Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20011218 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2001 4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING ROOM 1. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CHRISTMAS INN LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, Fred Jarman, continued from 12/11 IV. ADJOURN TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: Christmas Inn Reno tion- Lodge Preservation & Minor PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 18, 2001 (Continued from December 11, 2001) The Planning & Zoning Commission allowed the Applicant to continue the public hearing held on December 11 th, in order for the Applicant to readdress the two main issues regarding this proposal: Height, Parking, and the 3 AH Units. The Applicant provided a letter to Staff and the Commission on December 171h, which is attached for your review. These three issues have been addressed below from a Staff perspective; however, at the time of the drafting of this cover memo, Staff has not seen illustrative elevations or a site plan. These comments are based solely the accompanying letter. A. Parking Requirement The Applicant initially proposed 4 on site parking spaces, which left them with a deficit of 4.6 spaces. This restudy eliminated an AH unit, added a parking space, and substituted the proposed van service with an agreement with High Mountain Taxi effectively freeing up a proposed space. As a result, the deficit has been reduced to 2.6 spaces for the project, which is mitigated for the reasons in the accompanying letter from the Applicant. So, ➢ First Proposal On -Parking Deficit: 4.6 spaces ➢ Second Proposal On -Parking Deficit: 2.6 spaces B. Third Story Height The Applicant initially proposed a third story element that was 28.25 feet tall as measured by the land use code. Effectively, it required a 3.25-foot variance from the 25- foot standard for the Office Zone District. The Applicant has restudied the roof for this third story and has produced a new design that is 26.75 feet tall as measured by the land use code. This would require a 1.75-foot variance from the 25-foot standard for the office Zone District. ➢ First Proposal Building Height: 28.25 feet ➢ Second Proposal Building Height: 26.75 feet C. Roof Form Design Chan1je The Applicant has also proposed a "hip style" roof form to the south facing gable ends on the east and west wings of the third story in an effort to reduce the massing even further than currently proposed. The arrows point to these areas below from the first proposal that have been restudied: D. Reduced AH to two conforming units The Applicant has, at the request of the Planning & Zoning Commission and consistent with the Housing Board's comments, reduced the three smaller AH units to two normal size units that still fully comply with the required housing guidelines of the City of Aspen. U UU1 / VJ a6LU vubno DRUInrIAD 18December2001 Re, Christmas Inn To the Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission My name is John Dobbs. My wife and I have a home at 207 N. Second, wo hex ansion h is diagonally across the street from Nick's home. I am very much oppose e p of the Christmas Inn for the following reasons and would .appreciate this letter being read at the hearing since I am unable to come back to Aspen for the hearing. l . The massing of 3 stories will be both intrusive to our residential neighborhood n is allowedthedoor and obstructive, If this expansioit will, in my opinion, , open which for other three-story expansion along the alley between Bleeker and Mai Will forever change the residential character of our neighborhood. To get an idea of what it will look like, go to the Jerome Hotel and imagine being in the al y and look up 3 stories. 2. The developers have asked for a 3 to 3 1/2 foot variance to code concerning height, The folks who put the 25-foot restriction in the code certainly did it with g ood Allowing the increase to code will block out sunlight to the alley and the reason. g est homes along the alley, It will certainly rrict the view of the mountain. Other owners in the alley may not be able to make the same deal that Nick made developers that will in my opinion use this expansion as the green light to expand their buildings to three stories. 3. Parking is an issue, In the report that I saw the developers were asking for a waiver of 4,6 parking places, To me that means more cars parked on the street. Last year there were signs on the building restricting parking on Second Street to guest of the Christmas Inn. Where are they going to park? I disagree with Nick who stated that parking would not be a problem. Neighbors told me there were signs up next to his yard that stated cars could not be parked along the street. I parking was not a problem last year, why the signs? Parking certainly will not get better with the expansion, only worse. 4. In last week's hearing there was some discussion of variances to the rear and side setback. Ask the developer what part or parts of the old building will be tons down for the construction process. If the current structure where the setbacks are in violation are not saved but will be torn down and rebuilt, it is my opinion the variance to code should not be granted. 5. Surely the owners knew the economic capacity of the Christmas Inn as built when they bought it, Expansion and economic viability should not be an issue, Thank you for allowing me to share my opinion, jueaC� se_�_6 nC Dobbs Lyj UUG