Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19851126 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL MEETING PLARNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26. 1985 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5: 00 p.m. with Commissioners' Al Blomquist, Jim Colombo, Mari Peyton, David White (arrived late), and Jasmine Tygre (arrived late) present. CRE~ABAUS L-3 LODGE GMP SCORING SESSIOR Steve Burstein, planner, briefly reviewed what had been presented at the previous meeting (November 5, 1985) held on this case. Burstein said the more important scoring categories were, .1 site design, .2 parking, and #3 the rehabilitation of existing units. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said the project was intentionally scaled down to 17,000 square feet as opposed to the allowed 56,000 sq.ft. Additionally, the allowed FAR is 1 to 1 and this request is only for .3 to 1. The structures have been kept in their current locations which are below the allowed building heights. Mr. Kaufman said code requires 33 parking spaces. The applicant is willing to fence and landscape the area to mitigate impacts but there is no code provision that allows the number of parking spaces to be reduced. Mr. Kaufman said the L-3 zone was intended to upgrade existing lodges which is what this applicant is proposing. Dave Gibson, applicants architect, gave a brief presentation of the plans. Mr. Gibson expressed concern with three categories of the Planning Office's suggested scoring of the project. First was the quality of design, expressing the Engineering Department had thought it was a good design and the applicant does not feel there is a flaw in the design. The same pertains to the parking design. Finally, in the rehabilitation category, 6 units are going to be torn down and totally rebuilt, which makes up 32% of the entire project, and you can not rehabilitate any more than that. Mr. Gibson reiterated that he thought the scoring suggested by the Planning Office in these 3 categories was very low. Anderson opened the public hearing. John Kelley, attorney for Terry and Molly SWanton, neighbors to the east, said there were several concerns with the plan as presented. The main problem is the parking which is being moved away from the project buildings and closer to the neighboring property owners boundaries. This will increase noise and fume problems on the neighboring properties. Mr. Kelly said another area of concern was the entrance to the project. Presently it is a blind entrance and the neighbors think something should be done to mitigate that. Currently people miss the entrance and use the SWanton's driveway to turn around. Mr. Kelley suggested 1 SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARNING COMMISSION ROVEMBER 26. 1985 if the size of the project were reduced then the number of parking spaces required could be reduced. Additionally, Mr. Kelley said they were opposed to future year allocations being granted. Helen Klanderud, neighboring property owner, submitted pictures of the view of the project from her house. Ms. Klanderud al so submi t ted a letter to the Commission stating her obj ections to this application. Ms. Klanderud said she supported the L-3 zone and some level of renovation and reconstruction of the Crestahaus Lodge. The Crestahaus is surrounded by R-15 zoning and exists in a low density residential neighborhood, not mixed residential. Ms. Klanderud said during the rezoning process the Planning Office originally recommended that the Crestahaus and the Alpine Lodge not be included in the L-3 zoning because of their location. In reviewing the files it is indicated that neighbors adjacent to other lodges were notified of the proposed zoning change but there is no indication that residents in the Riverside subdivision were notified. As a result this is the neighbors first opportunity to react to a rezoning change and a proposal which could upset the delicate balance between lodge and residential neighbors. Ms. Klanderud said she thought it would be relevant to hear the Planning Office's concerns which lead to their recommendation that the Crestahaus be excluded from the L-3 zone. Ms. Klanderud read a memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Director, dated June 30, 1982 regarding the proposed zoning actions concerning non-conforming lodges. Ms. Klanderud said she thought this memorandum substantiated the sensitivity of any development of this kind in this neighborhood. Ms. Klanderud said her objections to the project were: that this is an acceptable but marginal quality project, the increase in density height and bulk is incompatible with surrounding land uses and view planes, the conversion of existing open space adjacent to residential properties to 15 parking spaces with severe impacts including drainage problems, the increased occupancy may increase the existing habit of guests using adjacent private property as a pathway to the Aspen Cl ub and a pI ayg round, the modular residence does not meet set back requirements, the current entrance to the lodge being on a blind curve uphill causing hazardous traffic patterns, the landscaping plan does nothing to mitigate the significant increased visual illumination and noise impact associated with the application nor any delineation between the lodge and adjacent properties. Perry Harvey, former Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, gave some background on the intent of L-3 zone when it was established. Mr. Harvey said the Crestahaus was an issue because of the amount of land that they had and the FAR that was being 2 -' SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARNIRG COMMISSIOR ROVEMBER 26. 