Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19851119 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANlHNG AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm with Commissioners' Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jim Colombo, Al Blomquist, David White and Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS · COMIIBR'J.'S Peyton said she had recently attended a City Council meeting regarding the Little Nell proj ect and had been told by the City Attorney to be careful about the comments she made so as not to jeopardize her vote on the SUbject when the review came back before this Commission. Ms. Peyton asked for clarification. Motion: Blomquist moved to request a full legal oplnlon and description of a Bill of Rights and the responsibilities of the Planning Commission members~ Peyton seconded. Discussion: White said the Attorney had told him if there was something that came to City Council before it came before this Commission then the Commissioners had to be careful not to state their opinion publicly as it could reflect to the applicant that the Commissioner was prejudice before it came before the Commiss- ion. Tygre said she would rather start with a more narrow base, 1 ike guidel ines on bias rather than conflict of interest. Anderson asked that the City Attorney be present at the next meeting for clarification of these matters. Blomquist said he would rather have the clarification in writing. Hunt said he would like to amend Blomquist's motion to include that the City Attorney would present what he had written himself, as an agenda item, so the issue could be discussed. Blomquist agreed to amend his motion ~ Peyton agreed to amend her second. All in favor~ motion carried. MIND'l'ES October 8. 1985: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of October 8, 1985~ Tygre seconded. All in favor~ motion carried. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARNING AND Z ORING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 INFORMATIONAL UPDATE Alan Richman, Planning Director, gave the Commissioners' a memorandum updating City Council's actions with respect to the Little Nell Conceptual SPA. Richman said he had talked with the Mayor who commented that it was important for Council to get opinions of this Commission, including any minority opinions. Written comments by the individual members was suggested or a Council agenda item under "Advisory Committee votes", allowing key points to be carried forward by the planners. Motion: Blomquist moved to accept Richman's suggestion to carry forward the Planning Commissions concerns and key points as a City Council agenda item under "Advisory Committee votes"~ White seconded. All in favor~ motion carried. PUBLIC BEARINGS S'1'REAII MARGIN CODE AMENDMENTS Anderson opened the public hearing. Steve Burstein, planner, explained this was a request to make various revisions to the Stream Margin Review section of the code. Chuck Roth, Engineer, said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not satisfied with the current ordinance, therefore, changes had been made. Mr. Roth said an amendment was also being made to Chapter 20-17 of the Municipal Code, adding an 8th section titled "Flood Hazard Areas", so that any subdivision proposed within flood hazard areas would have to address criteria not addressed before. The Stream Margin Review usually addresses a building and this will address the subdivision of land without a building on it. Mr. Roth said the wording would read: "all subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, public utilities and facilities located in construction to minimize flood damage, etc." Anderson said if the code was going to be amended then the language should be included in memorandum form for the Commissions' review. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 Motion: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing until meeting on December 3, 1985~ Tygre seconded. motion carried. the next regular All in favor~ TIMESHARE CODE AMENDMENTS Steve Burstein, planner, explained that city Council had reviewed this in November and initiated code amendments. Essentially the amendments are to keep the limitation of $100 on gifts other than travel and to not limit the inspection trips, although the planning office is recommending some limitation. In addition, the licensing fee is to be set up on a graduated basis (outlined in planning office memorandum dated November 13, 1985) based on the number of units. Hunt said he agreed with keeping the limitation on gifts, and agreed with the Planning Office that there should be some control of the travel. Hunt suggested setting up some specified limit and that the perspective buyer should contribute to the travel in some way. If that is abused there should be teeth in the ordinance that in effect the timeshare administrator should be subject to travel damages of first class equivalent air fare. White agreed that part of the fee should be reimbursed by the realtor and the prospect should have to pay something. White