The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20080617AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, June 17, 2008 2:00 p.m. -Site Visit, Aspen Valley Hospital 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES (G/3/~ anc~ ~/a-o/g ) IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 411 S. Monarch, Insubstantial PUD Amendment and associated reviews, Resolution No. 022-08 VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. ZG Master Plan Update VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN YA MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner/ THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: June 10, 2008 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street -Planned Unit Development Amendment, Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Quota System Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Dancing Beaz Land, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Eben P. Clazk, Klein, Cote and Edwazds, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch Street; Legal Description -Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 182-19-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to enclose two outdoor seating azeas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request to enclose the two outdoor seating azeas. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the PUD Amendment, Commercial Design Review and the Growth Revised 6/12/2008 Page 1 of 11 Photo of the subject property P2 411 S. Monarch Street PUD Amendment Application 0012.2008.ASLU Ott S. Monarch StreeE (, Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to enclose two outdoor seating areas on a previously approved project, the Dancing Beaz Lodge, that is now currently under constnzction at 411 S. Monazch Street (See Application -Exhibit B). The change is minor in nature; however, three different approvals are required. The required approvals include a PUD amendment, Growth Management Quota System review and Commercial Design Review. The Dancing Beaz Lodge received approval by Council on August 11, 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 of Series 2003. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to enclose two outdoor seating azeas on the Dancing Beaz Lodge: Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Develoument for an increase in commercial net leasable azea of 386 squaze feet pursuant to Land Use Code Revised 6/12/2008 Page 2 of 11 P3 Section 26.470.080 (1). (The Plannine and Zoning Commission is the final review authori ,who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • PUD Insubstantial Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 A. This application qualifies for an insubstantial amendment which can be handled administratively; however, this review is being combined with the land use reviews. This review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. • Commercial Design Review for a change to the original design that received final approval. As pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.080 (A), "An insubstantial amendment to a Commercial Design Review approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission may be granted by the Community Development Director if a. The change is in conformance with the Design Standards, Section 26.412.060, the change represents a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the proposed development, or the change is consistent with representations made during the original review concerning the potential changes, of the development proposal considered appropriate by the decision making body; and b. The change requires no other land use action requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. " Since this application requires other land use actions that aze under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission it does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment, which is handled administratively; however, under Code Section 26.412.040, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly. Due to the scope of the request, the application will be reviewed as a Final Design application. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: Enclosing the two proposed outdoor seating azeas will result in an increase of 386 squaze feet of net leasable commercial space. When the increase in net leasable azea is greater than 250 squaze feet, the application cannot meet the qualifications for administrative review. This application falls under the requirements of Code Section 26.470.080 -Major Planning and Zoning Commission Applications (1) Expansion or New Commercial Development. If approved, this application will require employee generation mitigation pursuant to Code Section 26.470.100, Growth Management Quota System Calculations. The increase of 386 squaze feet of net leasable space means that 0.95 employees will be generated as a result. Every 1,000 squaze feet of new Net Leasable Area commercial space in the Lodge zone district generates 4.1 employees. The mitigation calculation, using 2008 fees, is as follows: 386 square feet / 1,000 squaze feet = 0.386 0.386*4.1 emp]oyees per 1,000 squaze feet = 1.58 employees Revised 6/12/2008 Page 3 of 11 P4 1.58 * 60% as per Section 26.470.050 (B) (5) = 0.95 employees Since this is less than one employee generated, the applicant is permitted to make acash-in-lieu payment. 0.95 employees * $130,213 (Category 4 fee) _ $123,702.35 The Planning and Zoning Commission, based on a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has the authority to permit cash-in-lieu payment for mitigation of less than one employee. This is the third option listed on the recommendation that was submitted. (See Exhibit B). Staff finds that Option 3 is the only one that the City has the ability to request as per the Code requirements. The applicant has provided more units than were required for the original approval. The two additional units above the requirements aze provided on site. The approval of this application will result in deductions from the Annual Development Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels for 2008 for commercial development. There have been no allocations granted yet for 2008, as a result, there are 33,300 net leasable square feet available. This application meets the review criteria for general requirements for Growth Management Review. Please refer to Exhibit A for staff findings of the review criteria. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT REVIEW: The proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development is found to be consistent with the approved final development plan by staff. This qualifies the proposed project for approval, approval with conditions or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The change proposed by the applicant is relatively minor. During the application process when the Dancing Beaz PUD was created, concerns were focused on the massing and height of the building. The minutes from those meetings aze included as Exhibit C. The proposed enclosure will be consistent with the original approvals. A Floor Area Ratio of 2.98:1 was approved in the final development approval. Currently the project has a F.A.R. of 2.28:1 and the proposed project will result in an F.A.R. of 2.32:1, well below what was approved. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed changes to the structure. The application must meet Section 26.412.060 of the Land Use Code regazding Commercial Design Standazds. The azea proposed to be enclosed is currently under an overhang and not open to the sky. These azeas aze not considered open space by definition of the City's Land Use Code. Utility, delivery and trash services will not be impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. These items have been approved in the original PUD and meet the standazds. The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial Chazacter Area. The Commercial Chazacter Area has some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet. The previously approved Planned Unit Revised 6/12/2008 Page 4 of 11 P5 Development will still meet these objectives after the proposed amendment is added to the structure. Changing the proximity of the seating azea to the sidewalk may encourage a more defined street wall and more defined edge towazds the street. This may be a better use of the space by bringing the customer activity into sight of the streetscape rather than recessed under the overhanging part of the building away from street activity. There is space remaining to accommodate outdoor seating in the summer months on the south side of the building. The proposed enclosed seating will bring the activity closer to the sidewalk in the winter months. The same building materials will be used as aze used throughout the rest of the project. Large windows will be the dominant new feature. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requested that the applicant update the fee calculation to reflect the new 2008 fees. RECOMMENDATION: While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Dancing Beaz PUD. It does not substantially change the exterior of the building, the same materials will be used and outdoor seating will still be available for restaurant patrons. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Growth Management Review, Planned Unit Development Amendment, and Commercial Design Review requests. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the proposed amendments that they may use this motion "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the Growth Management Review, the Planned Unit Development amendment and the Commercial Design Review to enclose two outdoor seating azeas at 411 South Monazch on the Dancing Beaz Lodge (Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen)." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B - Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Referral Exhibit C -Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (June 23, 2003 and July 28, 2003) Exhibit D -Application Revised 6/12/2008 Page 5 of 11 P6 EXHIBIT A 26 470 050 General Requirements for the Growth Manaeement Ouota Svstem All development applications, for Growth Management Review shall comply with the following standazds. The review body shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed development. There are sufficient allotments to allocate to the proposal. There have not been any allocations of Commercial net leasable square footage. Each year there are 33,300 net leasable square feet available. This proposed development is requesting an allotment of 386 square feet. Staff fords this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP states that the intent of the Economic Sustainability theme is to "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area community. " Increasing the amount of seating that is available in all four seasons will help contribute to a year-round economy. There will still be outside seating available after the enclosure is complete. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The proposed portions of seating to be enclosed are currently covered areas. The building footprint will not be altered. The proposed project meets all the dimensional requirements Lodge zone district requirements. The additional net leasable space will require an amendment to the total stated in the approved ordinance for the Planned Unit Development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design approval, and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval as applicable. The proposed project is consistent with the Conceptual Design approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval. The main concerns for the original development were building height and mass. It was also noted that it would be optimal to increase the open space on this property. The seating that is proposed to be enclosed is not considered open space because it is a currently covered area. Conceptual Historic Commission approval does not apply to this project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, 60% of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development aze mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The applicant has opted to pay cash-in-lieu to mitigate the employees generated because the employee generated is a fractional employee. The original development provided more employee housing than was required at the time of the f rst approvals. The housing Revised 6/12/2008 Page 6 of I 1 P7 department has requested that the applicant update the calculation to use the new 2008 fees. The increase of 386 square feet of net leasable space means that 0.95 employees will be generated as a result. The project proposes 386 square feet of new Net Leasable Area Commercial space. Every 1, 000 square feet of new Net Leasable Area commercial space in the Lodge zone district generates 4.1 employees. The mitigation calculation is as follows: 386 square feet / 1, 000 square feet = 0.386 0.386*4.1 employees per 1, 000 square feet = 1.58 employees 1.58 * 60% as per Section 26.470.050 (B) (5) = 0.95 employees Since this is less than one employee generated, the applicant is permitted to make acash- in-lieu payment. 0.95 employees * $130,213 (Category 4 fee) _ $123,702.35 Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Affordable housing Net Livable Area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least 30% of the additional free-mazket residential Net Livable Area, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This is not applicable as a cash-in-lieu payment is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. This project will only place minimal additional demands on the public infrastructure. The proposed area to be enclosed was intended for outdoor seating. If approved, the seating will be interior to the building. Staff finds this criterion met. Revised 6/12/2008 Page 7 of 11 P8 EXHIBIT A (Continued) Planned Unit Development Amendment Review 26.445.100 PUD Insubstantial Amendments An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: (staffftndings are in italics) 1. A change in the use or chazacter of the development. The proposed amendment is enclosing an area that was previously designated for outdoor seating. The use will not change; the seating will become interior to the restaurant. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. An increase by greater than three percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. The site coverage that was approved in the final development plan will not be altered. The area to be enclosed is located under an overhang. The building footprint will not change. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. There are no additional impacts predicted to existing infrastructure. Staff Ends this criterion to be met. 4. A reduction by greater than three percent of the approved open space. The area to be enclosed does not meet the definition of open space because it is located under an overhang. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. A reduction by greater than one percent of the off-street pakking and loading spaces. The off-street parking and loading will not change from the original approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or right-of--way for streets and easements. The pavement widths and right-of--ways will not be affected. Staff frnds this criterion to be met. 7. An increase of greater than two percent in the approved gross leasable floor azea of commercial buildings. This is not a commercial building. This does not apply. Staff frnds this criterion to be met. 8. An increase in greater than one percent in the approved residential density of the development. There are no residential units in this development. The units are timeshare lodge rooms. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 6/12/2008 Page 8 of 11 P9 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. The proposed amendment is a minimal change from the approved site plan. The applicant predicts that pedestrians will have increased interactions with the patrons on site for a longer portion of the year as a result of the enclosure. Indoor patrons will be more visible from the street because they will be in closer proximity and they will still have interactions with the remaining outdoor seating area. The pedestrian circulation will still have an interactive relationship with. restaurant patrons in the remaining outdoor seating areas and the indoor seating areas will be more visible because they will no longer be located under the overhang. There will still be outside seating available after the enclosure is complete. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. Revised 6/12/2008 Page 9 of 11 P10 EXHIBIT A (Continued) 26 412 060 Commercial Review Design Guidelines As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed changes to the structure. The application must meet Section 26.412.060 of the Land Use Code regarding Commercial Design Standazds. The Commercial Design Standazds include: 1. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well designed public places and settings contribute to an amactive, exciting, and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to the public right-of--way or private property within commercial areas. Staff Finding -The area proposed to be enclosed is currently under an overhang and not open to the sky. These areas are not considered open space by defnition of the City's Land Use Code. Stafjfinds this criterion to be met. 2. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision Staff Finding -Utility, delivery and trash services will not be impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. These items have been approved in the original PUD and meet the standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial Character Area. The Commercial Chaaacter Area has some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet, including: Design Obiectives. These aze key design objectives for the Commercial Area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Maintaining a retail orientation. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. 4. Encourage a well defined street wall. 5. Reflect the vaziety in building heights seen traditionally. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a cleaz definition with the street edge. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Staff Finding -The previously approved Planned Unit Development will still meet these objectives after the proposed amendment is added to the structure. Changing the proximity of the seating area to the sidewalk may encourage a more defned street wall Revised 6/12/2008 Page 10 of 11 P11 and more defined edge towards the street. This may be a better use of the space by bringing the customer activity into sight of the streetscape rather than recessed under the overhanging part of the building away from street activity. There is space remaining to accommodate outdoor seating in the summer months. The proposed enclosed seating will bring the activity closer to the sidewalk in the winter months. The same building materials will be used as are used throughout the rest of the project. Large windows will be the dominant new feature. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. Street and Alley System. The street and alley configuration will not be affected by this proposed amendment. Staff ftnds this criterion to be met. 2. Pazkin . The parking will not be affected by this proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Public Amenity Snace. The proposed amendment will not alter the approved open space. The outdoor seating areas to be enclosed are not considered to be open space because they are located under overhangs. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 4. Building Placement The building footprint will not be altered by the proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Building Height, Mass and Scale The building height, mass and scale were an issue during the original approval process. The proposed amendment does not alter height, mass or scale in this case. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Final Review Design Guidelines 1. Building Design and Articulation The building design and articulation will not be significantly altered as a result of the proposed amendment. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. Architectural Materials The proposed amendment will incorporate the same building materials as the rest of the approved project. Large windows will be the dominant feature in the enclosed area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Paving and Landscaning The paving and landscaping will not be altered from the ftnal approved development plan. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Revised 6/12/2008 Page 11 of 11 P12 RESOLUTION No. (SERII!:S OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEW, INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNTT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING TWO OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS OF THE DANCING BEAR LODGE LOCATED AT 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET, LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number 2737-182-19-002 WHEREAS, Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for Growth Management Quota System Review, an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development Amendment and Commercial Design Review dated February 15, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the request is to receive approval for Growth Management Quota System Review allotments, an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development amendment, and Commercial Design Review to enclose 386 square feet of outdoor seating to indoor seating, therefore increasing the net leasable commercial area; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for Growth Management Quota System Review pursuant to Code section 26.470.080 (Major Planning and Zoning Commission Applications), an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development Amendment pursuant to Code section 26.445.100 (A) (PUD Insubstantial Amendments), and Commercial Design Review pursuant to Code section 26.412.040 (Review Procedures) under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 17rd, 2008; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, P13 WHEREAS, a change order to the Building Permit application will be required; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A request for the annexation petition and zoning application was initiated by: Eben P. Clazk of Klein, Cote and Edwazds, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Beaz Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed Growth Management Quota System Review, Planned Unit Development amendment, and Commercial Design Review has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Growth Management Quota System Review for new commercial development under Major Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, Insubstantial Planned Unit Development amendment, and Commercial Design Review application request for the said lot. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of Ordinance No. 29, of Series 2003; however the applicant has approval to develop 386 squaze feet of net leasable area by enclosing some outdoor seating as shown in Exhibit A. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. P14 APPROVED AS TO FORM Jim True, Assistant City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 17th day of June 2008. LR Erspamer, Chairperson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A -Approved Exterior Elevations and permitted area to be enclosed. P15 rtr v i ~ ` - ~ z ~ , r ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ r i 1 ~ i _J 'i ~~ ~ ~ ~ N D n ~ ~ n = m -. D ~ Z D O m O ~ m~1 ~ -~~ 6` _ D eo ~,,z _ rD D D O w _ \._~ ~ D~1 ~ ' N=~ ~ GJO - 8 ~? ~ D mD ~~ ~ ~~~1 ~~ ,~: O rn D ^W' ~ ~(GlSQLclTccn~ pD ~ G, EXHIBIT P16 D D '„ O = a. ~ ~1 m m ~ m ~ m ~ aNNpm Z 6~ ~ 6~u,D eo ~„ F ~ <~ m D X ~1 cr 7C ~,~l~p-'~ z -0 G~ D Z cD = _ ~ Cl~ D Z w ~ Clcn Z o' iA no~c z , r Crr tor ~~ ~.!! DDO ZOO z cD cn rn ~~ D DSJ==D m m nT D£) O T ro DOD O~DDD z? m~ m~DD Z i~ T~- Tn~ P17 n c ~ ~ ~ D m m = n m z w ~ z ~ m~ m - m m ~ ~ ~ m , r ~ ~ D D D -i -i O ~ Z ~ m P18 ~ X7CD _+ D m z=n ~, Dz ~ m ~ D m ~ D D ~ ~l l9 ~ _ p D Z ~ 7C p m ~ N D D mom D m zm ~ < D ~_ O z P19 N m ~ p Cl X~D m z = n p z ~ p~ p A ~ _ ~ m ~ D~~l B A c _ ~ z z ~ 7C p N N N ~ p mom A = ~m ~ r m D ~_ O Z P20 cNi ~ ~ o D ~ n z m m = n m z w ? z ~ N~ ~ ~ m b mom' B D Z ~ -' N O D m ~XNIC~I i ~ P21 MEMORAII~DUM TO: Errin Evans, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: Mazch 27, 2008 RE: DANCING BEAR LODGE PUD AMENDMENT (411 S. MONARCH STREET) Pazcel ID No. 2737-182-19-002 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting an amendment that would increase the restaurant/ commercial space in the project by 386 squaze feet. BAC%GROUND: The property is located at 411 South Monazch Street. The addition of 386 square feet would allow for approximately 30 additional diners in the restaurant throughout the off- season and winter months. This increase of square footage would result in less than asingle- employee being generated; therefore, the applicant is requesting to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation through stash-in-lieu payment. According to Section 26.470.OSO.B.S, 60% of the employees generated aze required to be mitigated. The requirement for an additional 386 squaze feet of net leasable space is 386 - 1,000 X 4.1 employees generated per 1,000 squaze feet of net leasable space X 60% _ .95. As this is a fraction of an employee, the applicant has the option to mitigate via acash-in-lieu payment. The Housing Boazd has prioritized the options that can be utilized for mitigation purposes. They are as follows: On-Site Housing -That the location of a deed restricted property used for construction or redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes be either next to or attached to the development. 2. Off-Site Housing -That the location of a deed restricted property used for construction or redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes be at a sepazate location approved by the Housing Office. Cash-in-Lieu or Land-in-Lieu -That the applicant for a development may, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, satisfy the mitigation requirement by payment of an affordable housing dedication fee or a donation of ]and. The preference of cash or land shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. Due to the priority, the Housing Office would prefer a studio unit be provided for this additional square footage request. P22 Section 26.470.OSO.B.S allows for the payment-iu-lieu fee to be calculated using the Category 4 fee. Under the Category 4 stated fee, the amount owed for adding 30 additional diners in the restaurant would be $127,702.35 ($130,213 [as specified in the 2008 Guidelines] X .95). The applicant has used the 2007 payment-in-lieu fee for Category 4. In most instances, a person who works in the restaurant business falls under the Category 1 or Category 2 income level. Staff would recommend approval of the payment-in-lieu fee versus providing a unit if a more reasonable fee was used. Staff would recommend that the average of Category 1 and Category 2 be utilized in calculating the fee ($264,228 + $221,072 - 2 = $242,650); therefore, a fee of $230,517.50 would be required to mitigate for this request. This payment more readily reflects the cost to construct a studio unit to house an employee. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of using the payment-in-lieu fee if the average of the 2008 Category 1 and Category 2 fees are utilized. Otherwise, staff would prefer that the mitigation be provided by expanding the on-site units to three-bedroom units or by providing an approved off-site studio unit. 2 ,~lkIB1T G P23 ReEUIsr Meetine Asaen Citv Council June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richard moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, with the provision that the neighbors be consulted at the time of the soils survey with the engineer and that the fire marshal look at fire and safety access during any demolition and excavation time as well as the final development plan and that a building permit will not be issued for this unless the Residences application has been withdrawn Peterson asked what consulting with the neighbors on the soils survey means. Councilwoman Richards said the neighbors would like to give background and history when the soils studyis being looked at. Vann said the applicants are required to submit a soils evaluation to be reviewed by city staff. Vann said the condition states the applicants will comply.with the recommendation of the soils analysis. Julie Ann Woods, community development department; said if the neighbors are not "consulted", where does that leave staff. Peterson said when the soils study is subnutted, they will give the Falenders a copy. Peterson said he is not comfortable with the language "consulted". Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, on second reading with the condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit or demolition permit, the application for the Residences at the Little Nell will be withdrawn and that the )j alenders will be provided with a copy of the soils study and invited to comment; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29. SERIES OF 2003 -Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a lodge preservation PUD to redevelop a site at 411 South Monarch street. Council is the final reviewing body of all land use requests for this site. Lindt showed Council where the site is, just west of Wagner park. The site is 12,000 square feet and is zoned I;TR. There is currently aone-story lodge building with 23 bedrooms. This building has been vacant for the last 5 years. Lindt said the proposal is to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with an 11-unit time share lodge of 28 bedrooms. Each unlit will have lock off capabilities.. 15 P24 ReEUlar Meetin As en Ci Council June 23 2003 Lindt reviewed each flooi of the proposal. The first floor has a lobby and check in area access from South Monarch street; alounge/bar with patio seating; one 1400 square foot, 2 bedroom lodge unit; 2 affordable housing units of 2 bedrooms. The second floor contains 4 lodge units, two 1400 square feet 2 bedroom units; two 2800 square feet 3 bedroom units. The third-floor contains 3 2800 square foot 3 bedroom units. The fourth floor has 3 three bedroom units and a recessed patio. The fifth floor has a glass gazebo, which would have a hot tub and exercise area. Lindt said the applicant proposes 3 below grade levels. The first level has a garage access accessed from the alley, as well as a games and recreation area, and a storage area. There are 24 parking spaces proposed on site; 5 spaces at grade on the applicant's property. The second floor below grade contains the majority of the garage. The third floor below grade contains more storage for the owner's personal goods, mechanical area and conference room.. Lindt said the timeshare will be 8 shares per unit, 58 totals estates. The FAR- . is 3.25:1 and a height of 57 feet to the midpoint of the gazebo. Lindt.told Council staff feels this is an appropriate use for the site. In the past this has been used as a lodge. This project will bring vitality to a very important corner in town. The applicant has proposed a good deal of their affordable housing mitigation on site. The applicant has proposed greater than .7/lodge bedroom of parking spaces, which is required by code. Lindt noted one concern is the height, which is proposed at 57-feet as measured by the land use code. Other lodges in that area are the St. Regis, which is 50 to 60 feet, the Mountain Chalet is low 50's. Three P&Z members felt the height was too extreme for,the 28 feet as allowed in the LTR zone. Lindt told Council the upper floors are recessed to create a wedding cake effect, which helps lessen the mass. The building has been stepped down to the west towards the townhomes. Lindt said staff feels the massing is appropriate with the exception of the turret. Lindt told Council the applicant proposed to use two spaces on Monarch as loading zones. Staff does not agree a lodge of 11 units needs a loading zone and added a condition that two alley spaces be signed as check-in parking. The third 'issue is the finaric9al impact analysis to compare the proposed timeshare lodge with the tax revenues that would have been gained through lodge use. Lindt said the applicant's financial impact analysis shows there 16 P25 R ular Meetin As en Ci Council June 23 2003 would not be a tax revenue loss through this fractional fee change. The city's fmance director, Paul Menter, commented the projected nightly rental rates are too high and the analysis should be redone with a lower rate. Menter requested a condition that the city be able to do an audit after the lodge is operating. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, reiterated this site has been sitting vacant for several years and has been years since it has contributed to Aspen's bed base. Haas said a boarded up building is sending an antithetical message to tourists regarding the economy and the vitality of lodges on the fringe of the commercial core., Haas told Council .most potential purchasers of this property wanted to build residential townhomes. This owner is interested in developing something that will contribute to the vitality and economic sustainability of the town. The applicant proposes two above grade employee housing units. This development should raise occupancy levels and should attract new visitors to Aspen. . Haas noted there are trash compactors and recycling facilities access off the alley. There will be a decrease of l lodge unit from the Aspen Manor; however; the bedrooms will increase from 23 to 28. There will be an increase of leasable commercial space on the property including a sidewalk patio cafe on the comers .Haas told Council the applicants propose to house 4.5 employees and the.remaining fraction of employee will be mitigated by cash-in-lieu. The management and operation of the lodge will be done with an existing lodge or with a management company. Haas said a strong architectural statement is important on this corner, right across from a large pazk. The perceived mass of the stricture is broken up by different forms and modules, changes in exterior building materials, balconies, different window forms and shapes, and stepping the building back. Haas said they have tried for a classic wedding cake style building, the structure "steps down in height to the west and the southwest corner of the lodge is only 25 feet above grade. The west side of the lodge is 3 stories as is the northwest and northeast comers of the building. The midsection of the building is 4 stories. `The 5~' story gazebo sits in the center of the building. The building height has. been lowered and the mass reduced through P&Z review. Haas told Council the height at the corner of Monazch and Durant is less than 32 feet without the turret. 17 P26 Reeular Meetine Ashen City Council June 23.2003 Haas said the height of the structure varies depending from where it is measured. The fluctuations are a function of the topography of the site. The highest measured height on a public right-of--way is at the northwest'comer along the alley and it is 39'9"; the southeast comer 31'6" exclusive of the turret. The height is the gazebo is mitigated by using glass, by-the stepping back of the surrounding levels and the fact it is setback 27 feet from Durant Avenue. ~ This should not shadow streets or surrounding properties. The Wheeler Opera House view plane of Aspen mountain would not be compromised by this development. The overall height of Dancing Bear is lower than that of the St. Regis. The Mountain Chalet addition was approved at 52 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof and allows 5 stories in that building. Haas said given the site's location and proximity to downtown and the transportation center, there should be little need for cars. There are 24 on- siteparking spaces. The applicant commits to encouraging employees and guests to use alternative transportation. A fleet of bicycles will be kept on site for guests and employees. 'There will be provision for airport shuttle by the applicant or by contract with another lodge who does airport shuttle. The applicant has committed to keeping a small fleet of hybrid vehicles for use by guests and employees. Haas said. they hope to obtain LEEDS certification, which is a national green building program, and to come as close to possible of the gold level. Haas summarized this is will replace an eyesore, will add hot beds, and will revitalize the Durant/Monarch intersection. The applicants hope to set a precedent for green building; they plan of housing 4.5 FTEs on site. There will be over $1 million in direct tax generation in the first 5 years of operation. The project provides community facilities, is self sufficient for parking and storage and the project furthers the AACP goals with respect to small lodges, affordable housing, economic sustainability, growth and the environment. David Brown, architect, went over the materials and the architecture of the proposed building. Brown told Council they went through the guidelines in the fractional timeshare ordinance and have tried to incorporate everything the ordinances envisions. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. 18 P27 Re lar Meetin¢ Asven City Council June 23.2003 Cliff Weiss said this building is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weiss said he does not feel this size building will contribute to the community. Roger Haneman, P&Z member, said this project will bring more benefits to the community than the one Council just approved. Haneman said these applicants made a great effort to meet the requests of P&Z. Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, said he is concerned about the economic viability of the base of Aspen Mountain; however, he is very concerned about the economic sustainability of the Limelite Lodge. Paas said a massive building of this height and bulk will negatively affect the ability of the Limelite to rent rooms. Paas. said this building does not blend with the neighborhood. Paas requested Council only approve 28. foot high building as allowed by the code. Stan Hajenga, manager Mountain Chalet, presented a letter from the owners of the Snow Queen Lodge stating they are against the proposed height, which goes against the pninciples of planning in this, area. Hajenga applauded that someone is trying to develop this corner. Hajenga said the city needs to look at a system that allows a building to fall into disrepair for 5 years. Hajenga said the proposed height will affect many neighbors and many businesses. Hajenga said when the Mountain Chalet addition went through the process, they had to meet the view plane requirements. This. building does not meet the view plane requirements. Hajenga said he would like to see this corner redeveloped; however; this proposal is beyond the scale and height called for. Debbie Falender said she reviewed the PUD and other ]and use code ordinances. The PUD ordinances say height, mass, parking, and density ' should respect the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning here is 1:1 and the FAR for this proposed project is 3.25:1. The PUD ordinance also states that the property shall be clustered to preserve significant open space. Ms. Falender noted that does not mean a building should be built right up to the borders of the property. Ms. Falender said this is too big for town. Mayor Klandenud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards said she appreciates all the work that has. been done; however, she cannot approve this plan: Councilwoman Richards noted there is discussion in the infill about creating more view planes and 19 P28 one of Shadow Mountain and this will block the view of Shadow Mountain. The building is taller than the surrounding pine trees. Councilwoman ,zs Richards agreed she would like to see redevelopment on this lot; however, this is overreaching. Councilwoman Richards said only 9% open space may work for a one story building but it does not work. fora 5 story building. Councilwoman Richards noted part of a PUD process is to look at a greater public benefit. This proposal does not. add any extra affordable housing out of 36,000 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said this site is on the north side of Durant and has 4ransitioned to a different neighborhood from the base of the mountain. Councilwoman Richards noted this building will be higher than the Elk's Club building. Councilwoman Richards said this is zoned LTR and one could construct 3 residential townhomes on this site, which would not contribute to the community either. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has problems with the height, especially as it would block the view of Shadow Mountair. Mayor Klanderud said the buret makes the building interesting. Mayor Klanderud stated she would consider some height variance; however, this is much too high. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer to see all affordable housing built rather than get cash-in-lieu for housing. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned there are only 2 parking spaces for affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud agreed it is great something is being planned for this site. It is a critical block in Aspen. Brown said some of the benefits to the community are that this project will provide hot beds and will bring guests to Aspen with money to spend. Councilman Paulson agreed the structure is took tall. Councilman Paulson said he likes the gazebo. Councilman Paulson said he would like to see the building shrunk. Councilman Paulson asked about the trees on site. Brown said they have met with city.staff, who have identified 2 or 3 significant trees on Durant street that should remain. The. applicants will cooperate with the parks to give them what they ask for. Haas told Council the large conifers are not appropriate for pedestrian traffic as they grow all the way to the ground. The parks department is recommending trees that are more easily walked under. Councilman Paulson asked what will keep a person from buying 6 or 12 months of one unit. City Manager Steve Barwick said that is covered in the city's timeshare ordinance, which he will have to Council at their next 20 P29 R ular Meetin As en Cs Council June 23 2003 consideration of this application. Barwick said the city cannot guarantee how a building will be occupied but can guarantee that one person may riot purchase all the weeks. Councilman Semrau pointed out the infill ordinance would only allow 30 feet plus an additional 8 feet with special review and a historic TDR. Councilman Semrau said agreed this is a great project in a great location but it is too big; the height and mass are out of scale for the site. Under the PUD process, the applicant has the responsibility of proving a project is deserving of an exception. Councilman Torre asked what percentage of the total square footage is actual lodge space and what is amenities, parking, storage. Brown said it is 50% net Teaseable under the LTR defuition of net leasable. Councilman Torre said there seems to be a lot of amenity space built in and there maybe away to lessen that, make the units smaller, and make the project smaller. All the amenities will. make guests stay on property rather than go out in town and spend money. -Brown said the intent of the amenities like the game room and movie theatre is to give families things to do. Brown said without the amenities, tlis is not a competitive project and would be under serious distress. Brown said there is not a square inch that could be removed without impacting the project. Mayor Klanderud noted when the Obermeyer project first came to Council, there was an outcry about the height. T'he design team came back with a project at the height requirement, which won broad support. Brown pointed out applicants are not allowed to talk to Council until the end of the process. It would be better to have a more collaborative process. Brown asked Council what would be the right height, the right mix, the right project. Councilman Semrau said the right use is family type lodging and the amenities are grea*: however, the mass, scale and height are out of character. Councilman Semrau said he feels 38 feet would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud agreed she could approve 38 feet. Mayor Klanderud said she would also like all employees housed on site. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the. commitment to green development. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to July 28; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 21 P30 Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #55 SERIES OF 2003 - Obermeyer Temporary Use Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this temporary use request is for a real estate office to be located on the Obermeyer property. Bendon said staff does not see any issues with this request. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #55, Series of 2003; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #56 SERIES OF 2003 - Mascotte Annexation John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this property is located at the base.of Smuggler Mountain along Park Circle.. The owner, Alain Degrave, owns lots 2 and 5 .of the Aspen election subdivision, which are already in"the city. City Clerk Kathryn Koch reported the posting and publication are in order.' Worcester said there is 1/6`b contiguity with the city and a community of interests exists. The area is capable of being integrated within the city. The property has' not been subdivided into separate parcels. 100% of the property owners have consented to annexation: There are no other annexations pending. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klandenxd closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Resolution #56, Series of 2003; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Councilman Paulson said he would like a neighborhood map for second reading to make sure where this is located in reference to-any possible master plan for Smuggler Mountain. All in favor.with the exception of Councilman Paulson, motion carried. 22 P31 R ular Meetin¢ Asaen City Council July 28, 2003 activities, and delete reference to conversion of lodge units, and construction management plan in #9; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5. SERIES OF 2003 -Code Amendment Infill Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #5, Series of 2003, to August 25;seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ~RDINANCE #29, SERIES OF_2003 -Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development depaztment, reminded Council at the last public hearing, they stated the proposed project was too large and too tall. 