1985 proposed. There was concern that it would be too much density if approved. Mr. Harvey discussed the property with the Planning Office, shortly before it was purchased by this applicant, and was told if something was proposed for the property that was greater than .6 to 1 it would be difficult to make it work in this residential location. This application is .3 to 1 and in Mr. Harvey's opinion would be optimum. Mr. Harvey said another concern was regarding L-3 renovations creating upscale lodging, at higher rates, thereby squeezing out part of the market. This applicant wants to maintain a moderate or middle rate lodging facility which is also an asset. Mr. Harvey also addressed future year allocations stating when the L-3 zone was being designed the City had just increased the L-l and L-2 yearly allocations. It was decided to allow 10 units for L-3. Then the issue came up that it would be like the 18 unit restriction on L-l and L-2 and no one would apply because it would not be economically reasonable. Putting an add in the paper was suggested telling people there were 10 units available but future year allocations were being encouraged. The Planning Office agreed, but it was never done. Mr. Harvey urged the Commissioners' to concentrate on what the original issue was. The intention of L-3 was not that the number 10 would be the guiding principal but that it would be an encouragement to bring people in to renovate lodges. Ms. Olive Truscott, concerned citizen, said she liked small lodges in the community many of which have became run down. She was in favor of upgrading L-3 lodges and had no opposition to this expansion. Anderson closed the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said he was sympathetic to the neighbors concerns but did not think this was the appropriate forum to discuss the validity of the L-3 zone. The property is already zoned L-3, therefore, should be examined in light of the L-3 zoning. Mr. Kaufman took strong exception to the posi tion that this was a marginal development. This is the smallest increase in FAR of any other lodge in the L-3 zone. Mr. Kaufman said he thought it was important to keep in mind that this project is sensitive to the area and none of the existing set backs are being changed. Mr. Kaufman said if the Planning and Zoning Commission would sponsor a code amendment allowing the ability to do less parking this applicant would be more than happy to reduce the parking on the site. 3 SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARNING COIUIISSIOR NOVEMBER 26. 1985 Blomquist commented that the plans indicate the drainage which currently drains in to Ms. Klanderud's property will be routed away from Ms. Klanderud's property. Blomquist questioned why that would not be considered an improvement. Burstein said he saw no indication of burming on the site that would change the existing drainage patterns. Mr. Gibson explained the drainage patterns and the changes they intend to make on the site plans. Colombo asked what the applicants response to the blind entrance off of Highway 82 was. Mr. Kaufman answered that they had talked to the Highway Department who said signage was all that could be done at this time. Anderson read letters from neighboring property owners stating their objections to the proposed project. The Commissioners' scored the project. CRESTABAUS LODGE FAR SPECIAL REVIEW /PARKING RRIlUC'I'ION PARKING Mr. Burstein said the Planning Office thought the number of 33 parking spaces was not excessive because this is essentially a motor lodge. The Planning Office recommends approval without additional spaces for residential use, however, there is concern about the design of the parking lot. The applicant has been asked to look at the design of the parking lot again, particularly the area on the eastern part of the property. A suggested condition of approval is that a new design and landscape improvements be incl uded. Gideon Kaufman, appl icant' s attorney, said the issue before the Commission was rather or not the applicant should be allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces. The code does not allow reduction for lodge units but does for employee housing. Mr. Kaufman said, after talking to a previous manager of the lodge, the lodge does not have a 100% parking need. Mr. Kaufman thought the parking could be reduced to 32 spaces. Anderson said in addition to a fence he would like to see more landscaping and space between the parking area and the property line. Anderson also commented that he did not see a need in devoting this amount of land to parking if a percentage of the spaces will remain vacant. Ms. Kl anderud brought up the fact that often people staying in the Crestahaus Lodge come by buses which w ill remain parked on 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL MEETING PLARNING COIUIISSION NOVEMBER 26. 1985 the site, to which she had an objection. Mr. Kaufman said they would be willing to restrict the parking not to allow buses. Motion: White moved to approve 32 parking spaces with the lots being redesigned to increase the buffer zone in the residential area, to minimize parking in that area, and to restrict or prohibit bus parking; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CHANGE IN USE Burstein said there had been a question as to whether the cabin in part or in total was an illegal unit because it had been moved on to the property in 1971. Since the memorandum enclosed in this meetings packet was written an affidavit as well as pictures has been received by the Planning Office indicating that the illegal segment was an addition to the cabin. Therefore, the application appears to meet with the Planning Office's recommendation of approval. Burstein said the other matter for consideration was the change in use of the modular house which at present is a residential unit. The Planning Office recommends approval as it does not appear to increase impacts on the neighborhood and seems compatible on the site. Motion: White moved to recommend approval for the change in use from one residential unit to one lodge unit; Blomquist seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Increase in FAR Burstein said there were 3 issues in this request for FAR; neighborhood impacts, traffic circulation with Highway 82, and the possible parking shortage. