a full house every night, it may spread out the flow of people because the times would be spread out another fifth. Michaelson stated that the larger theatre will remain for special events. Vann responded that other than the reconfiguration of the seating, the two larger theatres upstairs remain intact. Garton stated that the present Isis holds 350 and the Wheeler holds 375. Garton clarified that Staff would like an approval from P&Z, and that the insubstantial amendment would be Staff' s call. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved that the reconfiguration as represented appears to be an insubstantial modification of the original approval and recommend that Staff continue. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. Mooney stated that after the worksession on the effectiveness of the ADU program he did not feel confident that the program is accomplishing what was intended. Mooney said that he did not feel satisfied with P&Z's ability to administrate the ADU's. Garton responded that all the Commissioners were concerned however, it is a City ordinance and the board must hear any project that falls under a City ordinance. Mooney stated that he would like the Council to consider a suspension or a time period to complete the survey of the ADU' s. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that if the P&Z was interested in sending a message to Council, he recommends getting on the agenda for the next Council meeting so Staff can address the issue. Tygre agreed with Mooney's concern that without the essential information for making decisions the Commission is making decisions blind. Tygre also stated that the sense of urgency Mooney brings forth is important. MOTION: Mooney moved to put the ADU study on the next P&Z agenda with new/additional information from Staff showing that the intent of the ADU program is being complied with. Seconded by Buettow. All in favor, motion carries. Michaelson responded that George Krawzoff did finish the ADU study and tried to trace the 30 unaccounted for and Staff could respond at the April 2, 1996. Buettow asked for an update on the insubstantial amendment for 204 E. Durant project. Stan Clausen, Director of Community Development responded that the project was signed off as an insubstantial amendment. STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Amy ^midon, Staff noted that 616 W. Main St. also needed P&Z's recommendation on the Landmark Designation. There were no public comments on items not on the agenda. MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of March 5, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. 918 E. Cooper Garton asked for proof of notice, the applicant did not have notice. John Davis, applicant, stated that proof of notice was provided at the HPC meeting in February. Notice was provided by Staff on March 22, 1996. Michaelson stated that this is an application for conditional use review for three (3) ADU's. The lot is 6000 sq.fl and the split was approved in 1994. The approval required compliance with ord. 1. Lots M and N have the duplexes and require one 600 sq.fl. ADU, lots O & P each require an ADU of 300 sq.fl. Michaelson also stated that Housing has reviewed both lots M and N, however they have not reviewed lot O. Staff recommends approval of all three (3) ADU's with conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tygre asked if the ADU's were accessed through the main house. Michaelson responded that Housing prefers that the ADU's have a separate, independent access. In the survey, Staff dealt with the issue of ADU's intergrating into the structure rather than serving as an independent living unit. Garton asked how the applicant would deal with the shared window well between the ADU' s. Davis responded that obstructed glass could be used. Buettow asked if the applicant would live in one of the units or sell them. Davis answered that they are all free market units and will be sold. Garton asked Davis if he felt comfortable with the conditions of approval, especially condition 9 dealing with the shared window well. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Davis stated that he would ad&ess the window. PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Crawford, public, representing the Villager Townhouses stated that there is not enough adequate parking and respectfully request that parking be required onsite rather than on the street. Garton responded that parking for an ADU, is a call by the P&Z Commission depending on the neighborhood. Amy Amidon, Staff replied that two parking spaces per unit are required not one space per bedroom, and there are two spaces for every unit. An ADU does not require parking if it is a studio or a one bedroom. Susan Welsh, public, stated that she agreed with Mr. Crawford noting that more people are in ADU's than in vacant homes, thus creating more problems with parking. Michaelson responded that one out of four are occupied by caretakers while no one is home, so if there is off street parking they use it and the parking standards were loosened to encourage ADU' s. Tygre asked why in mitigation the ADU is deed restricted as a resident occupied unit and not