Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19921208 ~J.CJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr and Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: What is going on with Ronnie Marshal's hot tub? Leslie: We are in litigation with them right now. Sara: But if something is red tagged, can it still be operating? A couple of neighbors called me on this. It is in use and bubbling. Leslie: We will ask Jed about that. Sara: I thought if something was red tagged it is sort of in purgatory. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Next Tuesday is our non-compliance with Zaluba. Roxanne: On November 3rd you reviewed a conditional use application for Mr. Block at 311 West North. Mr Block is here. We had begun to process that prior to finishing the landmark designation application. You tabled action until after a point where Council was to review it for second reading. Since then the applicant has revised so that all parking requirements on that. HPC has already given it conceptual approval. Jasmine: What you are saying is that it is not likely that the Council will then reject the designation after having passed it the first time. Roxanne: That's correct. conditional upon -- Your conditional use would be Jasmine: I personally don't see any problem with this. Do any of the members of Commission see any problems with maintaining the January 5th schedule with this item. There was no objection. cindy Houben: Asked members to plan 5:00 on the 16th of December for a joint meeting with the County Commissioners. Everyone agreed to this. PZM12.8.92 PUBLIC COMMENT There were none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 3. 1992 Bruce Kerr made a motion to approve these minutes. Richard Compton seconded the motion with all in favor. 419 EAST HYMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim presented the public notice. (attached in record) Then made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked the applicant if the conditions of approval as set forth by the Planning Office were acceptable to them. They had no comment regarding the conditions. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Sara: I move to approve conditional use for a satellite dish antenna on the roof of 419 East Hyman with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated December 8, 1992. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN BODY BUILDING CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A FITNESS FACILITY IN SCI ZONE Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim presented the public notice. (attached in record) Then made presentation as attached in record. After questions from Commission-- Jasmine: I think that a fitness facility such as the one which Joe has in mind is definitely more in keeping with the idea of the SDI Zone and the kind of locally oriented health and fitness related 2 PZM12.8.92 establishments that are already there rather than a fitness facility which could in fact be very luxurious and have spas and steambaths that he is trying not to provide and keep the cost down for people. Joe Vernier, applicant: The cost for fitness in this town is way out of control for what you get. For people who want to train with weights or stairmaster, they have a choice now. They can either pay the high prices of the Aspen Club or they can come to the Bleeker street Gym and train there for a very fair price. There is a dance studio and studio but Fitness Focus is a gym. They have pull down machines. She has leg extension machines, the weight training facility and that is going to be right across the street from me. But she is an expensive personal training spa. I am going to be a gym for everybody. Jasmine: The material that you have put in with your presentation makes it very clear as to what you do and I would tend to agree that that is something that we don't have in this town. And it would be good to have. She then asked for public comments. There were none. Bruce: with apologies to sunny--I find it refreshing that we have got an applicant that is in here without planning professionals and all the fancy stuff that goes along with it. And I think it says to me that it is possible, no matter how difficult we may think it is, for an average citizen to come before this commission and make a presentation and hopefully get approval. The other Commissioners agreed. MOTION Richard: I move to approve the conditional use for the Aspen Body Building Center at 615 East Bleeker Street with the conditions #l through #4 as recommended in the Planning Office memo dated December 8, 1992. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. OXLEY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. She presented 3 PZM12.8.92 proof of public notice. (attached in record) After questions and discussion: Jasmine asked for public comments. There were no comments. MOTION David: I move to approve the 310 foot net liveable area accessory dwelling unit with conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo dated December 8, 1992 conditions #1 through #6 with the additional condition #7 that the roof design be such that snow neither shed into the primary access and secondary egress stair and window wells. Tim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, no, Bruce, no, Jasmine, yes. Motion carried. Jasmine closed the public hearing. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMOS SCORING SPECIAL REVIEW AND TEXT AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. She presented public notice. (attached in record) Gary Wright, attorney for applicant: Brought Commission up to date on background of lodge and the owners. Jim Harding of Charles Cunniff and Assoc: The basic design intent of the building is to keep the existing structure in tact as well as the existing use. If you drive by it is almost a park-like setting. And we tried to keep the building stepping back from the corner itself and keep the corner as open as possible and land- scaping the courtyard itself. We are eliminating the curb cut on cooper Street now. We have added certain amenities on the site to help improve things such as a new bench at the existing bus stop that is there, barbecue areas for the guests, a spa/pool area, relocation more than anything else, bike rack for the guests and the employees who are living in this We tried to recirculate all the service areas into the back alley so all service comes off this area into the back of the hotel. So we tried to eliminate the UPS guy and the Federal Express from actually stopping on cooper Street and blocking the traffic. 