HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930105
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 5. 1993
Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, David Brown,
Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre.
Bruce Kerr was excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
Cindy Houben reminded Commission that Tuesday January 12, 1993 at
5:00 is date of final public hearing on the Community Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15. 1992
Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson, Planning made presentation as attached in record.
After discussion Jasmine asked for public comment.
There was none.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the conditional use of a duplex at the
Block property at 311 North Street with conditions on the Planning
Office memo dated November 3, 1992 as iterated here: Condition #1
through #3, #5 and #6 as on said memo. (attached in record)
Condition #4 amended to read "Prior to issuance of any building
permit the owner shall pay the applicable cash-in-lieu amount as
calculated at the time of building permit for the amount of FAR
increase of the new dwelling unit or receive deferral of cash-in-
lieu by the Housing Department. said payment shall be made to the
city Finance Department for deposit on account. Copy of the
payment received must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
PZM1.5.93
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine: I have been really concerned about the kind of things
that can be done under guise of historic preservation. This is
something we have gone through before. I know that this is on our
list of things we would like to review. This application reminds
me to remind you that we want to review it again.
Diane: Maybe we can do a joint meeting with HPC in February.
SNARE RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING
111 WEST HYMAN
Jasmine onened the nubIic hearinq.
Kim submitted the notification of nubIic notice.
record)
(attached in
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Bill Griffith: We are satisfied with the staff's scoring of the
project.
Bill Snare, applicant: Gave history of property. Using drawings
and prints he instructed Commission on the project.
Richard pointed out snow shed problem into stairwell which
applicant said would be remedied.
Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none.
MOTION
Roger: Since this is the only application for the 1992 allocation
I move that P&Z accept the staff scoring on this project at 111
West Hyman Avenue. And that we accept the total score of 33.65
points and that the minimum point thresholds have all been met.
I further move to recommend City Council approve the GMQS exemption
for the category #1 deed restricted apartment as proposed within
the 111 West Hyman application and amendments.
David seconded the motion with additional conditions: That the
? assessments ? be worked out in some way per rata value
to the rest of the-project and that the language be submitted to
and approved by the Housing Authority prior to the--in relationship
to the management fees ___mumble___
Griffith: I don't know whether we are just going to use this as
2
PZMl. 5.93
a rental unit.
David: In that case I revise that to "If it were to be
condominiumized that any fees made the language be written in such
a way that the annual cost of the assessment be pro-rated to the
value of the rest of the property and that the language of that
assessment be a legal covenant to the condominium declaration and
be run by the Housing Authority.
Roger: I accept that amendment under the second part of my motion.
David: The design of the project be modified such that either a
dormer or whatever needs to keep snow from dumping into the
entryway at the garden level.
Griffith: If that is a problem we will check that for sure.
Roger: That might as well go into the second part of my motion as
well.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion.
Jasmine then closed the public hearing.
L/TR ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
David Brown stepped down from this hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Diane: One of the recommendations in the plan was looking at the
City, we have a lot of underutilized spaces and perhaps there is
an opportunity to utilize some of those. That is part of the basis
for this code amendment.
Roger: I have a problem with the way this is worded. I understand
why the hotel would prefer it this way because they may have
utilization from their operation from 100% down to 30% and this
might be a little difficult for them to predict.
I would really like to see this type of thing tied in with the
Parking and Transportation Director to co-ordinate the use of this
type of space on a month-to-month lease basis.
Diane: This is just a general text amendment now.
Kim: The text proposed by staff on page #5 says "Commercial
parking on a day use basis." So what Roger is talking about is
3
PZMl. 5.93
something other than that. So maybe we should look at "Day use or
monthly rental basis."
Perry Harvey: When we submitted this we would love to be able to
offer a monthly parking to people working in town. And we have had
inquiries about that. The reason I had put in day use was that
that parking #1 priority is for the hotel guests. And that hotel
guest is not only the people that are staying there. And on the
computer you will know how many guests have cars because that is
part of their check-in. But there are functions at night at the
hotel that require valet parking in that garage and if you have
monthly lease, how do you monitor--how do you control the fact that
those are not stored cars down there so that you don't run into a
situation impacting the neighborhood where there is a party in the
ballroom and it is 85 or 90% local attendies and they drive through
it and they want their cars parked and all of a sudden you are in
a--
Now I don't think that is a problem because with the valet parking
you can stack in there and you can handle that. But the reason we
went on day-use was so that as that demand from the hotel itself
plus if you can piece people in.
