Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860204 c' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'lING PLARRING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Commissioners Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist, David white, Mari Peyton (arrived late), Jasmine Tygre (arrived late), Jim Colombo (arrived late), and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. COMMISSIONERS I COMMENTS White commented that the Volk property was going to be discussed by City Council on the following Monday night and if any of the Commissioners were concerned about the property they should attend that Council meeting. Anderson said he had received a letter regarding GMP which arrived late for the scoring session. from Jayne Wohlgemuth objecting to the proposal. the Little Nell The letter was MINUTES December 3. ~985: Tygre moved to approve the minutes of December 3, 1985; Hunt seconded. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC BEARING LITTLE NELL BASE RRTlEVELOPMEII1'.r PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE/MODRTAIN VIEWPLARE/8040 GREERLINE REVIEW Anderson said tonights meeting would be centered on the access, circulation, and parking issues. Anderson opened the public hearing. " , Skier DrOP-Off Area Alan Richman, Planning Director, addressed the skier drop-off area stating this area was one of the key problems in the growth management review as well as in the growth management scoring. One concern was the drop-off area creating a potential for a variety of turning conflicts with cars on Durant. The areas were reviewed on the plans. Additionally, the Engineering Department had expressed concern about the loss of approximately 12 or 13 parking spaces along Durant St. which were to be internalized in the project drop-off area. Another concern was the overall image 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 of the Little Nell Hotel facility, which is portrayed as a first class and important hotel facility, the first thing you see is an asphalt parking area. Richman did not think that was a grand image for a first class hotel or something that represented the condition set regarding open space. Richman thought the entrance to the hotel should be pedestrian/people oriented as opposed to a car oriented entrance. Richman commented he would almost rather see the hotel moved back from the street than what was being proposed. Peter Forsch, applicant, said they thought they had made concessions with this proposal, based on comments and scores made at the GMP scoring session. Mr. Forsch said they thought this project and the resul ting base area redevelopment was probably the most significant redevelopment in the community. There are a lot of beneficial things that w ill accrue to the communi ty wi th thi s development. Bill Kane, applicant, reviewed the plans of the original, conceptual SPA, submission with respect to the drop-off area. Mr. Kane said the building had been moved back 20 feet from the original submission, resulting in the building being 26 feet from the property line and 36 feet from the existing curb line. Mr. Kane reviewed 5 new proposal plans for the drop-off area. Mr. Kane said they thought the most viable of the 5 proposals was alternative 14. Colombo asked what the of the 5 alternatives. alternative. number of parking spaces would be in each Mr. Kane explained the number with each Blomquist asked why the applicant rejected drop-off area alternative 13. Mr. Kane replied because of the hotel entrance, negatively impacting the design of the building. Blomquist said i3 seemed to resolve the conflict best. Richman commented that it was important to make sure there were an adequate number of parking spaces being provided. Richman said he had originally preferred alternative 14, but during this presentation he had become more comfortable with alternative 12, creating more potential for the open space courtyard. Additionally, alternative 12 provides for 14 parking spaces, the smallest number of spaces shown in any of the options. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rING PLANNING ANn ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Hunt asked why alternative II was rejected. Mr. Kane replied that it would require left hand turns. The predominate volume of traffic would be approaching the site from the west and a back-up of only 4 cars would block the Spring St. intersection. Mr. Forsch said there was also a circulation concern, with too many opportun- ities for people going east on Durant to turn in to the exit area. Tygre said there were currently 8 parking spaces on Durant at the proposed si te for the drop-off area and questioned who was parking there and questioned if they were really necessary. Mr. Forsch said after watching the existing spaces he thought they were being used for long term, day skier parking. Tygre said she was inclined to agree with Blomquist's idea of landscaping and alternative 13, thinking the loss of the existing parking spaces would not be a problem for skier access. Richman said that was why he liked alternative #2 because it only provided 14 spaces with the option to manage them at the high periods, using both public spaces and the spaces on the site to handle the drop-off for the skier and then provide public parking through the rest of the day. white asked if alternative #3 was really a problem with the drop-off to the hotel. White liked the idea of having some spaces out in front that could be used during the day. Colombo liked alternative 13 and thought the needs of the applicant and the public could be internalized within the landscaped barrier. Colombo said the goal was to accomplish an entry to the mountain and he felt this was best accomplished by presenting the landscaped buffer in front rather than parked cars. Hunt asked about an option in alternatives 12 and 13, instead of angle parking on the street to use parallel parking. Hunt asked what number of parking spaces that configuration would accommodate. The reply was 3 or 4 spaces. David Fain, Aspen Alps neighbor, asked what the access was to the ski lift on Ute Ave. Mr. Forsch said it would be a short, flat, level walk around the building. Anderson said he agreed with White in that the public parking should be left on Durant. Anderson preferred alternative '4. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rIRG PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Peyton said she had doubts that any of the alternatives other than #5 provided enough drop-off area. Mr. Forsch said the alternative with the greatest number of parking spaces was 14. Markalunas said she preferred alternative 14 in that it gave the option of using both sides of the island for drop-off. Joe Edwards, concerned citizen, suggested that the possibility existed for a much more radical solution to all of the problems associated with this application. Mr. Edwards said most of the objections to this application have to do with the drop-off area. The entire building could be flipped 180 so that the courtyard that is now facing uphill could be facing the street. Richman 'commented that the Planning Office had spent several months with the applicant in the conceptual process. The applicant presented a concept which both the Planning Commission and City Council have approved with a series of 25 conditions. The purpose of the precise plan is to determine compliance to those conditions and compliance with a series of standards within the code. Richman said while he may be sympathetic to some of Mr. Edwards ideas he thought the applicant had to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of the fact that conceptual approval was granted to this project with essentially the configuration that is before the Commission at this time. Anderson asked the Commissioners for a concensus as to their opinions of what was the best alternative proposed for the drop-off area. The issue was discussed. Anderson requested a straw vote: Alternative #1 0 in favor Alternative #2 1 in favor Alternative #3 5 in favor Alternative .4 2 in favor Alternative IS 0 in favor Alternative 13 was the more popular with the Commissioners. Richman questioned in moving the island out to the street for landscaping if there wouldn't be people that will still park on the outside of the island, causing a circulation problem on Durant St. Anderson said the majority of the Commission was for alternative #3, the question remains as to whether or not the parking should remain on Durant St. There were 3 options in that regard: #1 leaving the angle parking on Durant, .2 increasing the island by putting parallel parking on Durant, and .3 to eliminate all 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'l'ING PLARRING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 parking on Durant and internalize it on site. Anderson asked for a straw vote on those options: Option II 1 in favor Option '2 4 in favor Option .3 3 in favor The majority opinion of the Commission was to increase the island and maintain parallel parking on Durant St. Bill Egar, representing applicant, said there were other issues that were important, being what kind of environment is created for the summer. Secondly, understanding what this building will do, as a presence, to a very important City corner. Mr. Egar said he mentioned these factors for consideration as the Commission proceeds through this process. Motion: white moved turned 180 of a second. to propose that the entire building being proposed be , as suggested by Joe Edwards. Motion died for lack parkina Richman said the issue at hand was the condition stating that the applicant provide a detail technical study of parking needs, those needs to include lodge rooms, skiers, administrative offices, commercial space, and skier support facilities. The specific language of the condition was that the applicant shall increase the number of spaces to be provided at the precise plan stage. Richman said the study had been completed and was enclosed in this meetings packet. Richman said, based on the applicants recommendations parking spaces which were 77 at the conceptual level are now ll8 spaces. Richman reviewed the study explaining the standards applied. At the conceptual level the Commission got a commitment from the applicant of .7 spaces per unit. That also included some of the accessory facilities to the lodge. Richman said the most difficult thing in this area was dealing wi th the skier demand. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan dealt with parking for skiers, the intent was to apply a standard. A 46 space requirement was decided which this applicant committed to. Richman said he would be uncomfortable to bring this issue up again, based on the work the Planning Office and the County had already done with this applicant. Richman said he could not 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rING PLARRING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 recommend the addition of more spaces for the ski area based on the previous work done. Tygre asked what parking requi rements were for other properties in the city. Mr. Egar replied that would be addressed later in his presentation. Mr. Egar said there were 4 general points important to all of the calculations for traffic circulation and parking. Any recreational community behaves differently in terms of transportation and parking than the average U.S. city from which most of the data is derived. Secondly, Aspen is even more different, standing virtually alone, in having such a high degree of access by air and other public transportation and so little dependence on the automobile. Third, in Aspen there is relatively little data available, therefore, information is derived indirectly from the information that is known. Finally, the characteristic that visitors to Aspen travel with very low dependence on the automobile. Mr. Egar reviewed a table presenting a summary of their projected demand for parking needs in both winter and summer. Blomquist said with the new lift on the mountain there would be 1300 new skiers and questioned if there should not be 65 parking spaces added to what is being shown to accommodate this skier increase. Richman said the requirement was that the 46 spaces required in the Master Plan could be provided on or off site, or through a cash contribution to the city facility. It was up to the City to initiate, unless they were provided on site, a parking alternative and then the ASC agreed to participate in a 46 space pro rata share. Trudy Evason, Aspen Alps owner, said in the discussions and in looking at the plans submitted she saw nothing indicating that Spring St. was a dead end. All of the traffic will be going in to a dead end street. Ms. Evason asked how all of this