Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740917 REVISED RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.1l l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 17, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. by Chairman Spencer Schiffer with members Janet Landry, Jack Jenkins and Geri Vagneur present. Also present were City/County Planner John Stanford, Yank Mojo and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. Approval of Minutes Landry moved to approve the minutes of September 3, 1974 with Vagneur seconding. All in favor, motion carried. Bryan Johnson and Chick Collins arrive. The Chairman noted that New Business would be moved to the end of the Agenda in case of a time shortage. Outline Development Plan: Villas preliminary Ron Windemuller of the Villa International presented a slide show of the proposed subdivision off Seventh and Hallam. As proposed, this would involve 32 two bedroom units with 48 parking spaces in a somewhat horseshoe shape. Materials would consist of stucco and wood and the units would be multi-level in clusters with pools possibly being put in in the future. He noted that the parking would be closed off from the street. It was pointed out the landscaping on Hallam that could accomodate expansion of the Highway if needed. Mojo stated that the land uses were R15 and R30 and that they were consistent with proposed density zoning. The 32 two becroom units with 48 parking spaces were consistent with surrounding uses. The only problem was that the trail alignment, to be located on 8th St., had not been put into their plans yet but that it could be worked out. Ten feet would be required for the trail alignment. Dr. Barnard arrives. Again it was asked by Barnard why the underground parking concept was not worked on and applicants responded that the cost per car would be around $7 to $10,000 and that they wanted to keep the price of the units down to family prices. Motion Johnson moved to give preliminary approval sUbject to the trail alignment being worked out and Vagneur seconded. All in favor, except for Collins who voted nay, motion carried. Subdivision: Villas A spokesman for the Villas noted that the letters from the utilities were not because he had forgotten them. He said that he had lined up some letters that day but that Water and Electrical were forthcoming and said that he had contacted the Telephone Company who's representative had assured him there would be no problem. Bernice Bonds submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed subdivision due to increased traffic and the present parking situation which already forces the Borgesons on the corner of 8th and West Bleeker to see nothing but parking lots and would add another to their view. She stated that there was already so much congestion that the Villas should resolve their present parking problems before adding any more. -1- Villas, cont'd Motion Ordinance 19 Reviews: Christiania Patterson Tri-Plex Motion Glory Hole Conceptual ",-,..""",,._~.-......,~ Windemuller replied that the ratio of units to parking spaces is 36 to 70 which should be enought but that they have problems making people use the lots provided for them. Because of the concern over the parking problem, especially as Jenkins has expressed his concern, the Chairman requested that this situation be put on the next agenda. vagneur moved to approve preliminary plans conditional upon the trail alignments being worked out and the utility Companies giving positive referrals. Johnson seconded. All in favor except for Collins who voted nay, motion carried. Jenkins moved to approve preliminary and final plans conditional upon the miner's cabin, the existing duplex and the new duplex being used for personal rather than commercial uses. Johnson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Applicant wished to add onto a duplex to provide for more housing for his employees. He said that he has 13 employees now and wanted to add onto the building to provide more space for one more employee and to make the building more comfortable for them. Mojo said that the problem lay in the off-street parking and Patterson explained that the existing driveway was half on his property and half on city sidewalk but that he was willing to bring the parking area farther into his property and put in a sidewalk. Collins moved to give preliminary and final approval to the plans conditional upon the applicant providing sidewalk and gutters to join the already existing ones on either side of the proposed parking area. Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur disqualified herself due to her firm's commitment to sell the Glory Hole land. Architect Larry Yaw presented the plans for the full service hotel proposed for the land that the Glory Hole Lodge now stands on. Yaw noted that the land is situated on one acre and that they had no trouble conforming with hotel zoning for that area, that no view plane would affect the site and they could provide 40 to 45 parking spaces if needed. Also he noted that the hotel would provide a limosine service so as to dissuade customers from driving rental cars and adding to the congestion in the area. Out of 42,656 sq ft. the hotel would have five suites, 20 single rooms and 70 doubles. They would provide employee housing (those rooms would not have kitchens) and the hotel would