commented that he thought the recommended licensing fee was cutting the City too short. Blomquist said he would go along with licensing at $3,000 for the project plus $100 per unit. Hunt said he would agree with that. Blomquist said he would not change the transportation and free lodging issue. He questioned if that type of tactic was what the City wants real estate business in Aspen to be. When timeshare was originally considered it was determined it should be a normal part of normal real estate business as opposed to a high pressure system. It was also designed that the timeshare sold in Aspen would be sold as normal real estate, by normal Aspen real estate salesman, responding to voluntary inquiry by people already in Aspen on vacation. Blomquist said this restriction was the only method that stopped the drawing in of people solely for the purpose of the timeshare sales pitch. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 Hunt agreed with Blomquist but felt City Council was requesting this as it is currently proposed. Hunt thought Blomquist's position should be forwarded to Council, expressing that the Commission prefers travel not be included but if included that it be required that the prospect participate in at least 50% of the travel costs. Tygre agreed but thought Blomquist's points were too important not to be reiterated and stated emphatically. If another recommendation is included it should be simply a fall back position. Motion : Blomquist moved to recommend to City Council that Section 20-24 (E) (3) (c) and Section 20-24 (0) (2) remain as is without change and that Section 20-24 (S) (s) should be amended to read: "for each license issued under the provisions of this paragraph an annual fee shall be paid according to the following schedule: a. $2,000 for the project b. $100. per unit "~ Tygre seconded. Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Discussion: Hunt asked if there could be a Resolution sent to Council with the rationale expressed by Blomquist, to be signed by the Chairman of this Commission, adding that a reducing sliding scale fee was placing the wrong incentive in to the system. Blomquist agreed to amend his motion to reflect this change, Tygre agreed to amend her second. White opposed, all others in favor~ motion carried. NEW BUSINESS BAAR LOT SPLIT Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request. Currently Lot 1 appears to go 4 feet in to the pavement of the road, therefore, the applicant is requesting a vacation of 12 feet, leaving 18 feet of right-of-way. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REG~ MEETING PLARNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBBR 19. 1985 Hunt asked what the right-of-way on the adjoining property was. Elyse Elliott, Engineer, replied there was a 30 foot dedication to the south and no dedication to the north. In essence, the right-of-way necks down 30 feet right after leaving the Baar Subdivision. Next to Meadows Rd. is the Aspen Institute who has dedicated at least 30 feet of right-of-way and Meadows Rd. has about 40 feet of right-Of-way. Ms. Elliott said they feel there is a lot of right-of-way. Vacating the 12 feet would leave at least 60 feet of right-of-way which is all that is required f or a road. Burstein said there was a line of Cottonwood trees on the parcel which the Planning Office feels are very important but thought it possible to design a building, within the set backs, that would not effect those trees. In addition, Burstein said they thought the request was in keeping with the neighborhood, but thought it would be appropriate to restrict that only a single family residence be buil t on the parcel and the approval should be conditioned as such. Hal Clark, representing applicant, gave a brief history of their request. Mr. Clark said they thought the right-of-way vacation was a fair request and that the current right-of-way was not needed. Motion: White moved to recommend approval of the Baar Subdivision Exception for the purpose of a lot split, subject to conditions 1 through 5 outlined in the Planing Office Memorandum dated November 12, 1985 and an additional condition #6 that development only be of a single family dwelling~ Blomquist seconded. All in favor~ motion carried. Motion: Bl omq ui st moved to recommend approval right-of-way vaca tion ~ Whi te seconded. carried. of the requested public All in favor~ motion CORTINA LODGB CHARGB IN USB/CONDOMINIUMIZATION Jim Colombo stepped down for conflict of interest. Steve Burstein, planner, explained that the application was to utilize some of the units in the Cortina Lodge to satisfy the employee housing obligations of the Hotel Jerome and the Aspen Club Lodge (formerly the Woodstone Inn). Burstein briefly 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEBTING PLARNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 described the project and unit count. This would be a dormitory concept with a number of bathrooms and kitchens shared. Burstein said there were 3 steps before the Commission: a GMP exemption for the