HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010821ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS .........................................................
MINUTES ................................................................................................................
629 WEST SMUGGLER LANDMARK DESIGNATION ......................................
MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT TITLE CODE AMENDMENT ......... 4
1210 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ................................................. 4
BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT ..................................................................... 5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21~ 2001
Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson, opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen~ Run Erickson,
Bob Blaich and Roger Haneman present. Steven Buettow was excused. Staff
present were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and Sarah
Oates, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS
Bob Blaich said that he read the article about DEPP in the newspaper and asked
Ron Erickson for clarification. Erickson stated that as a result of the study, another
meeting was called. Erickson also attended the Brown Bag meeting with the
DEPP goals and tasks. Erickson said that there was concern about coordination
between DEPP and the Civic Master Plan. plus a few other things. Erickson noted
that overall Council felt that the amount o£money spent was not worth the results;
he said that was based upon a false impression because DEPP cost $400,000. and
City Streets cost $800,000. Erickson stated that there would be a learning process
with Council; Chris Bendon may have a way to fund the process. Blaich asked if
Council heard the point about the real costs of DEPP at $400,000. and Ed Sadler's
quotes in the paper were $600,000. - $700,000. Erickson said that Ed ballparked
the figures per block but it wasn't clear what that included. Blaich noted that all of
the disruption was not just caused by DEPP but also the ripping up and repair of
the streets. Erickson stated that there should be a DEPP meeting on August 30th
regarding in-fill, funding for the streets and possible staff time.
Blaich stated that the a~icle on the Farmers Market said that crafts might be
allowed and local merchants. He said that some of the suggestions in the article
were very good but voiced concerns of it becoming a "flea market", which was just
the opposite of what was intended. He said the current control was good with the
first people. Eric Cohen stated that it was put forth with tight guidelines and
restrictions that seemed to have worked from the consensus from the Framers
Market people. CCLC would like to expand the market to include someone from
Carbondale or Glenwood to participate. Cohen stated that the lease for the
Farmers Market was up and the question was where did they want to go with it.
The commission wanted the minutes from the original meetings and the last draft
provisions (provided 8/23/0D. Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be any changes
to the Farmers Market and if it would come back to P&Z for review. Hoefer
responded that any Ordinance change would come back through P&Z. Ohlson
stated that if there was an amendment to the Land Use Code then it would be back
to P&Z; if there was an amendment to the vending agreement, which was between
City Council and the Farmers Market Association it would not come back to P&Z.
Cohen stated that CCLC was discussing a new or changes to the vending
agreement.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
Blaich requested clarification on the rules of attendance for P&Z members; the
allowed number of meetings to be excused from and what were the ramifications.
Hoofer responded that ifa commissioner missed 4 regular meetings (the 1st and 3rd
Tuesdays) in a row, then it would be up to council to rule but missing special
meetings was listed separately. Blaich stated that did not clariby the question about
excused absences. Hoefer stated that the code did not refer to excused or
unexcused; the code referred to regular meetings only and subject to a Council
decision. Erickson asked for some procedures of rules and procedures of the
commissioners regarding attendance and what constitutes and acceptable excuse.
Tygre reported that she, Roger and Ruth were at the Council work session
regarding ADUs; the reposts in the paper were accurate. Tygre said that there was
a compromise and was pleased with the end result.
The commission and staff welcomed back Sarah Oates.
Chris Bendon provided the Civic Master Plan and asked when the commission
wanted to do a work session. Ohlson stated that September 4th was an open
meeting for that work session; the commission agreed to it. Roger Haneman asked
for the results with council on that presentation. Bendon replied that nothing was
taken out and the most confrontational item was moving City Hall.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the P&Z minutes from
July 24 and 17, 2001 and the GMC minutes from July 17, February 27
and 20, 2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/10/01):
629 WEST SMUGGLER LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on 629 West Smuggler. David
Hoefer asked for the proof of notice and stated that if the notice wasn't received
the public heating would have to be re-noticed. Joyce Ohlson replied that the
hearing was being continued.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for
the Landmark on 629 West Smuggler to October 2ha. Eric Cohen
seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING:
MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT TITLE CODE AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and requested the notice. Sarah Oates
stated that she would provide the notice tomorrow. David Hoefer agreed. Notice
was provided on August 22, 2001.