restricted to a particular income category. Michaelson responded that if it is rented it should be an RO unit, the person has to work in Pitkin County. Mooney asked if ordinance 1 says an ADU is mitigation in lieu of cash in lieu. Michaelson responded that there are four qualifications for duplex exemption; 1) provide one free market dwelling unit, 2) one deed restricted RO with the minimum floor area of 1500 sq.ft., 3) provide two free market dwelling unit and one ADU with a minimum area of 600 sq.ft., 4) provide two deed restricted RO units, or pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the proof of notice issue should be discussed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Amidon responded that the applicant mailed and posted the signs for all the public hearings on one notice, that notice was submitted at the Historic Preservation Commission review. Hoefer, stated that it would be appropriate to vote with the condition that the City Attorney's office verify for the Commission that notice was proper. Condition 10, proof of notice be verified by the City Attorneys office prior to or at the next Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting. MOTION: Hunt moved to table the Conditional Use review for three ADU's at lots M, N, O and P block 117, Philips/Gordon Lot Split for 918 E. Cooper, to allow the developer and the Community Development to review the parking situation, window well design, door separation issues, verification of ADU access and snow shedding issues to the next regular Planning & Zoning meeting April 2, 1996. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. 616 W. Main Landmark Designation and Conditional Use Review Garton asked for proof of notice. Amidon responded that notice was provided at the January 16, 1996 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS Amidon, Staff stated that Staff and HPC recommend the approval of Landmark Designation of 616 W. Main St., finding that standards B) dealing with architectural importance and E) community character, are met. The house was built around 1891, and is a typical example of a cross gabled miners cottage. Garton asked for public comments, there were none. MOTION: Hunt moved to recommend Landmark Designation at 616 W. Main St., Lot N, Block 24, finding that the Landmark Designation standards B and E are met. Seconded by Tygre. Buettow absent from vote. All in favor, motion carries. STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Amidon stated that the next review is a Conditional Use for an ADU, the applicant is voluntarily converting an existing historic barn into an ADU. The ADU is above grade and HPC has reviewed the changes to the building and approved them. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ADU with conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Buettow asked for the applicants assurance that the ADU would be used and rented out to a local resident. Jeffrey Aaronson, public, applicant stated this is voluntary and that is his intention. Garton asked for public comments', there were none. MOTION: Tygre moved to approve the Conditional Use for an ADU at 616 W. Main St., with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for a period of six months or longer; and B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. C. The applicant must verify that the unit is no more than 700 sq.ft, of net livable space. 2) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling Unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. 5) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Streets Department. 6) All materials representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carries. Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Lots 3 and 5 STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson stated that the applicant has requested and Staff supports giving them an opportunity to make an overall presentation regarding their plans for lots 3 and 5. The intent, from Staffs perspective, is that P&Z can then direct Staff to go into detail and provide a memorandum for the next public hearing. Michaelson noted that Staff does have significant concern with the Top of Mill sight, as recently as 1985 a plan for that parcel was denied by P&Z based on Geo-technical reasons including the existence of mine tailings and drainage issues. Staff has requested from the applicant a copy of that Geotech report. Staff suggests reviewing the 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Grand Aspen site separate from Top of Mill site for two reasons; 1) questions of Geology and 2) they are two very different projects. Michaelson stated that the project on Top of Mill is lower density, most of the issues deal with the holding capacity of the property. The Grand Aspen site is more of an urban design issue and use within the structure. Staff recommends the Aspen Mountain PUD be continued to next public hearing. Proof of notice provided. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Sarpa, public, representing applicant stated that he hoped to give an overview of what the project is all about. Sarpa went through a brief history; in 1983, John Roberts purchased approximately 12 acres of land outlined in 5 lots. Lot 1 eventually became the Ritz-Carlton, lot 5 became the Grand Aspen Hotel, lots 2-4 were residential. Lot 3 refers to Top of Mill. In May of 1985 the first Aspen Mountain PUD was approved, it consisted primarily of a hotel complex to be no more than 447 hotel units. In addition to the hotel units, Roberts had approval for 54 residential units. Thirty three residential units approved on Top of Mill had conceptual approval. Roberts foreclosed, Savanah purchased all of this as well as some other parcels in August of 1987. In October of 1988, Savanah received approval of the first amendment to the Roberts PUD reducing the number of hotel units to 342, 292 rooms on the Ritz site and 50 units on the Grand Aspen site. The residential stayed the same, with some architectural changes and a reduction in bedrooms in Galena Place. The Grand Aspen site was approved for up to 150,000 sq.ft, of FAR and Savanah reduced that to no more than 115,000 sq.ft, of FAR. Sarpa stated that Savanah agreed to take part of lot 5 to build and maintain an ice rink, as well as extensive infrastructure and utility improvements and to provide employee housing for 60% of full time equivalents, in exchange for permission to build the Ritz. Bob Hughes, public, Counsel for Savanah, said that 47 was the number bargained for in exchange for downsizing the Ritz-Carlton, it is not to be lightly dismissed. Garton asked if vested rights were established for the original PUD. Sunny Vann, public, representing applicant, responded that vested rights were established for components of the PUD, there are no vested rights for parcel 5 and the conceptual approval on parcel 3 has expired. Vann stated that what is left on lot 5 is approximately 86,600 sq.ft, about 2 acres, and includes portions of the Dean Street right-of-way. A portion on lot 5 has been vacated by the City in connection with the original approval of the Roberts application. It exists today as 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 a street but is intended to be included as part of lot 5 for development purposes. Vann stated that lot 5 is relatively fiat with a few scattered evergreens, aspen trees and some ornamental shrubs which surrounded the existing building. The majority of the site is zoned Lodge, Tourist/Residential, mandatory planned unit development. A portion of the Dean St. right-of-way remains zoned CL, the City of Aspen code does not allow Savanah to use the vacated right-of-way for density or FAR purposes. Vann noted that man made improvements on the site include the Grand Aspen Hotel and a subgrade parking garage. Late last year, City Council approved an extension on the demolition deadline on the Grand Aspen Hotel, it is required to cease operation in October of 1998. Vann stated that a trail easement granted across the rear of lot 5, also in connection with the Roberts approval, intended to link the Galena Place condominiums with the Ritz-Carlton hotel. Vann said the Top of Mill site has approximately 5 1/2 acres, and is zoned LTR/PUD, R15/PUD, C-Conservation, the boundary between the R15 and C zone is the 8040 Greenline runs through the middle of the site. The lower portion of the Top of Mill site predominately zoned LTR, rises along Mill St. up to the area presently occupied by the Aspen Ski Club building, the upper portion of the site sits at the base of the mountain and is zoned R15 and C. Vann noted that the vegetation on this site contains numerous small aspen trees, a few larger evergreens and a variety of shrubs and bushes. Man made improvements to the site include the Aspen Valley Ski Club building, an existing duplex and the Ski Company World Cup finish shack. Vann stated that a requirement of the PUD agreement is to construct a new facility on a site for the Ski Club or make a cash-in-lieu contribution that would be the equivalent of the construction cost. Vann stated that is the intent as part of this PUD application. Vann noted that the numerous utility improvements made on Galena and Mill St., were sized to accommodate, at the time, the development which had been previously approved in the Roberts application and including the parameters of the revised PUD agreement for Savanah, in other words, the 47 residential units and 50 lodge units on lot 5. Vann stated that the development scenario is based on 47 units between lots 3 & 5, and approval for 50 lodge units that are not included in this proposal. Another parameter in the PUD agreement is that the total building on lot 5 was not to exceed 115,000 sq.ft, of FAR, it also entitled Savanah to use the open space on lot 6 as a credit against the development to occur on lot 5, recognizing the contribution of the ice rink and park. Vann said that the development program calls for 30 multi-family units on lot 5, and 17 units on lot 3. (6 multi-family, 6 duplexes and 5 single family homes) These units are all exempt from Growth Management, based on three construction credits that were previously agreed to and awarded to Savanah. Vann stated that the basic concept is to reduce density on lots 3 and 5 as the project moves up Mill St. Parking for the 30 units is provided in a