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to 3 conditions (outlined in the Planing Office memorandum dated November 5, 1985), deleting condition c as it has been determined by zoning officials that variances are not necessary. Burstein asked for the Commissioners to consider 2 additional conditions; n that some Engineering of the drainage be considered and #2 that exterior lighting shall be designed in such a way that the light source will be sufficiently obscured to prevent glare from Highway 82 and the surrounding neighborhood. 5 SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING COIUIISSION NOVEMBER 26. 1985 White commented that the Highway situation was bothering him and questioned if it could be signed as "No Left Turn". Burstein suggested a study be done to determine what the best way to handle the situation would be. Blomquist questioned if there wasn't already an ordinance on record that controlled exterior lighting. Burstein replied that the County had one but not a City code. Blomquist also questioned if architects weren't qual ified to certify drainage. Ander son replied yes, unless there is something geologically unusual happening under the property, which appears to be happening in this location. Anderson thought a condition should be added that a soils engineer address the problem. Blomquist said it was not necessary to require that an engineer do a study that an architect was capable of doing. Mr. Kaufman said the applicant had a problem with condition c of the Planning Office's recommendations for approval in that an engineer might come back with a situation that states the inters- ection can not be improved. Mr. Kaufman suggested the condition should read that the appl icant has to have the study done and comply with any suggested improvements. Anderson disagreed that improvements would be required if there were no suggested improv- ements. Mr. Kaufman said they would rather submit a plan that is acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission than the Planning Office, as stated in the suggested condition, or that the Commission make clear their expectations to the Planning Office. Anderson stated the Commissioners' desires for the plan and added if the applicant had a problem with the Planning Office after submission they could contact him for a review. Motion: White moved to recommend approval of the increase in FAR, subject to conditions that: a. A landscaping plan which is acceptable to the planning office with screening along the easterly property line, increased buffer between the residential zone and parking configuration and/or signage that would prohibit buses from parking along the parking areas bordering the residential area, and increased vegetation be submitted. Landscape improvements shall be included in the project timetable; b. The applicant shall present an engineering report with 6 '-_'--"-"_"-_.,",.._-..._.._.__.,.,..,_.--~..... SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARNING COIUIISSIOR NOVEMBER 26. 1985 respect to improving, if possible, the intersection site distance; c. A corrected plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office reflecting all the technical clarifications and representations upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission has based its scoring of the project. This plan shall be submitted prior to the City Council meeting for considering GMP allocation to this project; d. When soil tests are done for foundation designs they should include a determination of historical water run off on to adjoining properties and design corrections should be made to absolutely eliminate the possibility of any increase in run off to adjacent properties; e. An exterior lighting design, which is acceptable to the Planning and Engineering Departments, designed to prevent glare to State Highway 82 and the neighboring properties. Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. FUTURE YEAR ALLOCATION White reiterated Perry Harvey's comment on the intent of allocations when the L-3 zone was originated. White thought this application easily complied with the intentions. Motion: Blomquist moved to approve the future year allocations, White seconded. Discussion: Tygre said she was concerned about going in to future years because this might not be the end of it and in another year they can come back and ask for more units. Blomquist amended his motion to incl ude that the approval is conditioned on the pI att containing a restriction that no more units will ever be added. White could not agree to second that amendment. Blomquist withdrew his motion. Motion: Tygre moved to approve granting the 10 units available in this years quota and the additional 4 units from future year allocations 7 SPECIAL MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26. 1985 '< on condition that the applicant agrees to this being the maximum build out for this property; Blomquist seconded. Tygre, Blomquist, and Peyton in favor; White, Colombo and Anderson opposed; motion fails. Motion: Colombo moved to approve 10 units from the 1985 allocation and 4 units from future allocations; White seconded. Discussion: Colombo withdrew his motion. Motion: Peyton moved to recommend approval of 10 units from the 1985 allocation and 4 units from future year allocations including that this Commission feels this FAR should be the maximum allowed. There was no second. Motion: Whi te moved to approve 10 units from the 1985 allocation and 4 units from future year allocations; Colombo seconded. Blomquist and Tygre opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. cJ(~uJ;ebr Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 8