· Oates explained that this was basically a zone district change in the wording o£the
title requested by the Smuggler Mobile Home Park. Oates explained that P&Z
made a recommendation to City Council; this was just a title change only for this
property to R-3 density. Ron Erickson asked if there were any other R-3 high
density Residential Zone Districts in Aspen. Oates replied this was the only one.
Hoefer stated that there were no substantive changes, anything non-conforming
now would continue to be non-conforming. Joyce Ohlson replied that there were
no dimensional standards changed.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #35, series
2001, recommending that City Council approve a Code Amendment
that will change the Residential Mobile Home (MHP) Park Zone
District title to High Density Residential (R-3) and the associated
revisions made to the code text where a reference is made to the new
title finding that the standards of the review been met. Ron Erickson
seconded. Roll call vote: Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes;
Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING:
1210 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued Stream Margin Review. David Hoefer
requested the public notice. Eon Erickson asked what the rule of notice was on 2
continuances. David Hoefer replied that had been disCUssed about the period of
time for the continuances, if more than 6 months then another notice should be
provided. Joyce Ohlson replied that staff looked at the effort put forth by the
applicant and in this case the applicant's survey had issues with the engineering
department. Staff was working with the applicant.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the 1210 Red Butte Stream
Margin Review to September 11, 2001. Bert Myrin seconded.
APPROVED 7-0.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01, 07/24/01):
BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Boomerang. David
Hoefer noted that the notice was provided at a previous meeting. Joyce Ohlson
stated that this was a substantial PUD amendment; the issues to address were how
the parking would work and what were the operational plans of the fractional
o~vnership.
Ohlson stated that the commission requested additional site planning to achieve an
additional 7 on-site parking spaces; the applicant planned 6 on-site spaces. Ohlson
reported that the DRC (Departmental Review Committee), staff from various
departments, advise and direct major and minor developments issues. Ohlson
stated that the Fourth Street right-of-way was somewhat ora sacred place for
future trailhead location parking; there was much discussion and effort from the
applicant on this proposal for the 6 on site parking spaces with only 2 curb cuts.
Ohlson stated that the fractional ownership and time-share was more informational
for the commission under conditional use; the applicant agreed to the 6-month
availability to the public. Staffrecommends approval of Resolution #37. Ron
Erickson asked for clarification on this commission setting conditions of approval
for conditional use. Ohlson answered that the commission did have the authority
to establish conditions of approval through a conditional use process. Bert Myrin
noted that more information on underground parking was needed and asked if that
was researched; it seemed that there were 2 rules and 1 needed to be broken; either
the number of parking spaces to be mitigated or the grade from the underground.
Ohlson stated that the engineering department did not want the underground
parking ramp to exceed 10% grade. Ohlson stated that there has been some
leniency for less parking mitigation in the Lodge Preservation, especially under a
PUD, to create more units.
Mitch Haas, applicant planner, stated that the parking requirement at 0.7 parking
spaces per bedroom generated 13.9 spaces overall for the project; he said that this
also applied to lodges and hotels that included bars, restaurants and conference
facilities. Haas said that since this project contained none of those facilities, that
the parking requirement should be cut in half. Haas stated that the lodge was in
town within walking distance; they had a bike fleet and shuttle to and from the
airport. Haas said that there was no practical way to provide 7 on-site parking
spaces; there were 6 including one compact space and the building couldn't be
pushed back any further (it was on the lot line), The parking plan had only 2 curb
cuts (8-10 feet each) with a one way loop drive, to prevent backing into the street
and pedestrian and bike corridor. Haas stated that this plan needed to be compared
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
to what could be provided by right without review, which were 2 large single-
family homes without alley access and larger curb cuts.
