Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19720921 '"' FORll ~o C. f. HOECKEL 8. B. 8l L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 21, 1972 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James Breasted with Charles Collins and Victor Goodhard, at 4:40 p.m. Stream Margin Request Hallam Addition, Lot Change Rezoning Request Hotel Jerome City of Aspen - Charles Gilkey, City Engineer reviewed with the Commission three crossings which are necessary for the laying of water mains for the City water system. Purpose of the lines is water loss and looping of the system. Two crossing on Castle Creek and one on the Roaring Fork. The City will be directly responsible for restoration of the crossings. Anthos Jordan arrived. Collins moved to approve the three crossings on the Roaring Fork and Castle Creek as presented, including provisions for restoration of land as pro- vided in the easement agreements with the landowners. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. City/County Planner Herb.Bartel stated lot changes cannot be made under the subdivision regulations without the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Lot is located at 610 North Third Street, owner desires to add to his structure 113 square feet so that the setbacks can be met. Drawings of the proposed changes and site plan were reviewed. Alternative to this approval would be a variance for side yard setback. The adjoining land- owner is agreeable to the lot change. Hardship on this case is an unclear description on the County records. Jordan moved to approve the lot change of Lot 9, Block 102 Hallam's Add- ition. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor., motion carried. Form R-6 to AR-l, Lots A,B,C,D,E. Mr. Bartel reported the proper notice was given and gave the following introductions and Planning Department's comments. Mr. Bartel outlined the uses allowed, further outlined to those present the area in question on the City zoning map. Area involved is 12,000 sq. ft. The original zoning in the area along Main Street was and is C-l, the area on the other side of alley was zoned R-6. In 1969 the Board of Adjustment denied a variance to allow a cleaning plant in the basement of the Hotel and in 1969 Council denied a request to rezone the lots in question to C-l (this is a matter of record). Mr. Wooden read from the Master Plan the proposed density for this area as being medium den- sity residential. The Planning Office considered and addressed their re- commendation to three points: (1) preservation of the Hotel Jerome as a historical building: (2) Protection of the residences in the area: and (3) the need to make available a site plan for the hotel property. Re- commend the application be approved with some conditions as follows: (1) Density now allowed and recommended by the Master Plan (4 units), zone change be for better site planning than a density increase. It is nec- essary to have an approved site plan for the project setting down certain standards relating to Mill and Main. (2) Landscaping design that is compatable with the residential area. (3) Parking has to be considered so that the residences in the area are not affected. (4) Hotel and patio area be designated as H zone on the zoning map so that any changes would require review by the Historic Preservation Committee before the changes could be made. (5) Procedures for PUD would have to be a condition of the zoning. Mr. Robin Molny stated he and Tom Wells are the architects on the project and will not participate in the discussion because of a cloud on the pos- ition of Robin Molny on the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time. Mr. John Gilmore owner of the Hotel stated he purchased the Hotel in Nov- ember of 1968, the building is 83 years old and when it was purchased it . ,.~_......_--~_....,. -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM;G C.F.HOECKf:LB.B.&:L.CQ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning September 21, 1972 had been closed for 2 years and was in great need of repair. Immediately began redecorating and remodeling to up grade the hotel, and many dollars were spent. Hotel presently has 36 roomS. Mr. Gilmore outlined the diff- erence in operations of a 50 unit motel and running a 36 room hotel, i.e. utility costs, maintenance and repairs, open 24 hours a day all year long, number of personnel, insurance costs. In 1968 feasibility studies were-made, results being that it was not feasible to run the Jerome as a hotel unless there were 150 to 200 roomS. In 1968 when the Hotel was purchased, the competition in town was not as great as now exists. In 1969 requested to take the pool area and build condominiums and commercial on that site. Re- quested 20 units. Today requesting 8 units. In 1969 Walls and Sterling were the architects and Robin Molny was Chairman of the P & Z Commission. In the light of present knowledge, the project as of today is more attrac- tive and more viable to the Hotel Jerome and a service to the community. Served on the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1969 and 1970 and became involved in density. The remodeling etc. that will take place on the hotel property will include between 80 and 90 rooms. A certain amount of dollars is needed to break even. Mr. Jerry McCarthy of Tom Wells and Associates presented the model of the proposed. Stated they are concerned with preserving the existing building by remodeling it to include 34 rooms. The site has mostly open space in the back and have proposed 8 units on that site. The setbacks would be more than is required which will provide for landscaping and a buffer between the hotel property and adjoining residences. The proposed structure will be two stories high. Feel the Hotel structure itself is irreplacable and also feel protection should be provided for the residences on Bleeker St. Agree that it is necessary for Mr. Gilmore to be able to develope the property according to an economic and viable plan, with this plan trying to make the least amount of impact to a residential area so there is not spot zoning. Maps were shown and reviewed outling the following: location of the area in question: site plan; open space around the proposed building and loca- tion of the relocated pool: location of the proposed units: shop space and banquet rooms: parking for about 56 cars including underground and the proposed structure on Monarch being partially underground. Mr. Gilmore stated the units existing in the Hotel now are one bedroom units or limited units. Correspondence from the Firm of Walls and Sterling was read by Mr. Sterling stating briefly that over the last three years nothing has occurred to change their minds as relates to the rezoning and recommend that the re- zoning be approved. (Complete statement on file) Attorney Joseph Edwards was present representing adjacent property owners, Brumder and Estate of B. Baker who are opposing this application. Mr. Edwards made the following arguments to support his case: (1) the City P & Z is regulated by certain Statures 139-60-3 which provide that you are to make regulations in accordance with the Master Plan and the crit- eria is specifically listed, also same