subgrade parking garage. Vann said that Savanah proposes to subdivide lot 3 into eight parcels and two open space parcels. Parcel one will contain 6 multi- 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 family units and two triplex structures, parcel 2 will contain two duplex structures, parcel three contains one duplex structure, and the remaining parcels contain five single family residences. Garton asked about the movement of the conservation boundaries. Vann responded that the applicant is not proposing to move that boundary. There is no prohibition against developing in the C zone, but it does have different requirements. Bill Poss, public, representing applicant, said there are two basic planning concepts 1) is to vary density, 2) is to incorporate the City's new design guidelines. Poss said that by installing the parking garage it will allow the clean-up of the street scene and allow the buildings to relate to the street. The applicant chose to leave Dean St. and create a pedestrian mall that will link the Ritz to the Gondola building. There has been discussion concerning the nine dedicated parking spaces for the ice rink, and the applicant intends to work out parking with the new garage or the Ritz parking garage. In regards to parking, Poss said that private parking drives accessed from the rear will allow the landscaped street scene. There will be a two car enclosed garage for each townhouse and two cars can park on the apron. The duplex is serviced by entry drive and on the hillside has entry drive with guest parking offstreet. On lot 3, there will be six covered parking spaces to service the Summit Place townhomes. Parcel two has parking for each bedroom. Poss stated that the Aspen Mountain trail will be developed subtly to allow skiing to continue and be accessed in the summer. Poss stated that the applicant is attempting a Victorian influenced architecture on lot 5 and the duplex sites will be influenced by the Alpine designs. The townhomes will be more urban in style. Garton inquired about the request for a variance from 28ft. to 55ft. height on Dean St. Poss responded that the townhouses, as they develop down, are 28 ft. The applicant is proposing to raise the center portion to create more density in the center giving an architectural feature as a backdrop to the ice rink. Poss stated that by pushing the massing there will be more open space for the cross block links proposed and the park like setting. Mooney asked Poss to discuss the parking issue. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Poss stated that the modified parcel on S. Mill St. will have a ramp that will drive underneath the park, and is built so the project can be phased. Forty eight spaces are below the Dean St. building with soft ramps because of the height. Poss also stated that there will be a parking garage underneath the eight townhouses, three per townhouse. Garton asked for public comments. Steve Falender, public, asked if there were height variances requested on the Galena and Mill St. townhomes and what the height of those homes will be. Vann responded that on the application the height is almost a foot over the 28 feet. A variance in height has been requested on Galena and Mill as well, because the detailed architectural design has not been completed. Vann stated that it is possible to make the buildings in compliance, but technically the application requests a variance on the center section of the Dean St. building and a one and a half variance on the four townhouses on Galena and Mill St. Falender asked what the grade of 33 ft. was. Vann responded natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restricted. Vann said that the City's regulation prohibits the manipulation of a grade to artificially increase the height. Jack Crawford, public stated that parking provided is per the code but there is no provision made for guest parking. Crawford said that he would like to see guest parking considered. Crawford also stated that he agreed with a pedestrian mall on vacated Dean St., however the 1993 approval for the PUD and the CO for the Ritz required 9 parking spaces for the ice rink. The application states that in the event parking is required to serve the ice rink "Savanah" will agree to provide the replacement parking in a mutually accepted location. Crawford noted that parking is obviously required and he felt that 9 parking spaces should be provided in the plans for a low cost. Doug Nehaus, public, asked if the on street parking on Mill St. will be eliminated. Vann responded that the parking along the West of The Grand Aspen is in the public right-of-way, there will be no loss and nothing is proposed that would remove those spaces. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Mooney stated that if the applicant is excavating a full parking garage underneath the building, they must have considered how they could drop the building instead of requesting a height variance. Mooney asked to see the evolutionary thoughts as to what the building may have looked like and an explanation of the services such as fire evacuation, garbage, storage, ect... Mooney asked if there would be an elevator and what the condo regulations would require.. Poss responded that there is an elevator core as well as appropriate fire exits. Garton stated that she was concerned about the height, the AACP addresses pedestrian experience and Garton said she felt that walling off Aspen Mountain is not a good pedestrian experience. Garton stated that this town is fortunate to have the feel of the mountain coming to the base of the town. Mooney asked if ordinance 1 applied to the single family homes. Vann responded that they will be lots for sale, Savanah may build something, but they are currently single family lots that will be encumbered by covenants and restrictions. Mooney asked if there are neighborhood or character guidelines for this section of town. Michaelson responded that the old neighborhood design guidelines of ordinance 35 standards. Mooney stated that his concern is technical questions about sidewalk, curbs and gutters, ect.., and whether it is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Mooney also asked if the snowmelt and water runoff could be measured. Vann responded that the applicants proposal includes sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, ect.., and the City code states that on any parcel in the City the historic runoff cannot be increased. Special meetings were scheduled April 9th and the 23rd at 4:30pm for Savanah/Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 5. MOTION: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Conceptual PUD, and Subdivision approval for lot 3 and 5 to April 9, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Aspen Club PUD Amendment Parking Special Review/Conditional Use Proof of notice provided. Michaelson, Staff introduced several letters for the record. Michaelson said this is a request for the Aspen Club PUD amendment, Conditional Use amendment and a parking special review. The applicant has proposed to bring access to the club exclusively from Ute Avenue to an area currently used for "bandit" parking. Staff has included a summary of the zoning and all agreements related to the development of the Aspen Club, as well as the parking arrangements that were agreed upon in the subdivision and PUD for the "Callahan Subdivision". Michaelson stated that when Staff met with the applicant regarding the proposal to change the access, Staff asked for a traffic study and noted some concern with the study. In addition, traffic engineering does not make any assumptions in terms of pedestrian traffic, or the traffic mix on the road but does makes some assumptions on peak periods. Michaelson said the traffic study did not deal with conditions related to this particular street, for example, snow loading, parks, and cross pedestrian traffic. Michaelson noted that Staff' s referral comments include sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses as well as the residential character of the southern section of Ute Ave. Parks has reviewed the application and they recognize and are very supportive of what the Aspen Club has historically done with their landscaping, but did note that there are narrow lane widths and sight constraints particularly in the winter. Michaelson said the economic viability of this Club is important to anyone who has spent time in Aspen. He said the AACP has particular emphasis on pedestrian corridors, of which Ute Ave. has become. Michaelson said and Staff notes that in terms of off street parking the proposal meets the PUD approval standards however, Staff questions the logic of increasing the amount of traffic through town. Michaelson stated that P&Z basically has three options, 1) to approve the PUD amendment to allow access to come off of Ute and Conditional and Special reviews would also be approved, 2) the request can be denied out right, and 3) Staff's recommendation with three conditions, would be to deny the request as before you but to allow a certain amount of parking behind the Aspen Club to remain. Dick Buetra, public, applicant, stated that when the Club was initially built the reason parking was so far from the building was twofold, 1) during the original approval process a clubhouse/restaurant was approved for the site next to the North side parking lot and 2) Ute Avenue was a narrow dirt road and could not carry the 1400 members. Butera noted that those were two very good reasons the lot was 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 put where it was, but now those reasons have dramatically changed and the Club feels it is proper that the parking lot of this commercial building be moved from the residential area to the commercial area where it belongs. Butera stated that they would like to correct what was done previously and fit then, but does not fit now. The clubhouse restaurant lot has been rezoned residential and the Club spent $72,000 to fix Ute Avenue into a road that has a capacity of 3000 cars a day. Butera said that commercial parking should be next to the building, adjacent to the Fritz Benedict parking lot. Butera said in 1982 the Club was a run down building with one stationary bike and a racquetball court, since then he has spent millions of dollars on the Club and has won numerous national awards and