operate a restaurant. Mojo reiterated that the land use was consistent with the proposed zoning for hotels and this was an example of how their density ratios had worked. He noted the limo service that was proposed would cut down on the congestion. Barnard asked what if the limosine concept didn't work and that most of their customers preferred to drive, what would they do when they couldn't provide any more parking? He emphasized how they should look into underground parking as their solution. -2- -- FORMlO C.F.HOECKELB.B./l L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves September 17, 1974 Regular Meeting Glory Hole, cont'd Motion Limelite Conceptual Motion Outline Development Plan: Mountainedge Aspen Planning & Zoning Yaw sited the cost of underground parking as being prohibitive. Johnson thought the limosine concept might work but to compromise, maybe they should buy parking spaces from the City in the event that their proposed parking isn't enough. Yaw was asked whether the venture wasn't a financial risk and replied that based on preliminary figures there was a medium risk involved at this time but that the figures might change. Johnson moved that conceptual approval be granted contingent upon applicant buying out parking from the City if proposed parking does not meet the needs of the customers. Barnard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur leaves. Applicant Glen Paas and his architect Don Ball submitted revised plans allowing for an eight unit addition to the SkiView LOdge. In the proposed plan, three stories would be utilised with the bottom as parking and the top two floors for units with no fireplaces or kitchens. It was noted that there would be no height problems involved. The Limelite has 27 units presently. Mr. Paul Anderson, representing the 210 Cooper Building stated tha.t his group was opposed to the proposal because of the parking problems already existing in that area. He sited that the 210 Cooper building supplied 19 parking spaces for their residens and that during the winter and even the summer, the parking spaces were filled with the Limelite's overflow of cars. He presented pictures taken the weekend before and was asked by the Chairman if he could positively identify the cars in his parking lot with custmners of the Linelite. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative as he had seen the people unloading their cars and walking into the LOdge. Paas mentioned that he had told Mr. Anderson to contact him when this happened. The applicant also stated that he hadn't used the open land on his property before because he hadn't felt it was needed but would in the future open it up. Barnard moved that conceptual approval be granted and Jenkins seconded. Collins, Schiffer and Johnson were opposed so the motion did not carry. Mr. Chuck Vidal came before the Conunission to ask for their recowmendations so that Council would have some idea how the F & Z felt about the three proposed alternatives offered by the developers. Yank Mojo noted to the members that they should think in terms of only the Mountainedge because, in her opinion, Clarendon and Ute Village might be held up in lawsuits for a long time. Jenkins questioned the time-share concept which means purchasing the right to live in the unit for a certain amount of time but not purchasing it entirely, in this -3- Mountainedge, cont'd Motion Absenteeism ., " way taxes and costs are shared. John Stanford stated his concerns over the condominiums and especially time-shared ones. He had five points to present: 1. revenue from a lodge is taxable whereas a time shared condominium offers prepaid rent without any revenue benefits to the City; 2. taxable revenue is more likely to come from a lodge with the increased patronage of bars, restaurants and entertainment areas; 3. lodge development represents local operating venture; 4. lodge units would not bring significant impact to an already overcrowded facility which serve local needs; 5. the condominiums proposed would have fire places. In going into more detail on the. last objection, Stan- ford mentioned the report made by the Department of Health in Colorado citing fireplaces as the cause of the haze seen around Aspen in winter and that there appeared to be adequate justification for a moratorium on new fireplaces. Schiffer asked what the-new zoning would be and it was noted that it would be Lodge but would allow for condominiums. Bill Dunaway, from the audience, asked how come they had just approved another project with fireplaces and object to this one and Stanford replied that the problem was one of a tourist facility versus local and Johnson observed that the study pointed to the tourist as the main user of the fireplace rather than. the local. Vidal countered that the City was about to pass a land transfer tax that would affect the time-shared units. He said that most of the renters of the condominiums still eat out two out of three meals. In terms of the pollution controls, he had come in contact with the Mr. Weiner of the Health Department and that evidentall~ this man had used as an average 4 cords of woods used per winter which had been challenged by Mr. Vidal and associates. Mr. Weiner has apparently backed off from that. figure and has said when requested he will modify his report. Vidal also pointed out that the car was still