Haas explained that they have tried to address all of the time-share questions from
the last meetings. There was a packet of information on the interval ownership
program; the intention was to go with 7 owners per unit, but would like to go with
6 or 8 if the conditions change without coming back to the commission, if this was
approved. Haas explained that 183 day a year were available to the general public
and 182 days maintained for private use by the interval owners. This complied
with the lodge definition; the covenants will reflect the applicable contracts of sale
for the property. They will maintain control of the Boomerang Management;
under the 7-share program, 63 shares were available to be bought, the Boomerang
will maintain 64 votes in the covenants. The question of when general public time
unused periods would become available was addressed with a system of how
reservations were taken (Key Dates in packet). Any unreserved time would be
made available to the general public after November 1st for the winter and June 1st
for the summer season. Haas said that they complied with and exceeded the
definition of lodge from the code; every lodge bed was a hotbed.
Ron Erickson asked if this was a fee simple ownership of the time-shares or
vacation ownership with ownership of any common property. Charles Paterson
replied that he thought that was a legal question that he could not answer.
Erickson said that the applicant would maintain control of the property by retaining
64 of the 127 shares of the property; how would that come about. Paterson replied
that most likely the Boomerang would own the common elements at this time.
Haas said there would be shares and votes. Erickson restated that the
members/owners would have 63 votes and the Charles Paterson would have 64
votes. Haas replied that was correct.
Erickson asked what would they do with a request from the general public on
August 30th for 2 weeks beginning December 20th through January 4th. Paterson
responded that they would be put up in the lodge. Erickson asked when the new
Boomerang Lodge would be available. Haas responded that they would be put on
a wait list after the owners signed up for their winter slot. Erickson stated that
there was a lot of time and work put into this and he stated that he was impressed.
Blaich asked if the parking was to scale and if those were allotted spaces or cars;
he asked what the surface was. Haas replied that the spaces were 8½ by 18 feet
each, with the exception of#2. Paterson answered that there were "grass rings"
(plastic rings that grass grew through) as the proposed surface.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
Roger Haneman asked what the reason was for not putting a space in front of#3, to
add a 7~ space. Paterson responded that was for aesthetic considerations; the
concept was for lots of green space rather than a parking space to make an
experience for the guests rather than what they have in the city. Paterson stated
that has been the premise of thc Boomerang all along to make it a pleasant
experience to stay.
Eric Cohen asked if the employee-housing units really needed parking on site.
Haas responded that was proposed on thc Fifth Street side, the 2 head-in spaces.
Erickson asked if these would be employees of the Boomerang and to look for
employees without cars~ Paterson stated that most of the Boomerang employees
did not have cars. Erickson asked if Building #4 was on the lot line: Haas replied
that was a terrace above grade on the lot line; the dotted lines were sub-grade walk-
out patios.
Tygre asked if there was any information on vehicles brought by guests depending
upon the length of stay. Ohlson responded that they had trip generation manuals
but that she couldn't quote from them at this time. Hoefer commented that Aspen
was more of a flight destination resort. Erickson responded that it was seasonal;
there were traffic studies (DEPP) that showed use of cars in and around the
Commercial Core area in winter and summer. Erickson noted that the amount of
cars in the summer tripled in town~ Haneman stated that it was more related to the
age of the person and the size of the family rather than the length of stay; older
guests were more likely to drive and have cars than younger people..
Myrin noted that the Prospector had 14 spaces with 19 studios; they said that in the
summer the parking was full and over-flowed into the streets. Myrin also visited
the Shadow Mountain Time Share Property with 12 spaces and 12 units; they had a
little over-flow in the summer. Cohen stated that unfortunately Hopkins in the
summertime was the pedestrian byway; he stated that was a big conflict.
John Batty, public, stated that he was an attorney for Mary Hugh Scott; he said that
nothing reflected the impacts on the neighbors. Batty noted that this was a vacant
lot with a Very intense development proposed; he said that he was doubtful that the
area would support 2-single family or 2 town homes. Batty said that the number of
parking spaces was much less that the need; he said that the hand-drawn parking
plan did not seem to scale and were not intended to be used as parking spaces.