change in use, condominiumization, and a special review to establish the residential parking requirement. Burstein explained the employee housing proposal (outlined in the planning office memorandum dated November 14, 1985), noting several changes from the original agreement. Burstein said the applicant would be making some changes to the square footage so there would not be as big a discrepancy as represented in the memorandum. The Housing Authority studied the proposal thoroughly and recommended that it was an acceptable project with a good design. However, in looking at the Hotel Jerome PUD agreement it was realized that the requirement was for 15 bedrooms rather than 15 employees, therefore, the Planning Office feels in that respect the project is deficient. Furthermore, the Woodstone requirement was for 3 off si te and 1 on si te uni ts, for a total of 1692 sq.ft., and the Planning Office feels that is also deficient. The Planning Office recommends, in terms of employee housing, that the 6 remaining free market units be deed restricted in association with the Hotel Jerome and that there be 1 additional unit at the Woodstone deed restricted. Burstein said, in relation to the parking issue, that the Cortina has 8 parking spaces. The Planning Office feels it would be reasonable to ask for 1 space per 2 employees. The occupancy of the Cortina would be approximately 30 employees, therefore, there should be a minimum of 15 parking spaces provided. The Planning Office recommends, with regard to parking, that 7 spaces be added to the 60 spaces the Hotel Jerome is required to provide. Peyton asked if the employee housing units would be housing only Hotel Jerome and Woodstone employees or open for any employees. Burstein said he would assume they would be managed to house their employees first and if they were unable to fill the units then they have the option to make the units avail abl e to other city employees. Dick Butera, applicant, gave a history of the project and why they were making the requests before the Commission. Mr. Butera said they inher i ted a PUD agreement on the Hotel Jerome which called for 15 off site employee housing units and 4 on site units. Additionally, when they purchased the Woodstone in order to condominiumize they inherited an agreement for 1 off site employee unit and 3 on site. In order to solve the problem and 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEBTING PLANNING AND IONING COMMISSIORNOVEMBER 19. 1985 go on with the projects they asked the Housing Authority what they wanted. In September they were given an informal approval which enabled them to enter in to a contract with the owners of the Cortina. By adapting the 150 sq.ft. per person requirement to a dormitory style employee hous"ng unit they had enough housing for all of the Hotel Jerome un"ts and the 3 off site Woodstone units at the Cortina. The C rtina presently has 16 free market units with 2 people in eac one totaling 32 people and the parking is what exists. They are not increasing the intensity of the use and are unable to cha ge the parking. Additionally, they are prov iding 35 em pI oyee rking spaces on site at the Hotel Jerome. Mr. Butera said it had beco e frustrating to go through all of this work with the Housing Au hority, to satisfy their needs, then get a call from the Planni g Office asking that we agree to restrict the 6 units that wo ld not be used for employee housing because they did not want a m"xed use on the property. We agreed to restrict the entire Cort na. The next day the memorandum referred to in this meetin was issued saying that we did not agree with what the Housing Authority agreed to and that the Cortina will only satisfy th housing requirements of the Hotel Jerome and not those of the Woodstone, let alone the 6 extra units we had the day before, greeing to deed restrict. Doug Carlson, representing a plicant, explained the process they had gone through with the Ho sing Authority to come up with the proposal before the Commissi n. Mr. Carlson said this proposal allows 155.2 sq.ft. per emplo ee at the Cortina where the requir- ement is only 150 sq. ft. A the Hotel Jerome the on site unit requirement is a minimum of 180 sq.ft. per unit and this proposal provides an average of 229 . ft. per unit along wi th kitchens, staying at a 2 to 1 relati nship of employees to kitchens and bathrooms. ! , , Blomquist asked the applic nt to go through each requirement listed in the Planning Offic recommendation memorandum dated November 14, 1985 and state whether they agree or disagree with the condition. Regarding Se tion A "Change in Use" Mr. Carlson disagreed with condition #1 and agreed with #2 through i5. Regarding Section B "Condomi iumization" Mr. Carlson disagreed with Condition #1, agreed w th condition #2 if cleaned up, and agreed with conditions .3 through #6. Regarding Section C "Parking Plan" Mr. Carlson agreed with condition #1 and disagreed wi th #2. 7 RECORD OF PROCEBDINGS REGULAR MEBTING PLANNING ANDZ ONING COMMISSION NOVEMBBR 19. 