have been chosen throughout the Club industry in America as one of the top 10 or top 5 Clubs in the Country. Butera noted that national television tennis tournaments have brought alot of positive attention to the community. Butera said that since opening in 1982, they have been open everyday serving over 20% of this community, selling health and fitness, not booze, jewelry, furs or fast food. Butera stated the Club has helped rehabilitate several thousand elbows, knees, shoulders and heads, and the product is health, fitness and fun. Therefore, Butera said what affects the Aspen Club is in the community interest, it is not just in Ute Avenues or Highway 82's interest. Butera said many more people live on Highway 82 between town and the Club than Ute Avenue and the Club. Butera said that 50% of the Clubs membership traffic, through which the "bandit" parking lot has evolved, already use Ute Avenue. Alan Richman, public, representing the applicant, stated that placing the parking for a building of this size fairly unusual, but there were specific reasons in 1975 & 76, when the Callahan Subdivision was reviewed by P&Z and the City Council, to put the parking where it is and it was not a mistake at that time. Richman stated that the lot zoned for the clubhouse restaurant is one of the reasons, it was 9400 sq.ft, and obviously parking was needed for that facility because it wasn't going to serve only those from the Callahan Subdivision, so there was parking identified for both the club and the clubhouse restaurant. The other situation is much more pertinent, and that is the condition of Ute Avenue in 1975 & 76. Richman said that because there was a need for parking and because Ute Avenue clearly was not able to handle traffic, the PUD stated that no vehicle traffic should enter the PUD from Ute Avenue, unless vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Richman said that no additional trucks or commercial vehicles are going to come on to Ute Avenue because of this proposal, they are already there and will continue to be there. Richman said the "bandit" parking area initially occured because of the people who came to the Club for therapy did not use the lot on the other side of the river, they couldn't make that walk. The Club employees began using the gravel area along the West side of the building for parking, and finally approximately 5-6 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 years ago the Club allowed members to use that parking area. Richman stated since that time it has been fully occupied. Richman also stated that the past use is important because as Staff has reported, the City has not received complaints from neighbors about the traffic on Ute Ave. Richman also said that in addition to the commercial traffic, the traffic counts that were done when compared to the membership and visitation, tells us that at least half of the people coming to the Club today use Ute Ave. Richman stated that the trend in both membership and overall visitation to the Club has dropped approximately 40%, in the last eight years. Philip Scott, of Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., representing applicant, stated that they looked at some key intersections and did a number of hours of traffic counts along Original at Cooper and Durant. Scott said the study was done in the third week of January and that the level of service for those two intersections would remain basically unchanged. Scott stated that some estimates were done as to the capacity of the roadways in the area and their analysis indicated that Ute Ave. and Original have a comfortable capacity of approximately 3000 cars per day. The capacity of Highway 82 is estimated to be 6000 trips per day. Scott noted that other elements during certain times of the year like snow stacking have an impact on narrowing of the roadway where the capacity is somewhat reduced. He said that capacity by our estimates, is reduced to 2100 vehicles per day. Scott said it is important to compare the 2100 vehicles per day to the amount of traffic we expect to be transferred from the Highway 82 access off of Crystal Lake, to the Ute Avenue access. The study found that as many as 230 vehicle trips per day would be expected to make that transfer, that is 115 round trips. Scott said that today the amount of traffic on a daily basis, on Ute, is about 1250 trips, 625 round trips. He also stated that January is one of the two busiest months of the year in terms of activity at the Club, looking at the average month of the year, compared to January, there is significantly less traffic, prorated it would be approximately 99 round trips. Scott said that because of the separate bike path provided along Ute, there is a seperation that acts as a safety buffer between vehicular traffic and the pedestrians that use the path. Scott noted that currently there is a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity along the shoulder of Highway 82, and seperating the traffic associated with the Club would be a benefit. Lastly, the thru traffic on Highway 82, with the exiting and entering of the Club does not exist on the Ute access. Scott also said that he felt the capacity of the street could accomodate the small amount of additional traffic, and that the additional amount of traffic far out weighs any other disbenefits that might be considered as it relates to traffic and pedestrian safety. 