Batty stated that the parking issue should still be an issue because there was no
good reason why 6-8 spaces couldn't be located underground with some re-
configuration of the units. Batty applauded the time that has gone into this but
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
doesn't feel that impact of this development on the neighborhood was not
adequately mitigated in terms of parking designs and issues.
Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated that she was a neighbor and had the same
concerns as the commission did regarding the u~esolved parking issues. She said
that it was nice that the Boomerang wanted to provide a nice experience for their
guests but the neighborhood wanted to keep that same nice experience for people
walking down the street.
Blaich stated that John Batty brought up some parking issues and scale issues; he
said that he saw some problems getting into the parking spaces. Paterson utilized a
drawing to respond to the cars being able to get in and out of the parking spaces; he
noted that there were still 11 spaces on the street.
Haneman asked if the streets department indicated if the end of Hopkins would
ever be paved in the near future. Olson responded that she had not heard that but
that the edge would be improved with a pathway, curbs and gutters. Ohlson stated
that there was no capital improvement budget slated for this in the next 5 or more
years. Ohlson stated that the proposed parking included over-hang. Ohlson noted
that other parking in town was very tight, which seemed to work. Ohlson said that
this clustered the parking rather than spreading it out all over with more curb cuts.
Ohlson suggested small signs to designate the spaces. Ohlson stated that there was
no underground parking shown on the plan as submitted but 6 at grade parking
spaces. Cohen asked if there had been any attempts to figure out any underground
parking since the last meeting. Haas replied that there had not. Blaich asked if the
time-share owners would they be allowed to keep a car on-site. Charles Paterson
responded that they would not provide any long-term parking on-site. Paterson
stated that underground parking was never talked about; he said that P&Z wanted
the parking issue solved a year ago. Paterson stated that all of the underground
space was utilized for storage for the guests and the chalets had sub-ground
bedrooms. Tygre stated that this consideration was for an amendment to an
already approved plan without underground parking. Ohlson clarified that P&Z
did not see the plan with underground parking but City Council approved the plan
with the underground parking. Haas stated that there was a program for on street
parking in place for lodges.
Haneman noted that 3 of the 4 sides of this property were controlled by the city;
the trail across the back, the Hopkins pedestrian/bikeway and the Fourth Street
right-of-way side. Haneman said that the proposed parking plan was creative
given the limitations but he said that he was not very comfortable with it because
of the turning radii. Haneman stated that he would vote no on this parking plan
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AuRust 21, 2001
and prefer to see Fourth Street used. Cohen stated that he also would vote no on
this parking plan; he said that he was not comfortable with bringing the number
down to 7. Blaich said that the trailhead discussion has been going on for a long
time and the city should take a look at that Fourth Street right-of-way for parking.
Blaich said that he questioned the turning radius and did not feel that this was the
best plan but would leave it up to the applicant to solve that problem; he said that
he would vote for this parking plan. Myrin said that he did not support the Fourth
Street right-of-way parking just because the project was located next to public land
did not mean that they had the right to occupy that land for their private use; the
city should have he opportunity to do what the city/community wants to do with it.
Myrin stated that he was not comfortable with the reduction in the number of
parking spaces; he asked about the request for more underground parking and
having more research done. Myrin stated that he would have to vote no on this
parking plan. Erickson said that parking wasn't a major concern of his; he stated
that the commissioners made good points and would probably vote no on this
parking plan also. Ruth Kruger stated that she was uncomfortable with the amount
of parking spaces with the configuration of bedrooms and because of the draw that
lodges bring. Kruger said that it was admirable that they were creative with the
parking but would vote against this plan. Tygre stated that she agreed with the
commission and was not impressed with this non-workable parking plan for the
spaces allocated on-site. Tygre stated that she shared Eric's view of compact
vehicles because it seems that most vehicles in town were SUVs; these vehicles
were hard to see around especially when parked on comers. Tygre agreed that she
would go along with the rest of the commission on voting no on this parking plan.
Tygre suggested continuing this until the applicant returned with a parking plan
that would meet the commissions approval or recommend City Council not accept
this parking plan.