Roger: I wasn't thinking of monthly lease as someone parking their
car there for a month. It would be an agreement for someone to
occupy the space daily. To have that flexibility maximizes the use
of the spaces.
What we are finding is that Christmas and New Years the occupancy
of the hotel is not directly related to the occupancy of the
parking garage. In the winter about 30% of the guests or even less
have a car. The Ritz is offering their vans. You are right in
town so for the entire winter despite whether it is the week after
New Years or World Cup Week I think we are going to maintain a 25
to about 35% parking structure occupancy for the guests.
In the summer we may find more people may drive because that is the
experience of all lodges in town. But in the summer you don't have
quite the crunch. People will park farther away. More space is
open because of snow removal and more people ride bikes and walk.
So it relieves itself.
But if we go to 50% of our guests having cars in the summer time
that would be a constant ratio for the summer season. I don't
think that is going to happen.
Tim suggested a punch card system.
Harvey: This is our first year of operation. I would want to walk
into the water slowly. If I was going to do annual I think we
4
PZMl. 5.93
would want to do X number. I think if we were to do monthly we
would want to do a contract for the winter and then re-evaluate it.
And a contract for the summer and re-evaluate it so that we don't
get into a situation where--
If there are 50 long-term leases for parking in that garage and 2
people leave their cars overnight that isn't going to cause a
problem. But all 50 of those people aren't going to leave their
cars on the same night. So I have to sit down and talk with the
management of the hotel about how they would like to do it.
They have talked about doing a monthly program to people with ski
storage so that they could come and park there when they went to
work or park there on a regular basis. What we do with the
capacity beyond that I don't know. Do we get on the ski and road
report in the morning and say there are 50 spaces left and then
they call up and say there aren't any more and you hope that enough
of these people that are driving around are listening to the radio.
The Little Nell is in the commercial core so they have the right
to do this and they have done this with their parking.
Diane: They typically have about 40 or 50% of their spaces
available most of the year. I know several people that buy a 3 or
4 month parking pass with them. So they have their monitoring
system down fairly well based on the occupancy of the hotel. It
works and they also still have available spaces.
Kim: On page #5 after the phrase "Commercial parking on a day use"
and insert "Or longer basis ".
Harvey: Or just take out "On a day use". Say "Commercial parking
for fluxuating demand on parking". I would like something passed
on to Council that would indicate that you guys discussed this and
some of your thoughts on this.
Jasmine: This is not very clear. If this is going to be in the
code I think it should be clearer.
"Limited usage of commercial parking in the LTR zone within a
parking structure or garage."
After several attempts at language--
Richard: Commercial parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on
a parcel occupied by lodge, hotel or other commercial entity.
Roger: I would like to get established somewhere that the
Transportation Director be tied into this type of operation.
5
PZMl. 5.93
Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none.
MOTION
Richard: I move to approve an amendment to section 24-214. (c) of
the Aspen Municipal Code adding a new use for the LTR zone district
to read at #5 of that section on a conditional usage "Commercial
parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on a parcel occupied by
a lodge, hotel or other commercial operation".
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Diane made presentation as attached in record.
Harvey: The Grande Hotel has to be demolished. There will be a
new building on that site and that will be subject to P&Z and
Council full review.
Sara: And that building will contain hotel units and maybe a
separate building will have condominiums
Harvey: There could be hotel units on the ground floor and resi-
dential condominium units. It will take some creative design work.
Roger: I look at this as lodge and tourist residential. And when
you fly out the word "residential" without the "tourist" in front
of it I get a little worried that these units are going to become
a permanent residence if they are condominiumized. I am not sure
that I like the idea of permanent residences in the area of the
Blue Spruce. What is going to be the operation of this?
Harvey: I submitted a letter which is attached. In the LTR there
are no rental restrictions on the units. Galena Place or North of
Nell or the Fasching Haus are a mix of short-term and non short-
term. I guess there are some permanent residents living there.
These units will be serviced by the hotel. The parking will be
done on a valet basis. Room service will be provided. Maid
service will be provided. Ski storage downstairs in the sports
activity center. They will have all the facilities of the hotel
available for these units.
What we are doing is creating residential condominiums. I think
because of the amenities of the hotel that these units or the
majority of them will be rented when they are not occupied by the
owner. If it is a corporation it will be rented. If it is an
individual it mayor may not be.
6
PZMl. 5.93
Can they be not rented? Yes. Can they be owner/occupied on a
permanent resident basis? Yes. Is that a likely outcome given the
structure of the hotel and the service? I don't think so. If we
require these to be short-term through the Ritz we get into federal
security filing and FEC and a half million dollars worth of
documentation you have got to file and it just not worth it. I
don't think there is anything in the code that requires that.