1985 Mr. Carlson said, regarding recommendation A-I, they had no problem with the last sentence that units 1,9,10, and 17 shall be associated with the Woodstone Inn's employee housing but had a problem with the first sentence which talks about all units being deed restricted associated with the Hotel Jerome. The proposal as it stands is to leave units i2,3,4,5, 6 and 7 out of the Jerome's needs at this point. Anderson asked if the applicants were willing to restrict those units. Mr. Carlson said as long as there was language sufficient to cover them later that they could be used as credit for future projects. Jim Curtis, Housing Authority, said that would be acceptable to them. Hunt said what needed to be determine was if the original agreement was for 15 units at 1.25 per person or for 15 employees. Anderson said it was for 15 employees. Tygre asked why the PUD agreement stated 15 bedrooms. Mr. Carlson said the agreement was very clear that it was 15 employees of the hotel, location acceptable to the City, to include a minimum of 15 bedrooms. When they were talking about bedrooms that was all they had available to talk about because the dormitory concept was not available. Tygre said she was unclear about the original intent. Mr. Carlson asked if this issue could be determined by a review of minutes of the original agreement. Anderson said he thought the issue could be resolved at this meeting as long as all units at the Cortina were staying employee housing. Motion: Blomquist moved to approve the requested change in use subject to conditions '2 through .5 (as outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 14, 1985) and amending condition #1 to read "all units shall be deed restricted to low income employee housing guidelines, units 2,3,4,5,6, and & 7 shall be reserved for a future employee housing allocation for a future project as yet undetermined, Units 8,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 shall be associated with the Hotel Jerome's employee housing obligations, and units 1,9,10, and 17 shall be associated with the Woods tone Inn employee housing obligations"~ White seconded. Discussion: Hunt said he was going to vote against this motion because of the concern expressed by Tygre but agreed with it conceptually. Hunt and Tygre opposed, all others in favor~ motion carried. 8 REeoRD OFPROCEBDI~S REGULAR MEETINGPLANNIRG AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 Anderson clarified the applicants objections to the Condominiumi- zation approval conditions. Motion: Hun t moved to recommend Condominiumization approval subj ect to conditions .2 through .6 (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 14, 1985), renumbering the conditions to read .1 through '5~ White seconded. Discussion: Tygre suggested condition restricted for employee use. this change. .2 should say the units are deed Hunt amended his motion to reflect All in favor~ motion carried. Mr. Hecht questioned if under the exemption procedure for condom- iniumization if this should be specifically exempted from the 6 month minimum lease restriction. Motion: Hunt moved to amend condition #1 of the previous motion to indicate that all Cortina units shall be deed restricted for rental use of employees and that the 6 month minimum lease requirements be waived~ White seconded. All in favor ~ motion carried. Anderson explained the applicants objection to condition #2 of Section C "Parking". Anderson agreed with the applicants logic that spaces are being duplicated that have already been promised from previous approvals. Burstein did not agree that this was a duplication because off-site employee housing had not been taken into account in the original formula. White suggested changing condition #2 to read: "Off street parking spaces shall be provided in the present 60 parking space commitment for the Hotel Jerome for the use of Hotel Jerome employees living at the Cortina". That wording was acceptable to the applicants and Commissioners' with the exception of Blomquist. Blomquist's objection was that usable parking was not being provided at the hotel if the employee was in another location. Blomquist suggested saying this was non-conforming as to parking. Peyton said she thought when a parking space was waived for a 9 RECi>RD-OF PROCEBDINGS REGm.AR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1985 local there would be another car parked on the street. Hunt agreed with White's amendment to condition #2. Motion: Whi te moved to recommend special rev iew approval of the Cortina parking plan for 8 spaces subject to condition .1 as written in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 14, 1985, and condi tion #2 amended to read: "that available back-up off-street parking spaces "7" shall be provided in the present 60 parking space commitment for the Hotel Jerome, for use of the Hotel Jerome employees living at the Cortina~ Peyton seconded. Blomquist opposed, all others in favor~ motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:30 pm. cK~/L UMjf- Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 10