criteria is listed in the City of Aspen code under 24-1. That criteria is to lessen congestion; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitiate adequate provision of transportation and others which are not revelant to this case. In the comprehensive master plan it discussed in full all this criteria and came up with R-6 for this pro- perty. That determination is not to be taken lightly. (2) There is no showing that the proposed change would be for the benefit of the code but ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.B.ll L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning And Zoning September 21, 1972 would be additional density and to this extent it will not lessen con- gestion or provide additional light and air etc., it will not undue over concentration of population, and it will add to the transportation problem in this area. Mr. Edwards referred to Colorade case of Clark vs. City of Boulder, "We conclude that the ordinance under review does not promote any of the statutory purposes under Which zoning ordinances are enacted, and violates the previously adopted comprehensive plan. On the basis of this record, it cannot be upheld." This application violates the plan and does not promote any of the statutory items listed. (3) Previously the former architects on this project made a request for increased density which was denied, subsequently there have been no changes that override that ruling. Mr. Edwards quoted from the same case mentioned above, "also several pre- vious attempts have been made here to secure commercial rezoning without success. On this record no changes recognized in law as sufficient to override the prior refusals have been presented". (4) There has been no change in the nature of the area that would justify a change from R-6 to density. Adjacent landowners are entitled to rely on zoning until changes alter the area, i.e. commercial increase, character of the neighborhood etc, "Property owners have the right to rely on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material change in the character of the neighborhood which may require rezoning in the public interest". (5) The only reason given by the applicant for the rezoning is economic benefit for the land- owner. "A city council is empowered to amend a zoning ordinance (if) the character and use of a district or the surrounding territory have become so changed since the original ordinance was enacted that the public health, morals, safety and welfare would be promoted if a change were made in the boundaries or in the regulations prescribed for certain districts; but mere economic gain to the owner of a comparatively small area is not a sufficient cause to involve an exercise of this amending power for the benefit of such owner". Submit that the only reason for this hearing today is to make more" money off of a higher density. This change would change the character of the neighborhood and set a precedent for others in the neighborhood to request a change. Law also provides that if there is objection made by 20% of the adjacent landowners to the rear of the property or within 100', such amendment shall not become effective without 3/4 vote of the Council approving such amendment. Mr. Bartel reported there are letters in the file from F. DuPont Cornelius opposing, Mr. & Mrs. William Light opposing and Mr. & Mrs. Ferenc Berko. Mrs. Pat Dasko stated she was not a landowner in the area the fact that 8 units will automatically change the area. has been increased in size and there are other additional on in that neighborhood. People come and go at the Hotel but confused by Car l' s Pharmacy things going all day. Mr. Caldwell, cab driver stated on the north side of the hotel on Bleeker is the Aspen Dairy and for one hour or two every morning there are big trucks blocking the street etc., and it is not residential. Mr. Fred Glidden questioned if it had occurred to anyone that the middle school will be moved and what is now the middle school will become an elementary school, traffic will be doubled with lots of parents driving their kids to school. Mr. Gilmore stated that if he felt damage to the residential area would occur, he would not build the 8 units. Did move back to Grand Rapids, Michigan in order to support the hobby of running the hotel. The pool in the summer time makes $10,000 on an average of $.30 a customer. The 1. r ~,,,,,,,~,~,,,~,_.,,"'-~''''''*'~ ......., - r- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rORM51 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 21, 1972 traffic that the pool creates on a commercial basis feel is more of a hardship to the area than 8 units. Feel there has been changes in the area since 1969, the railroad property development will have a big impact. The application today has no bearing on the application made previously. Mr. McCarthy stated things have changed, the Statutes and Plan omit the factor of historical and older buildings, the City has a heritage to preserve. Mr. Bob Marsh questioned if it would be architectually impossible to meet the goals of the owner and leave the zoning as it presently exists. IS it necessary to have banquet roomS and commercial space to rent. Mr. Gilmore replied that he has to make a large fixed assessment, since the expenses are high. In order to live with less than 150 rooms, ~ave to make it up in commercial space. It was pointed out that PUD is not available for this area as the area requirements are no less that 27,000 sq. ft. Mr. Bartel explained that unless specific agreements are made with the city, there is no assurance that other uses will not be included or increased. Mr. Gilmore stated the units would not be residential but investment condominiums with covenants that the owners could not stay in them on a permanent basis. Vice Chairman Breasted closed the pUblic hearing and stated no decision would be made today, Commission would like time to review the material sUbmitted at this hearing. Questions were raised by the Commission and answered by Mr. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy stated there would be from 55 to 56 parking spaces provided. May also want to purchase additional spaces from the City. Wish to keep the traffic on Mill Street. Commission stated they agreed not to give a blanket AR-l zoning. Transportation Plan Commission reviewed the recommendations of the Transportation Committee. Mr. Bartel explained he has been working with the new owners of the railroad property and feels they are going to have restraints on the availability of area for parking. Commission may want to keep some flexibility in this area. Plan by Fritz Benedict was reviewed for dispersed parking. It was pointed out this plan would create a circulation problem. Goodhard moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the trans- portation plan in concept including all the elements - circulation in- cluding street beautification, parking, mall development, transit system and transportation center and a resolution be so drafted. Seconded by Jordan. All in favor, motion carried. Jordan moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m., seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, meeting adjourned.