Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881206 fA ,/1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Bruce Kerr and Welton Anderson. Michael Herron and Jim Colombo arrived shortly after roll call. Mari peyton was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Welton: There was a meeting last night with City Council regarding their concern of "conflict of interest". It started off with the Mayor suggesting that no individual who is on a board or commission should take any work that requires any City approvals whatsoever. This effectively says anybody who has any professional background would end up not being on any boards or commissions--if they want to make a living, that is. The final conclusion was they threw it back in our court and sometime in early February we are going to be providing--essentially what it amounts to is an updated bylaws. Bruce: There is a State statute on the conflict of interest issue. whatever we decide as a group, we will need to comply with state law. The decision was made to discuss this issue during the meeting of December 20, 1988. S'.rAFF COMMENTS Cindy: We are going to get you boxes outside of City Hall. Each of you will be issued your own keys. This will be done within the next 5 weeks. Mill street is going to open for the winter. I will get a letter out thanking Highlands for the passes. Roger: Have you got any information on the Hotel Aspen noise maker? Cindy: Bill Drueding is going to go by there to see about that. MINO'rES OCTOBER 25 AND NOVEMBER 8. 1988 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of October 25, 1988. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM12.6.88 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of November 8, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. HIS'.rORIC DESIGNATION OF 320 WES'.r MAIN STREET (SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE) PUBLIC HEARING At this time Welton and Jim stepped down from all items on the agenda because of possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre conducted the remainder of the meeting. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine opened meeting to public comment. Ramona Markalunas: I am here to second everything Roxanne has said and I could go on for another hour. There was no further public comment. Jasmine closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend historic landmark designation for the Smith-Elisha House and Carriage House. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. MOUNTAIN HOUSE LODGE REZONING. CONDITIONAL USE. SPECIAL REVIEW TO INCREASE FAR AND GMOS EXEMPTION/PARKING REDUCTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben made presentation as attached in records. Jasmine asked for public comments at this time. Andy Hecht, representing Centennial Park Condominiums: My recollection of the LP zone was it was to legitimize existing non-conforming lodges so that they could upgrade their property. I consider it to some extent a perversion of that to say that we are now taking an adjacent property and calling more than 2 " PZM12.6.88 doubling of that a limited expansion. rooms to 11 a limited expansion? Do you consider adding 18 Cindy: I think it is still within the realm of what we consider a small lodge in the community. Andy: That is not the question. Cindy: I think that is the intent--to have small lodges in the community. Andy: We have a system of buffers where we have the commercial core which is intended to be an intense commercial use for tourists. We have a C-l zone which is supposed to be a buffer between residential communities and the CC. The code say the C-l is to not serve the tourist population and lodges are not permitted nor are they conditional uses. Now we go to the RMF zone adjacent to it where all the residential development that occurs there is restricted to a 6 month minimum lease--everything approved now. Cindy: Everything approved now but everything approved in the past basically everything that we see there except new construction within the last year has not---- Andy: Not true. My client has a project 12 years old at 6 month minimum lease restriction. Cindy: That may be in the covenants that it wasn't something that was City imposed. Andy: It was City imposed. So there is definite conflict within the neighborhood as to whether it is short term or long term. And if we want to open that up and change this zone, it should be a different discussion. Cindy: In 1983 we adopted a new zone district called LP which was an overlay for existing lodges so that they would have the ability to expand and be able to survive in the community without being non-conformities. There were a lot of problems for lodges before 1983 when they were considered non-conforming. We thought it was a real goal in the community to have small lodges. The idea was to have them interspersed throughout the community so that we have that type of an experience for our guests. Andy: This project went through an upgrading within the past 2 years through the LP. I don't think that the intention of the LP 3 PZM12.6.88 zone was to allow lodges to acquire property in a leapfrog method. Cindy: If you look at the purpose statement for LP you see that lodges