Diane: You seem to feel it is going to be short-term.
Harvey: Yes. I think so.
Jasmine: It would seem that it may not necessarily be short-term
rental. But as you say if a corporation buys it, it will probably
be short-term occupied. Companies rotate guests and important
dignitaries in and out of the available space and so they maintain
that for guests even though it is not technically a rental.
These rentals will have full kitchens?
Harvey: Yes.
Jasmine: From what you probably will be charging for them, it is
not likely you are going to have locals living in there long term.
Harvey: I don't think so.
There was discussion regarding employee mitigation.
Diane: When this was all initiated in 1985 they actually provided
more employee housing than they were identified for. But that was
part of the deal. That was the deal that was signed by the city
and signed by the applicant so in terms of getting down to fine
details our mitigation for affordable housing has evolved in fact
and is probably more restrictive now. But everybody agreed to
that. Now all they are doing is shifting around.
Tim: If there were residents being built now they have, according
to Ord. #1, certain mitigations. And I am wondering if the City
is getting what it deserves from all this shuffling. They can
shuffle all they want but what they are actually doing is having
something new and different to merchandise, something new and
different for people to live in the City, something new and
different that they didn't say they were going to have in '85.
Diane: Ord. #1 came into effect in 1990 and that requires you to
provide X amount of mitigation. Back in 1985 when they were going
through their employee mitigation for this project they had to also
provide mitigation for the employees they were displacing and that
7
PZMl. 5.93
was identified as 29 employees. They addressed that. They have
met that obligation and they do not fall under Ord. #1 today.
They are not adding residential units in the overall PUD. They are
just shuffling them around. They are being rotated to a different
lot. So whether they are built on #3 or #5 they have still met
their employee housing mitigation.
Jasmine: If the condominium residential units managed through
another sui table management organization doesn't that have an
employee impact?
Harvey: It is our intention to have a maintenance agreement which
separates maintenance from management which is rental management.
Whereby the condominium association will deal with Ritz Carlton for
maintaining corridors, elevators, exterior, maid service--that kind
of thing.
In terms of rental management if someone-we can't say you have to
use so and so. If someone wants to use Coates, Reid for their
rental management I don't think would affect the employee
generation because the actual exterior and interior maintenance of
the building will be done by the Ritz Carlton. So Ritz won't
eliminate an employee in their reservations dept if one of these
or two of these units are managed by somebody else in town. And
I can't see if someone isn't providing maintenance for the unit and
snow removal and everything else at Coates Reid, they are not going
to put out a reservationist or employee.
I would like to make 2 corrections to the staff recommendation.
Under #3--Future development of Lot #3 and #5, strike #3. And then
on page 14, Item #10 it should read as follows: "There shall not
be more than 6 residential units and not more than 12 bedrooms on
Lot #l-A".
What that does is it gives them the flexibility they have 4 units
with 3 bedrooms or whatever--a combination. They are in the
process right now of determining the actual unit to bedroom mix.
Harvey: In your staff recommendation it is confusing on this
management maintenance again. And it is #6-B. "Condominium
residential units will be managed through the Ritz Carlton Hotel
or other suitable management organization." Is that management in
terms of maintenance? Is it management in terms of rentals?
Diane: Yes. That is what we were looking at.
Harvey: Is that a requirement for rental?
Diane: No. It is not a requirement for rental. I think that you
......"~.-
8
PZMl. 5.93
had made the actual statement in your application that they will
either be managed through the Ritz Carlton Hotel or other suitable
management organization.
Harvey: But I am differentiating between maintenance and
management.
If your intention is that the building be maintained in connection
with Ritz Carlton Hotel building so that, as Bob said, if it
doesn't appear to be a separate project. So that it has common
maintenance. So if we could re-write that so that it states that
they be building management.
Roger: Just start out "Rental management shall be through the Ritz
Carlton Hotel or other suitable management". Then "Maintenance
aspect of it shall be a function of the Ritz Carlton".
Harvey: I would like to address building and grounds maintenance
through the Ritz Carlton. I would just as soon leave the rental
management out of it.
Diane: That is fine.
Jasmine: If you are changing it to maintenance
another suitable management company maintain it.
that out.
we are not having
So we should take
Roger: Why don't you just say "The maintenance of the grounds and
the building of the condominiumized portion and the building of
the condominiumized portion".
Harvey: It is all going to be condominiumized. The ground floor
as well as the rest of it.
Roger: Right. Of the condominiumized portion, in other words the
Blue spruce.