4 PZM12.8.92 We have eliminated all but 2 parking spaces on the site itself and have created an underground parking area. As far as the building what we basically came up with was a residential character. Comments are "Little Nellish". After spending 2 and 1/2 years as project manager under Little Nell, yes, it is a Little Nell. So we have tried to keep the character of a residential feel by having it be a little more roo fee than the existing building or the Concept 600 building so it is not this big mass that stands out. The roof actually starts helping drop the building down and then we have added dormers to break up the mass so we are not presenting this huge mass. And by stepping it back, this particular element here goes back here so we are stepped off cooper Street quite a ways. We are completely handicapped accessible. We have provided an elevator for drop-off. It goes to the lobby from the parking area so people that have historically used the building will be able to come in and actually just park, go to the lobby and check in. We have a small service kitchen and breakfast area upstairs overlooking the lobby itself. We have created ski storage for guests. We have also tried to have a view for each guest room. Materials we have looked at are low maintenance. is very similar to Little Nell with stone base and on the outside with the interior courtyard being a it and warm softer colors. Essentially it possibly stucco warm feeling to TEXT AMENDMENT Kim: Made presentation in favor of this text amendment. Jasmine summarized: So what this text amendment is proposing is that instead of 1 space per bedroom in LP that it be reduced to .7 spaces per bedroom of which .2 may be supplied by cash-in-lieu. Kim: Correct, upon special review. Jasmine: But the .7 is not subject to special review. That is just a reduction. I am very much in favor of this project. My concern however is with the superblock and how we are able to potentially tie in this underground parking with our dream of underground parking being throughout that whole block. So I need to hear from you as to how you have addressed that, whether you have kept the superblock concept in mind and whether it is going to be physically possible to interconnect this garage with a future garage that may be built 5 PZM12.8.92 on other parts of that superblock and how we can proceed accordingly or whether we just have to ignore it and score it and let you build your new lodge there and have somebody at some point in time have to condemn it and buy it in order to do our parking garage. Wright: I think that the superblock is great. I have seen in the 18 years I have been in this community dozens of great ideas. Some happen. Some linger on and on and on and on. And I think for the fundamental fairness issue to the applicant to in any way burden this project and what is happening now with the GMQ thing scoring with something that we would all love to see happen in our future being so negative Planning Office say on page 4 of the memo they have acknowledged it and what we can do is depending on when we build and depending on when and if the superblock becomes reality we can certainly permit the underground parking to be tied into the greater area of underground parking. Sunny Vann: Having been involved with the Bell Mountain Lodge for several different applications I remember when we first came to P&Z with a proposal to rezone the property back to O-Office because the lodge use was going to be terminated. The cappeli's were going to sell it because there was no interest in using it as a lodge and we had a 2-level subgrade garage. Council was not interested in pursuing that alternative. We had a residential application at one point which we had a deadline and did not submit because of a variety of reasons regarding the Planning Office concern of what the most appropriate use for the site. That was Lodge. And at this point that is the use before you. The Cappel is have no other alternative for the use of this property. They can't sell it for O-Office. They can't walk away from it. So they have come in with an application to expand it, renovate it as a lodging facility. Now we are hearing "Well we may want to put a parking garage below it. So why don't you just sit on it the way it is for a couple of years till we figure out how to build a garage under the whole block". This has a sUbgrade garage. How it would relate to any other subgrade garage is only speculation depending on the timing on this project and the timing of the city going forward with whatever they may develop. But at least we will have one other aspect of the community Comprehensive Plan which is the preservation of older lodges. We will have addressed and we will have addressed it in a particularly an area of the City where it is very visible and I think will be an asset to the community. In reality the architect has no ability to design a garage except to meet his own needs. We have no idea what, if any, garage will be built there, how many levels will be. About the only thing the 6 PZM12.8.92 applicant could do is defer construction of this project until the city makes up it's mind. Given the history of such projects in this community I think that is an unreasonable request. If the City has plans for specific for a parking garage they should be putting property owners on notice in that regard. And that has not occurred. So all we can really say is that it is one level below and tell you where the access is. Leslie: For example you access is--was your access designed only within the parameter of your property or would your access design also to if potentially in the future you had to break out that wall is that a possibility. Harding: The access in this particular case was for the project. However not knowing where the access would be for the superblock parking we do have the option of coming in off the north side and taking that wall out. It would be eliminating our ramp and actually extending to the east. But without knowing anything further on where the actual access to the superblock will be we can't do too much about it. David: To be fair to the applicant I have to concur with Gary and Sunny's comments that as desirable as I think the superblock is and as much as I would like to see it and as much as I would like to see some entity whether it is