Erickson stated that this property had tobe viewed as a Lodge Preservation
Project; other projects were simply adding space or rooms within the current area
but this would be in the category of adding on more rooms with a new building.
Erickson said that this was a new entity rather than the sharing of an old one; he
stated that his concerns were two-fold. Time share/fractional ownership meant
giving away some of that property to someone else, which doesn't necessarily have
to agree with the current management's control. The intent of the Preservation
Program was to preserve hotbeds, short-term tourist beds in the downtown core.
Erickson said that there were 3 conditions: change the reservation schedule, owner
reservations be finished by AugUst 31st for the winter season and April 30th for the
summer season; 75% or a large number of shares had to be sold to single owners
and the condo documents guarantee that the ownership of the project remain in the
Boomerang Management. Hoefer stated that a condition could include the condo
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001
association agreement to somehow include Boomerang Management control.
Erickson stressed that he wanted the benefits of the Lodge Preservation Program
attached to the project. Ohlson stated that the testimony ran with the land.
Erickson responded that then became an enforcement issue if it were to become a
condo association, it would be a change in use. Kruger asked if it would be a deed-
restriction. Hoefer replied that it would have to be recorded. Haas said that a
hotbed was defined as a 6-month availability; it was a lodge by definition and was
required to maintain that 6-month availability. Erickson questioned the 29 days for
maintenance purposes as part of the public rental program time allotment.
Myrin stated that the city goal was hotbeds; this seemed to be the right track rather
than 2 single-family homes on this site. Myrin stated that he shared Ron's concern
for the Boomerang Management's control and majority of the votes. Myrin stated
other that that he supported the proposal.
Cohen stated that he agreed with Ron in keeping it as a lodge.
Haneman said that the times for rental could be altered for the summer to June 1st.
Haneman said that he also favored the Boomerang Management retained.
Blaich said that he felt uncomfortable without the time-share ordinance from City
Council. Blaich said that he was for the project with any conditions agreed upon.
Kruger said that she was aligned with Bert's view that this project and that it was
better than 2 single-family homes; it didn't matter to her if it was an owner or
another guest staying there as long as people were brought in town to put money
into the economy in off-season or on-season. Kruger stated that it was a great
project; she said the more restrictive and the more difficult that it was made for
owners of the small lodges would mean fewer projects would come forward; there
was a need for the lodge rooms to be replaced that were lost.
Hoefer said that the conditions could be generically stated to Council to meet with
the attorneys to preserve the lodge management control. Tygre stated that she
shared many of the concerns of the commission and felt that they needed legaleaze.
Ohlson stated that the commission could make a recommendation about parking to
council. Hoefer asked the applicant if they wanted to come back with another
parking plan. Haas responded that this was the final parking plan to move this
process forward. Ohlson noted that it was not staff's responsibility to prepare site
design but rather to review or critique site design.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21.2001
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the meeting to 7:15.
Ron Erickson seconded; APPROVED 7-0.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved approve P&Z Resolution #37, series
2001 for two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption and to
recommend City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Conditional
Use for Timeshare and Subdivision with the following changes:
condition #2.d. added In conjunction with building permit; condition #3.
strickenfc, r ~ ¢~'""~ ...... amended to as recommended by housing;
condition #4. & #5. added due and paYable at building permit application
per structure stricken~,e~ o,:n ¢o. condition #7. added applicant may
supply an alternative option to the city attorney that is acceptable;
condition #9. deleted; condition #10. delete from ~"-~' .... '~:"' ~
~ ...... condition #13.n. amended to (not less than 13 spaces); add a
condition to include the applicant reached an agreement with the city to
provide control to the Boomerang Management and meet with the City
Attorney to establish parameters and releasing the rooms to the public at
an earlier date under the six-month rule. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll
call vote: Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Haneman, no; Blaich,
yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1.
Kruger noted that there was already a parking problem in town and the solution
were being sought to relieve the situation. Erickson thanked the applicant.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
~c~"Lothian, ~eputy ~i~y Clerk
11