?: And I guess technically what you ought to do too is rather than
make it so specific you should probably just tie it to the hotel
operator.
Harvey: One of the things that we are dealing with on this
building, we have to envision that it is stuck back into the hill.
S
Using drawings described stairway--"What we would like to do is add
stairs that come up under the bridge and into the intermediate
level. Dean Street is vacated. So it is internal to the site and
it's a stairway that would go up and access this corridor which
divides the units. Then someone on that intermediate level now has
9
PZMl. 5.93
3 ways to get to their unit.
Roger: There has been a major change that has an effect on the
service aspect of this building. Originally this was supposed to
be a restaurant on this level, wasn't it?
Harvey: Waaaaay back.
Roge:: But that was supposed to be service through the hotel
serv~ce. Is the sport shop going to be serviced through the hotel
service entrance?
Harvey: This is the service dock for the hotel.
Roger: Is that also the service dock for the sport shop? Are we
gong to have to deal with that on Durant street?
Harvey used the drawings to describe deliveries.
Roger: I am concerned because it is
transport-vans and things like that.
service your building--
that area where you park your
Now are you going to have to
Harvey: All of that is internal to Dean street if not on Durant
street.
Joe Wells: When we did our employee generation figures the number
that were incorporated assumed the demolition of the Grande Aspen
Lodge units and that really wasn't really the way they should have
been stated. On and error basis there will be 150 rooms operating
in the Grande Aspen plus the 257 rooms within the Ritz. I have re-
calculated those numbers just so that that correction is on the
record.
It is kind of a mute discussion because we will do the audit at
some point in the future but it was a mistake. It should be
corrected. And it changes the employee generation with this phase
of the project from 141.9 to 151.3. And we are housing 198.5.
Harvey: One thing we had done on the parking--the PUD did a
parking analysis in 1985 and it showed at that time that for
residential units within the PUD a studio and 1 bedroom and 2
bedroom should have 1 space per unit. A 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom,
2 spaces per unit. We feel that it is very probable that we are
not going to have 1 space per bedroom unless you have all 1-
bedroom units. When people are coming to this particular location
with this particular product you are not going to have if you have
a 3 bedroom condominium, 3 cars coming up all the time.
We feel that parking analysis is out of date and for the lots #3
10
PZMl. 5.93
and #5 submission we are going to have to redo it. We have the
capacity to designate in the amended PUD agreement and a
maintenance agreement with the hotel that there shall be maximum
of 12 spaces or 1 space per bedroom if we do 10 bedrooms or 11
bedrooms. So we don't have a problem with that and I think that
it is not going to affect the topic we just talked about in terms
of valet parking because while we can set aside that many spaces
within the parking structure for this element I don't think we are
going to get them filled up. But we will do that.
In going over the stair on that Dean Street accessing that
intermediate level, I would like to add another condition to the
approval. The fact that if you so chose there shall be stair
access according to plan from Dean Street to the intermediate level
of the Blue Spruce building.
The amended plan shall include a stairway from Dean Street to the
intermediate level subject sign-off by Engineering. I would like
it to be a staff review. I would like it to say if the P&Z has no
objection subject to site review and sign-off by the Engineering
Dept--
Roger: The Planning & Zoning commission has no objection to a
stair access from Dean Street subject to staff approval--
Jasmine: That would be the second level?
Harvey: From Dean Street to the second level of the
condominiumized building on Lot #l-A.
Jasmine: Subject to the approval of staff approval. To be worded
"P&Z has no objection to stair access from Dean Street to the
second level of the condominiumized building on Lot #l-A subject
to staff approval".
Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none and she closed
the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendments for Lot
#1, #3 and #5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Subdivision of
Lot #1 to create a new Lot #l-A and subdivision exemption for
condominiumization of the former Blue Spruce site with the
conditions as outlined on Planning Office memo dated January 6,
1993 (attached in record) specifically #1 and #2 verbatim.
#3 the first part of which should be modified to read "Future
development of Lot #5 shall not exceed" and then continuing.
Conditions #4, #5 as stated. #6 has been modified specifically B
11
PZMl. 5.93
shall read "The condominium residential units will be maintained
through the Ritz Carlton Hotel operator". And C verbatim.
Condition #7, #8 and #9 as stated in the memo. Condition #10 shall
be modified to read that there shall not more than 6 residential
units and not more than 12 bedrooms on Lot #l-A.
New condition #11 "The P&Z has no objection to a stair access from
Dean street to the second level of the condominiumized building on
Lot #l-A subject to staff approval".
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 7:00 PM.
y Deputy Clerk
12