considered the real pollutant. Barnard proposed a study session with Council to find out their feelings but Schiffer did not feel that any thing was accomplished when they had study sessions wi th Council. Schiffer stated that he didn't like any of the proposalf because none seemed to conform with the proposed rezoning. Vidal stated that the third proposal, of strictly Mountainedge units, was supposed to be within the proposed densities. Motion was made by Barnard to have a study session with Council before making any decision and Jenkins seconded. Schiffer and Collins nay, motion carried. Jenkins mentioned the por attendance of members when study sessions are called and said how when members didn't show up, the ones there have to make decisions that could be cast aside when members are in session. Landry made a motion to reconvene on Thursday but the motion died for lack of a second. -4- "-' FORM 10 C.F,HOECKELB.B.lItL.CO. Regular Meeting Motion Zoning Considerations Motion Motion Duplexes Motion Specially Planned Areas RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning September 17, 1974 Jenkins moved to continue the meetinf for hour then continue the meeting if needed. seconded. All in favor, motion carried. half of Landry an Members asked the Planning Office to change the map according to how the P & Z wanted it rather than what Planning wanted. Schiffer wanted to have it on record that he felt changing the Benedict property from its present zoning of R15 P.U.D. to RR P.U.D. was inconsistent and discriminatory since the building already exists and when it was built Benedict was encouraged at that time by the Planning Office to build there. Stanford stated that the decision was based on the compatibility with County zoning since the property borders on County land but Schiffer noted that it was still within the City and should be Rl5. Mojo said that the building would still be non-conforming but Schiffer noted it wouldn't be as drastic. Stanford said that from a planning standpoint he would still like to keep it RR. Jenkins mentioned that the map should be changed to reflect their feelings and Schiffer agreed saying that they should submit the map as they have approved it and explain to the Council their points. Johnson moved that in their recommendation to Council that what is presently designated RR PUD contain Rl5 PUD instead and Barnard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Barnard moved that the Recommendation also indicate the E. Hopkins area presently designated R6 be desig- nated multi-family and Landry seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer also wanted to comment on the Planning Office's original recommendation that duplexes not be allowed in Rl5 on l5,000 sq ft. without having something in addition to l5,000 to build on. He said that he was inclined to agree with them since it is consistent with what has already been designated in R6. In R6 one can build a single family unit on 6,000 but they would need 9,000 to build a duplex. If the area is zoned Rl5 and people are allowed to build duplexes on 15,000 then everyone would build duplexes. Jenkins said he agreed in concept but that he thought it was unfair to the people who have plotted lots of l5,000 and can't get 5,000 more for a duplex. Schiffer said he understood the problem but that zoning wasn't always fair to everyone. In an effort to compromise, Mojo suggested that only unplatted lots have to conform to a higher limit. Johnson moved that in Rl5. land it be required that all duplexes on unplatted land be kept to a 20,000 sq ft minimum. Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. In regard to these areas, and especially the Institute, _ 5- SPA's, cont'd Motion Motion Motion ''''' Schiffer felt that some measure should be taken to curtail the rentals exclusively to the members and visitors of the Institute. Johnson moved that they amnd the provisions on the specially planned areas to include restrictions for multiple rentals on a short term basis. Jenkins seconded, All in,~avo~, motion carried. Barnard ,was ..concerned over developers or investors who buy property knowing th~t they will rent it out ~nd wanted some controls pUt in the code. ,about short- term rentals. Vagneur and Schiffer reacted strongly because they felt it might hurt the resident who rents out his house for two weeks during Christmas to add to,hisincome but Barnard did n<;>t feel that.tris would affect the permanent r~sident but rather the investor since only the investor would be prosecuted. Johnson moved that in all designated residential areas not. to. allow any short term rentals, that being less than six months and Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jim Moran spoke against the last motion saying that the person who pays for his vacation by renting out .his home could get hurt by someone singling him out and having him prosecuted. Barnard argued that the homeowner wouldn't have to worry, just the investors making a profit instead of providing long term housing. genkins moved. to r,esc.:j.nd. the, motion and B,arnard seco,nded. ,All in favor, mot:j.oncq.rriep.. Bq.rnard moved to adjourn and continue the meeting until Thursday at 4:00. Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, ~eeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ~ ~-L </_<JA /J ~ Oe uty City Clerk , -6- -