a joint venture with the applicant and other entities on the block including the City come to bout at this point that the applicant can only fairly respond and work with what they know for sure. And but at the same time it is hard for them short of a masterplan showing where columns would be for a block and a half parking garage whether it is one or two stories- - without having that to respond to my only guess is that we are looking at a tear-down and rebuild that it is very unlikely that this would have any relationship to any future parking structure as desireable as that would be. I thin the actual reality is if this were ever built and if at some future date we would be looking at a larger structure this would be a tear-down and rebuild. Jasmine: I don't think that is necessarily true. I think what we are looking for from the applicant is an indication that if and when the City does come up with some kind of an underground parking scheme that the applicant has not done anything that would preclude it which they have not because that is entirely their property now. And that if that should come about if the applicant would do their- -would attempt to work with the city in joining their parking to the additional underground parking. Sunny: We can certainly represent that we will co-operate with the city. 7 PZM12.8.92 Tim: You can tell by the last vote that we had that we are all kind of frustrated architects. I am looking at page 26 of the memo and it seems to me that for the highest and best use of what is going on here when you guys go into the ground and you are going to excavate a subgrade garage and you are going to put in 21 spaces, why didn't you excavate the entire site and why didn't you knowing that parking is one of our really sticky issues why didn't you say that we realize that if we put it in now while we are in the ground, while we are doing the renovation, it will probably be cheaper for the applicant, it will probably have the longest and highest and best use and it will satisfy our requirements and probably give another 10 spaces. Harding: A lot of it has to do with expense. What we tried to do is we tried to put together a basic design, a package with parameters based on their experience of running a lodge based on the goal to keep it a type of establishment that attracts families, not people that fly in in their own jets and things like that. And we tried to ask for and develop as little as possible. It gets really expensive to add another space or two spaces below grade. Tim: When is it going to be more reasonable to put those spaces in? Once you go in the ground the longest range foresight, I would think, and plan would be to once you get in there, do the best job you can do. Once you get to this review, have as many parking spaces to offer the city as possible. Harding: We have as many as we can afford. It would be nice to put a parking space under every square inch of property that Bell Mountain owns. At some point for the private entity on their own property it is just really significantly diminishing return. And the thing is we have designed it as if the Capellis are able to obtain construction financing, build it and run it in the future. And our perception is we have got more places down there than we need already. sunny: The practical matter is if this goes in in advance of the parking garage, the alley is probably going to remain with utilities and circulation mid block through the whole superblock. It probably wouldn't make sense to cut into our property just to make up a couple more parking spaces along that back strip. Jasmine: The applicant has committed they will co-operate with the City if and when this ever does get built. And I really think that is as much as we can possibly ask of them at this point. so let's get back to the text amendment for the parking spaces. She then asked for public comment. There was none. 8 PZM12.8.92 MOTION Jasmine: I would as for a motion concerning either recommending approval or disapproval of the text amendment. Sara: I move to recommend that text amendment to City Council for the parking in the LP Zone as recommended by staff. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Richard: I move to approve the parking plans of Bell Mountain Lodge on the basis of the amended text and find that special review is not necessary insofar as they are less than 1/2--they are within 1/2 space of meeting the requirements of section 5-301(e) of the Land Use Code--or that section 5-301(e) specifies that fractional spaces lower than 1/2 space be disregarded so that no payment-in- lieu is required. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Kim made presentation as per memo. The applicant is providing 63% of the generation of employees. The threshold minimum for affordable housing is 60%. We find that this meets the threshold percentage wise. The Housing Office is in favor of the proposal as it is laid out. Jasmine: So the revised housing plan satisfies the requirement for affordable housing based at this approximate level of service. So we can vote to recommend to Council approval for GMQS exemption for the affordable housing. MOTION Tim: I so move. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. LODGE SCORING Jasmine: We have the option of going through and scoring on this ourselves. We can move to adopt the scoring that was provided to us by consensus of the Planning Office. Jasmine: What I would like to suggest is that, since this is well over threshold, we move to accept the Planning Office scoring and 9 PZM12.8.92 then give our own comments. Richard: I agree. And since nobody else is competing it isn't like they are going to make it and somebody else isn't. Everyone agreed they did not want to score this. MOTION David: I move that we adopt the scoring of the Planning Office in regards to the Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS application. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. MUlti-year allocation discussion followed this vote. Richard: I have no comment regarding the application. recommend a multi-year allocation. I do Tim: I am totally in favor of this application. And I think that it is OK with me if we draw from the future on the allocations and I think that we should ask staff to clarify what has gone on and what can go on with the past allotments because if we draw from future allocations now that we can't go back to '90 or '91 and I think that there are going to be very valuable allocations in the future and so I am willing to take from the future and I would really like to have some kind of direct determination on what we had left over in the past. Bruce: I have no comments about any specific parts of the application. My only comment is that I think 40 rooms kind of pushes the level of what I perceive as a small lodge. Maybe 40 rooms is necessary on that site to make it economically workable particularly if you have to put parking underground. I understand all of that. It is just that when you move into 40 rooms in my view you are no longer a small lodge. And again I won't try and argue about the employee housing requirements but when you move beyond a certain level and these folks have been in business 30 years. They know this. When you move beyond the 20 to 25 room kind of operation the multiple that you have to increase your employees is more than just the same as the number of rooms that you are adding. It changes a little bit the character of your operation. So I don't have any problems with the application. I think it is a great project in spite of the fact it looks like a Little Nell. I think that we need to be aware that by approving this project it is not really a small lodge anymore. It is becoming a little bigger lodge. And that depends on what your perspective is of a 10 PZM12.8.92 small lodge. Some folks think the Limelight is still a small lodge and they have got 60 to 65 rooms. And in one sense they are. In terms of they way you have to operate, you don't operate like a small lodge like our friend Al Blomquist operates his place. It is just no possible with 40 rooms to do it that way. I am in favor of mUlti-year allocation. My preference would be to recommend that if Council sees is in their discretion to do so and the City Attorney will approve it to go back and use previous year's unused allocations rather than to take future years but I don't' have a problem with going into future years if that is what is required in order to get the project done. Sara: I like seeing this upgraded. I am always concerned about Canyons on the streets. And I don't know what is going to happen with city Market but you are within FARs and you have tried to visually reduce mass so I like that and I like that you have gone underground for the parking. I am really in favor of this reduced parking for the LP Zone because I think the more parking spaces you have, the more cars you have. And you don't need parking in this area. I don't think most of the LP lodge do no matter where they are. You are replacing the fireplace. That is great. And I also like the park setting that you have given to that corner. I am for future year allocation. David: I agree with the rest of the Board that the general intent of the applicant is really great. The general design intent is very good. The upgrading of their product is going to make Aspen resort stronger and more competitive with the other resort opportunities. I commend you for that. However looking at the community's interest the 1975 Masterplan showing this site as a parking garage and the current masterplan which has not been adopted but which is tentatively been forwarded to city council for approval also showing this a s a mixed use activity center/parking garage type of structure, because of those masterplans and the fact that this particular application does not conform with that I am not inclined to favor future or retroactive allotments. Jasmine: I think that this is an excellent project. I probably am the only member of the Commission that was on the Commission when the LP and LTR Zones first cam into being. But I think this is the kind of project that we would have liked to see. That was what we had in mind when we put these zones into effect. As much as we may like the idea of a superblock there is no 11 PZM12.8.92 question this is a terrific location for a lodge. You are a block and a half from the gondola. You are right downtown. And so I think that that use is really important and I am very happy to see an expanded lodge use there. I think an intensification of lodge use there is a very sensible way to use land because you are putting people who want to stay near the mountain in that density near the mountain. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think your design is quite attractive. And I like the fact that you have retained as much as possible that kind of park/tree facade on Cooper street. The only thing that I quarrel with the plan at all is on the north elevation especially because there is potential re-development there, that is a very plain facade now. And whether there is going to be those little work and live units over on the Kraut property or even just residential units or maybe some commercial units over there I think that if you had some more detailing on that north facade, it would be more attractive. As we get into more and more re-development in the City which is what we are going to be seeing because there just aren't that many open lots we want to encourage greater density in areas that can take it and your underground parking is a very valuable part of that. But as that whole block is re-developed as all other blocks get re-developed we should be more conscious of what is going on in the alleys. When we have a chance to make an alley facade more attractive and workable that is something we should be asking of all applicants in the future. In general I am really pleased with this project and I would be much in favor of multi-year allocations so they can actually get going. I don't really care whether it is from the past or the future. From what I hear from the rest of the Commission that we would be willing to recommend the multi-year allocation--I think we should leave the technical details of where it comes from to the Council. Kim: So I am hearing from you that you would like to see multi- year allotments no matter whether they are from the future or past year. MOTION Jasmine: Would somebody recommend mUlti-year allocation-- Richard: I move to recommend multi-year allocation from growth management quotas be granted to LP Lodge units for the Bell Mountain Lodge re-development. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor except David. 12 PZM12.8.92 Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. There being no further business Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 7:05 PM. Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 13