may expand onto adjacent property. You have a point when you bring up compatibility of the neighborhood. Andy: Regarding the restaurant--when you say that it would be only for guests. Do you propose that they would be able to serve liquor there and would you limit it so that there could be no liquor served. Cindy: No one has applied for a liquor license. We could make a condition of approval. Andy: On the parking I think that my client believes that any relief on the parking issue would exacerbate the already existing parking which is intolerable. Ray Bates, 800 block of East Hopkins: The parking is going to be in the rear of the building? How are you going to get in there? I don't know if you have ever been up through there in the winter time. They don't plow up through there every day. And the cars are not going to drive around to come around to the alley. They are going to park in the first place that is open on the street as they do now. The cars won't move. I don't know how them guys manage to keep it open as well as they do but they won't move. I have watched them for too many years. The only time they will move is when they are going to tag them. They will sit right up in their room and watch. But the minute that tow truck comes out then they are out there. John Y. Colombo, 800 E. Hopkins: There are 11 units there now. Is parking provided for them? Cindy: Basically it has a non-conforming situation or a substandard situation in that regard now. All of the parking is in the public right of way now. John: So you are adding 18 units to 11 units which is more than doubling it and you are only putting in 14 parking spaces for 29 rooms and the code calls for 1 for every room? Cindy: The code only requires that additional development meet the standards of the code. John: why don't we get people to conform when they are asking for something from us? Right now from Highway 82 east turns out 4 PZM12.6.88 to be the parking lot for all the people who work in the offices west of us. It is a bad enough problem as it is. If they don't move their cars, they can't plow the streets. And the street gets narrower as the City--they can't keep up with the snow plowing so the street gets to be a 1 way in January and stays like that most of the year. Those cars get plowed in and are abandoned there because they can't get out and now you are proposing to approve 14 parking spaces for a 29 unit hotel? I don't think a hotel should be in that area anyway or an expansion that large. Ted Grossman, 916 East Hopkins: I am opposed to the application because of the inadequacy of parking. Presently quite often at night there has been cars double parked all night. This with 11 units and if 29 units are there we are going to have severe problems. By adding 18 more rooms to this we are making it into a hotel. I would call this a small hotel--not a small lodge. There will be service trucks to supply a restaurant every day. There is no space for these trucks to make deliveries in the alley. They will double park on Hopkins and that street will come to a complete stop. Another thing, is there enough turning radius in that alley back there for those cars to come in and park like that instead of on an angle? Cindy: The referral comments I got from the Engineering Dept. did not know that there was not appropriate turning radius. They did not say that that was a problem. It is something they should look into. Susan Hammond: That parking area is much too small. There would be no way that people could pull in and get into those areas. Our unit is further off the alley than the Mountain Lodge and we barely have enough room to pull in and out. I do not see any way that their cars can get into that area. Tom ___?___, directly across from the questionable property: The parking is horrible. Why don't they have to do sidewalks on down West End Street as I had to do? It was a requirement for me. Not that the Engineering Department knew that it was a requirement but they told me that it was. Another thing to be aware of in the planning for this street, it is in the budget for 1990 that the street is going to be redone. I would presume they are going to have to put in curbs and gutters. The idea that they could ask for a parking quota onto 5 r PZM12.6.88 the public right of way, I don't see how in the world they could get that when we couldn't get a 12 inch encroachment for a bay window. I would hope that they are not going to get that. We have had people park and slide off the street and drive across our yard already this winter. It has already happened once that they have driven across our lawn. To put more cars in here is going to be an unmanageable problem if this takes place. Is there any possibility that they can put parking underneath? Or take up some of their room space for parking space? Why do we have to give them 14 when they need 18? And give a public encroachment when nobody else on this street can ever get a public encroachment for anything? John Gates, 811 E. Hopkins: There can be no justification on that street of having any relief on any parking situation. The units that they have now with their parking on the public area off of Hopkins is inadequate. Asking for more of an inadequate situation