traffic was going to be handled. Mr. Forsch replied that area would be discussed later in their presentation. Hans Gramiger, concerned citizen, said he did not believe the parking was addressed properly. If the new lift is built there will be an increase in use. Parking for skiers is completely neglected, along with parking for the employees. Motion: 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rIRG PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Blomquist moved to increase the 118 parking spaces by 46 additional spaces, and that the applicant be required to provide a total of 164 parking spaces; White seconded. Anderson asked for a roll call vote: Blomquist White Hunt Peyton Tygre Markalunas Anderson Three in favor, aye aye no aye no no no four opposed; motion NOT carried. Colombo said he did not think the Ski Company should be responsible for all of the parking stimulated in that location. Richman said the philosophy of the Master Plan was that the plan attempted to deal with the impacts associated with the ski area, leaving the base area impacts to be dealt with in this application. Richman recommended the Commission focus on restaurant, retail, administ- rative offices, and lodge office parking needs and not focus on skiers on the mountain. Tygre asked what lodges were used for reference in this applicant's parking study. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said there were 10 lodges surveyed, being: The Alpina House, North Star, Brass Bed, Woodstone, Continental, Aspen Inn, Mountain Chalet, Blue Spruce, Limelite, and the Snowflake. Tygre commented that none of those properties were as close to the downtown/skier area as the proposed project but thought the figures being used were a pretty close comparison for the lodging. Tygre was concerned about the figures used for the retail usage. Anderson said he thought the figures used made sense, the applicant has increased the parking from 77 spaces at the conceptual stage to ll8 with this submission. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARRING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Motion: Tygre moved to accept the 118 proposed parking spaces; Markalunas seconded. Anderson asked for a roll call vote: Blomquist no White no Hunt no Peyton no Tygre aye Markalunas aye Anderson aye Three in favor, four opposed; motion NOT carried. Hunt said he voted against this motion because he disagreed with the parking study which divided the statistics by 2 because people would be going to the location for at least 2 reasons. Hunt said he did not think the retail proposed for this building would justify the division by 2. Hunt asked what effect that would have on the total numbers. Mr. Egar replied it would double the number of retail spaces estimated. Richman said the retail figures were the ones he was the most uncomfortable with. Peyton agreed with Hunt's comment. Mr. Gramiger asked if employee parking was required. Richman replied that the standard requirement for total footage was applied. Mr. Gramiger thought the requirements should be more severe because it is the use that dictates the parking needs, not the zone the building is located in. Motion: Tygre moved to approve the proposed 118 parking spaces; Markalunas seconded. Anderson asked for a roll call vote: Blomquist no White no Hunt aye Peyton no Tygre aye Markalunas aye Anderson aye Four in favor, three opposed; motion carried. 8 RECORD OFPROCBEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4.. 1986 Street Capacity Richman commented that the situation here was very different from parking. The Master Plan made no provision for the impact on city streets associated with this project. Richman questioned the assumption made in this transportation analysis. What was called 300 trip ends per day, associated with the mountain capacity increase, was not calculated in any of this report and Richman thought it should be. Mr. Egar again reviewed the transportation study. Tygre left at 7:25 P.M. Whi te commented that the Aspen Mountain Lodge had been and asked how much increased traffic that would generate. replied that it was a very small number. Peyton asked if pedestrian traffic had been considered. Mr. Kane responded that they were suggesting that something in the way the street was paved and managed strongly and legally emphasize the area as a pedestrian crossing. approved Mr. Egar Hunt said one of the main pedestrian entrances, that to the hotel, was missing. He questioned how the pedestrian traffic would be handled crossing Durant St. at the Spring St. end. Mr. Egar said their estimate was that there would be about 40 pedestrians crossing at Spring during the peak hour. Hunt then asked where the cross walk would be placed at that intersection. Mr. Egar said that would depend on the detail design. White expressed concern about access on Spring St. for fire tr ucks. Mr. Kane said a technical rev iew had been conducted by the Fire Department. The Fire Department had only asked the applicant to add a 12 inch fire line and hydrant on Spring St. Hunt asked if the park adjacent to the hotel service dock area could be used for a cul-de-sac to aid in the turning radius at the end of Spring St. Mr. Forsch said it would be a good idea but was not sure if they would be able to get access to the property. Mr. Kaufman said the Aspen Alps had control of that parcel of land. Jerry Hewey, manager of the Aspen Alps, said the park land was donated as a park trust and thought it would be possible to discuss its use for a cul-de-sac with the Park Assoc. 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'rING PLARRING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1986 Anderson said the actual action on service was to be deferred because interested members of the public had been sent home. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the analysis of the street capacity as described in condition 19 of the Conceptual SPA, limiting that action to approving the analysis that applies to Durant St.; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to address Spring St. circulation, service yards on Spring St., the Tippler, North of Nell, trail connections, the Dean St. encroachment license, and initiate a building design, until February 18, 1986; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:05 P.M. ci~(j)~d Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 10