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Garton asked Mr. Scott where the 1000 extra trips, after the Durant St. stop, continuing to Ute Avenue, go. Garton stated that the traffic study shows 1480 and then on the lower end of Ute Avenue it shows 450. Scott replied that the 450 is the Aspen Club traffic, the 1480 less the 450. The 500 other round trips would be the residential, postman and other service activities. Richman asked the Commission to think about what 230 additional vehicles going either one direction or the other actually means. Richman stated that the Aspen Club is open from 6:30am until 9:00pm, 14 hours, and if the traffic was distributed evenly through the day, which would not be a correct thing to do, but it would be about 15-16 cars an hour or 1 car every 4 minutes. Richman noted that the traffic study indicates morning and evening peak usage periods, at the highest point there could be 40 cars in an hour or 1 car every 1-2 minutes but the other 10 hours the Club is open, it's not a car every 4 minutes, its more like 6-10 cars a minute. Richman said he did not view this as a huge influx of new traffic in this area, and in the Planning Staff memo it states "a "perceived" doubling of traffic" by neighbors. Richman said the only place the numbers double is at the Club entryway. Richman noted that there are neighbors across the Club entryway. He also stated that the 230 vehicles is not new traffic in Aspen, it is rerouted and he does not think that anyone who lives in this community thinks Highway 82 East of town is a safe road and any traffic that is taken off 82 does have a benefit. Richman noted that the Staff memo mentions that snow plowing on Ute Avenue may not be adequate in the winter, and said if that is the case, then we believe something should be done to correct that situation. Mary Gleason, public stated that she has lived on Ute Avenue for 25 years and is an Aspen Club member, but she hopes that they find some other way to funnel 20% of the community down their narrow residential road. George Gleason, public stated that if the Club brings its membership up he felt that number should 500 not 250. He also stated that he has complained to the police to slow the cars down and the cars that park across the street make it difficult to back out in the winter time. Susan Welsch, public said she was concerned about the people who hike on Ute trail, during the summertime dozens of people walk on Ute Avenue and do not use the bicycle trail because it has always been a quiet street. She also stated that the community spent extra money to improve the road, had they known the improvement would be used against them they wouldn't have spent the extra money. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 Gael Neeson, public stated that she too is a resident on Ute Avenue and spent the extra money for safety of Ute Avenue. Neeson also said it would be ludicrous to have all the cars coming from one of the world famous tennis matches on to Ute Ave. Nancy Rathborne, public said that she feels the people walking in the middle of Ute Avenue should make use of the bicycle path. She stated that two of the three years she has lived here, she has been in rehabilitation and had to use the back entrance of the Club. Rathborne stated that it is impossible for a handicapped person to access the club off of Hwy 82. Caroline Davis, public said that in January Ute virtually becomes a one way street, depending on the amount of snow, secondly the people who have accidents or problems generally come to her house for assistance and she feels that would be greatly increased by this access. John Kelly, public with Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, represents several homeowners in the area, stated that from talking with people he gets a different version than the traffic expert, he has heard numerous people talk about accidents, speeding, one lane because of the snow plow, ect... He said that the traffic study did not address the winter or summer conditions and there was no mention of safety. Kelly stated that he suggests the reality is different from the study. Cathryn Crum, public stated that Staff did not report the letter she wrote about 10 years ago complaining about the speed and requestinq speed bumps. Crum said the letter she received from the Planning Staff said "they don't build bumps, they build dips" and they wouldn't do it. She said the people who the applicant says walk on 82 do not, they walk on Ute Avenue because they want a peaceful, quiet place so they come on Ute where it is beautiful. Crum also said she would hate to see the horse and buggy that comes up and down Ute, interrupted by a flow of traffic. Michaelson responded that his statement, that Staff had not received any complaints, was referring to anyone calling the Community Development Department to complain about the Aspen Club being out of compliance with the PUD, and the answer is no. Michaelson said