just can't be tolerable in that neighborhood. Fred Luomo: I think--to say there was only 4 single family dwellings from Hopkins to the river--from 82 to the rear--I count 5. There may be more. It is not that we are doing away with single family dwellings, that is not the transition of that neighborhood necessarily. Florence Hose, 926 E. Hopkins: The Queen Victoria--they were required to have parking space down underneath. I would like to know how many of them have made use of that in all the years that they have been there. Rick Lindner: I own the house at 898 E. Hopkins directly across the street on the corner of West End Hopkins. I think that the problem with a lot of the approvals of things like this is no one ever looks down the line far enough. The situation of the parking now is that everybody who works in town who has a job situation where they have to park for more than 2 hours is forced to cross Original street to park in those blocks--Hyman and Hopkins and down towards the ute Condominiums, etc. We have seen this happen in the last couple of years because the parking from where we used to be able to park for an hour or two in town went to only a half hour. And we are probably just a year or two away from seeing 15 minute parking in the commercial core. Everybody that lives here and works here knows there is no place to park downtown. That is when there are no tourists in town. When the visitors come in the peak months the problem is almost 6 '~ PZM12.6.88 insurmountable. So we are going to eventually see movement in that direction by the city to where all employees that want to park for more than an hour are going to be forced to park in those blocks on the other side of Original Street on Hopkins and Hyman. When that happens the visitors in the Mountain House Lodge and the employees working there are going to have to get those parking places if they are going to be close to where they work or where they live. That is when it further impacts the resident that lives in the neighborhood long term. I can't see any way to solve it without somebody providing parking for their employees underground if they are going to be in a commercial operation such as a hotel or a lodge. Maurice Broden: I have lived here since 1970. I think what we are trying to do here is we are trying to keep our neighborhood. And the parking is just one real big problem. I think that is what is happening with this project here--I think is going to destroy that neighborhood which is getting to become a very rare item in the city of Aspen. All of these people are my neighbors. And we rely on you and hope that you protect us against changing of the neighborhoods. I would like to see that you give that some consideration besides the parking. Fred Luomo: It is a residential neighborhood. I don't want to see 18 hotel rooms across the street from me. Nor even 2 hotel rooms across the street from me. I would rather see something more fitting for that--a townhouse or whatever is fitting for it. There is not hardship created for that piece of property where somebody can't sell that property to a developer to develop more in character fitting for the neighborhood. I don't think anybody living in that neighborhood now wants to see any more lodge rooms in that area. John Gates: The concern of most of us is that they are going from 11 units to 29 units that are going to be short term tourist housing and only adding 14 parking spaces and wanting to put in a restaurant. We don't see any need at all for any kind of a restaurant. you are going to have is 2 years down the line the owner is to come to us and say "We have a hardship because we support the restaurant unless we open it to the public". the next meeting they want to add a liquor license to What going can't Then that. 7 PZM12.6.88 There are plenty of restaurants and services a couple blocks away in the C-C core. Then tripling the size of this place is pretty extreme. think that is what we are mostly concerned with. And I Jasmine then read into record letters from Florence Hose, 926 E. Hopkins, Marie J. Timms, acting manager of Larkspur Condominium Association on behalf of 10 owners of Larkspur Condominium, Jim Martin, owner unit #9, Gavilon Condominiums at 935 E. Hopkins, George and Elizabeth Woods, 830 East Hopkins, Mr. & Mrs. Ted Grossman, 916 East Hopkins, Tom Oken, President Queen victoria Condominium Association at 916 E. Hopkins, Stanley Shaffran, member of the Board of Directors of the Queen Victoria Condominium Association and Building Manager for the Association at 916 E. Hopkins. All of the above letters are attached in the records and all opposed the approval of this application. Jasmine then presented into the record 3 pages of petition with 48 signatures. This was also in opposition to the approval of this application. (Attached in records) Mick Ireland, representing Harvey Bass, owner of Lot A through E on Cleveland street at the East Aspen 33 addition: The problem we have with this application is with the parking. But in addition to the 14 and 18 problem we seem to have 7 employees and I don't know if these are full time or what they are but it seems if they are going to live on-site the 7 more spaces in addition to the shortfall of 4--that is a big concern. My other concern is looking at the elevations as they are represented there and the drawing there. It appear s that the only place that a delivery truck can park would be on Hopkins and it would be double parked. Considering the situation that everybody has pointed out with the use of commercial core employees parking on Hopkins as it is already, this will only increase the problem. Our objections are the parking problem and getting an encroachment for 4 spaces probably understates what this is going to achieve for the neighborhood. Cindy: Office service That was another reason for denial from the Planning respective of the restaurant. There isn't adequate delivery area for that. Gary Moore: On the corner of Hyman and Cleveland, everyone is trying to keep the neighborhood the same. 8 , PZM12.6.88 __?__: I would request that this Commission please do not change the zoning. Forget the variances. Do not change the zoning. That takes care of all the variances. Jasmine closed the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman: Regarding the restaurant: It is clear that the restaurant is a major concern both for the Planning Office and the neighbors. John is willing to limit the restaurant to the people who are staying at the lodge. presently people at the lodge have breakfast and lunch. what we are talking about is being able to provide an in-house situation for dinner as well. The restaurant will be limited to an in-house restaurant for lodge users only. John had no intention to converting into a bar. The only thing he was interested in was to be able to legally serve guests after ski drinks. If that is going to create a tremendous problem he would be more than willing to also drop his request for any kind of liquor license. parking: John is willing to provide 1 space per lodge room. If we do not get the encroachment license we will be forced to look at having to come with 14 rooms as opposed to 18 rooms. Studies have shown that the parking is only .4 per room up to .7. So when you supply 1 space per lodge room, you are exceeding the guidelines that are standardly accepted. This is a lower priced lodge with rooms going from $80 to $120. Most of the people who stay in this lodge do not rent cars. So that there are people who do but if he provides 1 space per bedroom not only does that meet the needs but it probably is going to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. In terms of compatibility the size does relate to a lot of surrounding buildings. people are tired of seeing that neighborhood having all of these secondary homes and large houses that don't really meet a community need which we feel a smaller less expensive lodge does meet. The applicant is willing to modify his request in order to eliminate the major concerns of the neighborhood relating both to the restaurant, a liquor license, the variance of parking for the lodge rooms. The lodge could also take on the responsibility of plowing those spaces in the back so that they are spaces that we will legitimately use. When you have the employees who do park in the front now parking in the spaces that are opening up in the rear, 9 PZM12.6.88 that would, in effect, open up the spaces in the front and open it up for people in the neighborhood as well. Cindy: This is a unique situation where it is surrounded by total residential. Bruce: I consider myself to be a champion of preserving our small lodges and want to do everything I can as a member of this Commission to do that. where I am having a problem with this application is that I understood the intent of the LP zone to preserve existing lodges in their present locations to allow limited expansion either on that site or the adjacent site. I think this application is going beyond what my conception of the LP zone was for. I really do have a problem because I am all for the small lodges being able to survive and stay economically viable and do some expansion to allow that to happen. But I think this application goes beyond what I would see in the LP zone. Michael: I think the application is inappropriate also. I don't have any problem with finding it inappropriate. If we are talking about balancing the community's needs for small lodges and preserving the small lodges--and we just went through an extensive session trying to preserve the residential character of the east end. I think if you balance the communi ty needs against the neighborhood needs then clearly the neighborhood needs should prevail. The neighborhood is here tonight and they have certainly spoken. I don't think this application is appropriate. I wouldn't support the rezoning. That would be the end of the issues. Jasmine: One of the reasons I wanted to bring up the rezoning first was that I felt that if the consensus of the Commission is as mine was that the rezoning is inappropriate given the present application there is no need to go into the other issues. I share Bruce's concerns about the importance of having and preserving small lodges which we have tried to do. I think what it comes down to in the application is really a matter of size. That is what causes all the problems. The whole idea of limited expansion in most people's minds is 5 or 6 rooms--something modest. Even if you then went onto an adjacent property, something small in scale especially compared to what is already there would be more acceptable as a limited expansion. That would be my idea of a limited expansion. 