there have been numerous calls on Ute Avenue about speed problems, safety and snowplowing and Staff clearly represented that in the Staff report. Mike Otte, public, stated that he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved the PUD. Otte stated that the comment about the parking being put on 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 the North side of the river because of the restaurant, is not totally true. The reason parking was on the North side was to maintain the country character of Ute Avenue. Otte said if the applicant who received the PUD approval had asked for parking next to the building, he didn't think there would have been an approval, he asked the Commission to look at the reason the PUD was approved, look at the character of how the neighborhood was designed, it was supposed to be a country lane. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt stated that he agreed with Mr. Otte, he was on the P&Z for the original approval of the Aspen Club and feels that the points about Ute Avenue being a country lane are quite proper as well as his comments about the parking. Hunt also stated that if he had been out there in the last five years he would have complained about the parking. He said he thinks P&Z should accomodate the rehabilitation and handicapped access to this facility. Hunt said he is not disposed to accomodating "a lot" of employees, nor approving this plan the way it sits. Hunt said one of the reason commercial traffic was allowed out there was to get it close to the facility and being the type of facility it was, there wouldn't be much commercial traffic. Buettow said he would like the lot to facilitate the rehabilitation that goes on in the Club to allow some handicapped parking at the present site, the "bandit" parking. Mooney stated that he lives on Park Avenue and has lived in the same house for 20 years and now has a bus that runs by his house every fifteen minutes, but it is for the good of the community. Mooney stated that the applicant has presented a logical idea, a 1996 need. He also said that everyone has to realize that this town is changing and their street is not a little country road, people have developed here and have put a commercial core in here. Mooney said that he speaks for the people in the community who are not here and are part of the growth. Mooney said a formal study should be done this neighborhood and the impact of the road in this neighborhood should be submitted. Mooney stated that maybe the City should get involved and redesign the lighting, the streets, curb and gutter, the bike and walking paths, make the path wide enough so that the horse can come down the path, put a plowing schedule together, install speed bumps or even dips in a plan, make the safety study and the corrections something that will benefit everybody. Mooney said a traffic mitigation plan should be presented with this proposal, could a van pick people up, dial-a-ride, or maybe a bus could facilitate commercial developments in residential neighborhoods. He also stated that this street has 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 proprietary interest to everybody, and Dick Butera is one of those people. Mooney stated that the towns character has changed, the streets character has changed, and we should be smart enough to make a plan so that it works for everybody and help our neighbors understand what is necessary to live in this community now. Mooney stated that he felt this application should come back with some questions answered, and a formal proposal of what the needs are. Tygre stated that she agrees there has been a change and Ute has evolved like any other street, but unlike Park Avenue it was never a through street, it was always a street that dead ended and lead to trails. Tygre said that the evolution of Ute Avenue has been that it is more like a recreational street with the childrens park, the cemetary, and the access to Ute trail. Tygre said the increased number of pedestrians using this road is because it doesn't have much traffic, and there are various types of recreational activities going there all the time and she feels it is a very precious community asset. Tygre stated that as a bus user, she notices alot of people ask to be dropped off at the Aspen Club, the availability of access through public transportation is a really important community asset. Tygre said she did agree with the handicap and rehab access on Ute Ave., but not employee parking. Garton stated that the Aspen Club has changed and the rehab portion of the Club needs to be accomodated and that she is unwilling to see employee parking in that area. Garton said she is unwilling to see a dead end residential area change as radically as it would change with the Aspen Club traffic. MOTION: Hunt moved to deny the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use as presented by the applicant for the reasons set forth in pages 1-11 of the March 19th memorandum from Staff, Dave Michaelson. Seconded by Buettow. Motion carries 4 - 1. Garton, Tygre, Hunt and Buettow voted yes. Mooney voted no. Meeting adjourned at 8:40p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19~ 1996 2O