10 PZM12.6.88 If you didn't add that many rooms you wouldn't even think about putting in a restaurant. You wouldn't even think about having to have that many parking spaces and your FAR wouldn't be a problem. I agree with the residents of the neighborhood. It is impossible not to notice the tremendous congestion and parking that is going on in that area of town. All the comment that the public has made are very well taken and I would have to say that the Commission is in unanimous agreement that the rezoning in this particular instance is not appropriate. MOTION I would entertain a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning. Michael made the motion. Graeme seconded the motion. Roger: I tend to agree with the motion. I will vote against it because I think we should do the City Council a service and not just pass on the fact that we have denied it because we don't like the application. I think we should give a reason. I think there is a way for them to come up with an application to rezone this property which would get my support. I agree with you that I don't like this application. Gideon: We would ask that you table this rather than deny it to give us an opportunity to modify the application. Roger: I will move to table. Graeme seconded this motion. The motion to table passed. Roger made a motion to table the rezoning application and the continuation of the public hearing to a date certain of January 10, 1989. Graeme seconded this motion. All voted in favor. The decision with agreement of the applicant was made not to do the scoring on this application. Jasmine: I would entertain a motion that the other reviews that are related to this application also be tabled to January 10, 1989. 11 PZM12.6.88 Michael so moved. Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine: At this point we have the individual Commissioners indicate to you some of the areas of concern. Michael: The main concern I have is the neighbors. If you make the neighbors happy, then I am happy. That is a really important issue. We have very few neighborhoods in Aspen and I think the east that started out having lodges in it has certainly undergone a change and has become a residential area to a great extent and I understand their concerns. Roger: I agree totally with Micky's comment. My area is parking. Part of the size of this project is basically hinged on the available parking to support the project. We are hoping the Rio Grande parking structure will be a relief to that problem. To me the LP zone is supposed to take care of the sensitivity of the neighborhood and it is within our power to accommodate those more restrictive setbacks within the LP zone. The applicant will have to get this scaled with what I think is appropriate for the neighborhood. Graeme: I think the fact that a lot of employees are being housed here is a plus. But if you look at the site plan you can immediately tell that everything is maxed out and I don't consider this a limited expansion at all. If there were a proposal that would satisfy most of the legitimate gripes of the neighborhood and that would add some employee housing I could consider it. What a limited expansion is, I can't give you an idea right now but it would have to be considerably less than this. Bruce: In my opinion a limited expansion would certainly be not going from 11 rooms to 29. I think even doubling the size mayor may not meet that threshold of limited expansion. Whatever they do is going to have to satisfy the neighborhood or we will have the same problem on January lOth. I feel we must be sensitive to the neighbors. Jasmine: The Commission generally is in agreement on a lot of these things. I think you have a strong feeling here that the compatibility with the neighborhood is a primary concern for everybody on the Commission. I think that not only in terms of the area and bulk, parking and setbacks but as a planning thing, the sheer number of bodies that you put on a particular street be 12 PZM12.6.88 a considerable concern. Not just because of parking but because of the number of people. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:15pm. Lindner: I have asked Cindy if before January lOth if she will check--Mr. Har ris' s house is located here across from We st End Street and as he said he had to put in curbs and gutters along here. I am located right across the street. West end Street has a tremendous hump in the middle of it. The drainage problem is fairly severe to the point where I think Wayne has a problem during his construction phase with water from the snow melt in the first snows in November coming off and flooding some of his property. If we are looking at a situation where all of this is going to be done and improved and then they are going to come along and tear up all of West End--now we are talking about a major drainage problem--maybe somebody ought to find out what the City's plans are to do here and how it might eff~t this~ ~ Jani~~~~r~~~ Ci~utY-Clerk 13