'The applicant will present a revised design. David Brown, representing the applicant, showed Council the current design and told them they have taken off one floor. The first two stories are of stone, stepping back onto a shingled dazker floor and above that is a greenhouse, gazebo and roof. The setback is 5 feet rather than 2 feet. Brown told Council the corner facing Monarch and Durant is 31 feet to the 3~ floor and 20'6" at the 2"d floor. At the alley for the main part of the building is 38 feet. The gazebo adds another 8 to 10 feet, which makes the building 44 feet at the midpoint of the glass shed. The top of the highest elevator shaft is 46 feet. The building elevations at the street are 34 to 31 to 34 feet. Brown showed the first project as reviewed by P&Z, the recommendation from P&Z and the current iteration. The building is greatly reduced. The project is now 9three-bedroom suites with lock offs for 18 keys. The building as is has 23 bedrooms; this will be an increase of 3 free market bedrooms. Tie lower levels have not changed since the last presentation. The 2two-bedroom employee units are the same as before and are now twice the required mitigation_ All the suites range from 1700 to 2200 square feet, averaging 2,000 square feet. The bar and restaurant is smaller than before. The second floor contains 4 suites and 41ock offs. The 3'~ floor has been stepped back so each unit has its own outdoor deck. The roof has solar collectors, gardens, hot tubs and gazebo. The height of the gazebo varies to P32 Regular Meeting Ashen City Council Juty 28.2003 from 43 to 45 at the highest point. Brown showed elevations from different points around the project. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the gazebo will be set back 17 feet from the Durant avenue facade and 13 feet from Monazch. street. Haas said the building is within the 38-foot height requested by Council except for the gazebo, which is transparent and sits in the middle of the building. Haas said this feature is necessary to set this project apart from other time-share projects. Haas said the gazebo does not add to the perceived height of the building. Haas said the height measure is not as important as the qualitative measurements. The gazebo placed at the comer of Monarch and Durant would fit within the height limits but it would not be a good design. Haas reminded Council the recently approved Hyatt is 46 feet with a ground elevation higher than this site. The Mountain Chalet was approved with a 52-foot height limit. Haas stated the applicants will make all efforts to achieve LEEDS certification and the gazebo will provide a perfect place for photovoltaic cells and capture of energy: The glass stairwell on Monazch is another location for passive solaz gain for reuse. This corner needs ' revitalization. The project plans to add to the streetscape with the restaurant. The applicant plans to provide a hybrid vehicle for use by residents'as well as bicycles. The applicant is providing 115% housing for employees when only 60% is required. Haas said they fee] this will.be a fisoal benefit to the ,city. This is aself-sufficient development for parking, affordable housing, economic sustainability and providing amenities on site. Lindt told Council staff feels this proposal meets community goals in bringing vitality to this location. The use is appropriate; this site has been tourist accommodations. The applicant has met their housing requirements. Lindt said this building is lower than other PUDs in the surrounding area. At the last meeting, Council indicated 38 feet would be appropriate on this site. Staff does not recommend asking for removal of the gazebo as it is set back. far enough that it would not be a dominant feature of the building. The gazebo will be constructed out of translucent materials. Council brought up the restaurant space at the Iast meeting and whether it will remain that use in the future. There is a condition in the ordinance to require a PUD amendment if the owners want to convert this space from a restaurant. Lindt reminded Council at the previous meeting they indicated one parking space/affordable unit was too few. The amended ordinance 11 P33 Reeolar Meetin¢ Asuen Citv Council Jnly 28, 2003 requires two parking spaces per two-bedroom unit. 'The applicant has requested. leasing pazking spaces in:the public right-of--way for loading. Staff does not feel a 9-unit lodge would require loading spaces. The city engineer is opposed to leasing spaces in the publicright-of--way. Paul Menter, finance director, pointed out not all tax information is available because the Aspen Manor has not been operating for the past 5 yeazs. Menter said the applicant's fiscal analysis meets the code requirements. Menter told Council the condition on whether a fee is owed levers on the historical occupancy rate of the hotel. The original occupancy rate was estimated at 61%; the revised application is 51% as attested by the previous owner. The difference is whether a fee is owed or not. Menter concluded no fee is owed: Brown agreed there appears to be no fiscal impact to the applicant and this should be a cash generator for the.community. City Manager Steve Barwick suggested for the future, Council consider a minimum occupancy rate for fiscal analysis amendment to this code section. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Susan O'Neal asked about the row of evergreens on Durant. Haas said the one on the corner and one other will be preserved; the parks department has asked the other trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate street streets. Kathy Petner, 210 East Cooper, commended the applicants for their design, for stepping the building back, for the green development, for the extra affordable housing. Ms. Petner said she is concerned' about the 46- 'h feet and the precedent this will set for fixture developments in this area. Ms. Petner asked if the gazebo will be used at night and will be lit. Brown said it will be glass and there will be window coverings in order to make this a green project: It will be Iit and will be used at night. The gazebo will be used as an exercise room, mechanical equipment and lounge. Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, said he is very concerned about keeping the scale of the neighborhood. Paas pointed out every time this project has come back for city review, it has been a better project. Toni Kronberg said she is concemed about the height. Visitors like.the view of the mountain. People do not want taller buildings. Ms. K=onberg said this is a special site as it allows views of Shadow Mountain from the malls and from Wagner Pazk. 12 P34 Re¢ular Meetine Ashen City Council Julv 28, 2003 Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Carol Saunders-White, Jim Scull, and one from Andrea Clark all concerned with the height of the :, project as well as light from the gazebo at night. Haas said condition #21 requires a PM10 mitigation plan to be reviewed by environmental health. Haas stated the measures they have already committed to the in the application are more than adequate and should be accepted as the PM10 mitigation plan. These measures are a fleet of bicycles, hydroelectric vehicles, airport shuttle, employee bus passes, and marketing the location. These are all representations of the application. Lindt told Council environmental health staff feels the applicant has gone above and beyond PM 10 mitigation. Lindt suggested the condition be amended that the applicant meets the representations of their application. Mayor Klanderud requested these representations be listed in the condition. The applicant,agreed. Haas brought up condition #31, the 4 parking spaces for affordable housing, and requested only 2 spaces be required. Haas said the applicants feel they are being penalized for providing more housing than necessary. Haas noted the memorandum states that cash-in-lieu of school dedication is not attributable to the time-share units but is for the affordable housing units. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said they do not have a problem with the city finance department conducting an annual audit, but does have a problem that if the city finds there is a shortfall, that they be obligated to pay some impact fee as determined by Council. Klein stated there is no provision in the code for this requirement: There are no standards for this requirement and this should have some study and legislation. Menter said what staff is most interested in is collection information. Barwick suggested adding language that this condition would only apply if the city adopts code amendment within the next year. Mayor Klanderud stated she does not have a problem deleting conditions #40. Councilmembers agreed. Klein requested a change in condition #41 about a "substantial" change to a the restaurant; let the community development department decide whether this is a major or minor PUD amendment. Council agreed.. Mayor Klanderud said when Council has required fewer on site parking spaces because employees will not use their-cars has not worked. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Councilman Semrau said in this 13 P35 Reenlar Meetin¢ ~ Aspen Ciri Council July 28, 2003 neighborhood, it would be a great service to have 4 parking spaces. Council agreed to require the applicant provide 4 parking spaces for the affordable housing. Councilwoman Richazds said the city should not lease any spaces in the right-of--way on Monarch to this project. Councilwoman Richards pointed out this project is only providing 9% open space. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about reflections off the gazebo. Councilwoman Richards said she cannot accept the 4t6 floor. Where the gazebo is placed does not meet what the Council intended when they said 38 feet at the highest. 'Councilwoman Richards said she does like the changes in massing and in material. Councilwoman Richards stated she sees a sepazation between the north and south side of I}urant and this structure would be . setting a precedent for the south side. Councilman Torre said he is concerned that the on-site, amenities will keep the guests on site rather than getting out into the community. Councilman Torre said the gazebo raises the heights beyond what Council envisioned. Councilman Torre said the project could have a hot tub and rooftop gazden without the. gazebo structure. Councilman Torre said he feels the applicants have worked hard on this iteration. Councilman Semrau agreed this is an improvement and an interesting design. Councilman Semrau agreed about not leasing parking in the public right-of--way. Councilman Semrau does not support a 4`h floor but does support an architectural element that makes this an extraordinary building. Eliminating the gazebo would make it a more boring building. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the gazebo and whether it is appropriate in this location. The light and reflection are major concerns. Mayor Klanderud questioned the excavation of 3 floors below grade. Mayor Klanderud asked if this would be in the proposed Shadow Mountain view plane. Lindt said this would probably be located within the view plane; however, it has not been drafted. Mayor Klanderud said she would rather see the hybrid vehicles eliminated. Brown said the gazebo is located away from the northwest comer because of concerns of the neighbor. The building is 38 feet at this corner and is 31 feet on the street side. Brown said the applicants feel the gazebo will make this space very special and could be used by the community for special events 14 P36 ll~lar Meetin¢ Asaen City Council Julv 28.2003 and fund raisers. Brown said the sunlight reflection will be brief. The gazebo could be wrapped in fabric to cut down on this reflection or use non- reflective glass. Councilman Semrau suggested the size of the gazebo be reduced to 1500 square feet square feet. Councilwoman Richards stated the underlying height allowed in this zone district is 28 feet and going up to 38 feet is a significant variation. Going up another 8 feet is too much; the gazebo makes it appear as a 4`b floor. Councilwoman Richards said she would not disapprove of uses on the roof but without the structure. Mayor Klanderud said -this is a creative design with a good way to hide the mechanical equipment; however, she is concerned about the height. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to August 11; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carved. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2003 -South Aspen Street PUD ORDINANCE #33. SERIES OF 2003 -South Aspen Alley Vacation Councilman Semrau recused himself based on owning land within 300 feet of this application. James Lindt, community development department, told Council this final PUD review is for an application from Aspen Land Fund II to construct 14 free market and 17 affordable housing units on 3 parcels of land near the intersection of South Aspen and Juan streets: Sunny Vann, representing Aspen Land Fund R, reminded Council Savanah Limited Partnership-received the original conceptual approval for this piece of property in 2001. Vann said he submitted a final application in 2002. The property has been for sale and the applicants asked staff to hold the final review until final disposition of the property. Vann told Council Aspen Land Fund II acquired this property December 2002, notified the community development department and asked them to complete the final application. Vann told Council this application is identical to the conceptual application except for minor changes made in response to neighborhood concerns. Councilwoman Richards asked about the reference to the applicants wanting to build a hotel. Vann said Aspen Land Fund II purchased the property to build tourist accommodations at the base of the mountain. The applicants 15 .. .. r.. .:.~. : ~:.. .a r ...~~ i...: ..~ r ... -s: j - .._ _ . _ .r. 4 ..~~ ~. . 1'r/~• MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner yr THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community Development DATE OF MEMO: June 12, 2008 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2008 RE; Zupancis-Galena (ZG) Master Plan Update REQUEST OF COMMISSION: Staff is not requesting any formal action from the P&Z. BACKGROUND: On May 27, the City Council formally initiated the ZG Master Plan process. The master plan process will ultimately result in public heazings before the P&Z and the Council. DISCUSSION: Staff will be walking through relevant portions of the Civic Master Plan, which was adopted as a regulatory document by the P&Z and Council in 2006. The Core Principles, Findings and Recommendations of the Civic Master Plan have been, and will continue to be, key elements in the development of the ZG Master Plan. (Copies of the Civic Master Plan were distributed to the P&Z in Mazch, but additional copies aze available at the ComDev offices in City Hall and staff will bring copies to the meeting.) Staff will also talk about the development of the ZG Master Plan to this point, including the four public meetings on this subject since Mazch 2007, and the work that will be done this summer to further refine the plan -including additional public meetings. Staff will talk about the expected timeline of the process, and will be happy to take suggestions on developing additional information for the plan. The ZG Master Plan encompasses the area east from the Galena Street Ext. to the Zupancis Property, north to the jail driveway at Rio Grande Place, west to N. Mill Street, and including the ACRA building, the library and Galena Plaza. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Map of ZG Master Plan Area Page 1 of 1 .._._ ....rye ~~ ~'3 .. f 1~ / 1'~ ~ f ~_~ ~~r. -ti ~ - r, + ) ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~'~. ~ t 'P '~`•s~"~t - ~~'1°i ~, ':yam ~' 1 r ~i' '1 ~ ~~ i'.~,w rR ~ . '~,~ r -ice ~ 7 • ),. ~ i it ~1 •~~~- $._ ~ ~r _ ~ a_ ~. ~ ] ~ ~. ~ y -': - - ~~' qt'r' ~:: i~ '~f~- y~~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ .1 ~~s '~a '• ail^~ y-'ma'r -w ~~' ~ 'Ma ~.. ~r~ _ ~ : ~ V _'~ ,7r J F t' y _ ~ i ~ 's''~'r : ~"' "" ..: _ -,,. ~ ~~ ? ~ _ ~~ ~y ~ ~ ~y 1 ~ t~ ~ R~ y r ' ice. . l' ~` ~ ~ h I it ~'q~ '' R~r 4 .-_ a key ~, ' i~ ~ tlr 1 r'~; ,. .. .f 4 ? L~ .r=te - r 1 '::~ li` ' ' - ~,~ f ;~ ~~ ~ e'~` "~ ,rte _y =~ rr ~T,~'~`. - '~1' ~;`~ ' '~"~ . iJ- n ~ ,•~`-~ 'C' r-ti, ~ Y ~~ -f ice- _ - ~~a k., 'T ' a ~'-- - ~~ i '~~'~-=~~... ,-l~ ' .~,`'~'.`~~ ,~ Y . ~ i~ ~ 1'-•~~ T;~, l "---~ -~- ~ •}~..,~- 1 ~. err ~1 ~ ~ ~ *~f{tk "c.~~slf .~_, .~ .~ r ~...._ "~ f~ ~+~t _ '' `'~•` ,its ~ r :~F~' ,~ r "' ~~M/, ~1~~~ f ~1 ~ . a.,• -~' -, ' f fit}) ~jc~' ~j~//~/ ~ti Jf ~~_~~-.~{i~ i 1"~ ~E{",~~~~ ,~i ~-~ s t#~^,~L iy"~ s]^.,V ~L ~~~ ~K y.~ r, ~~~. ~ ~ I ~~~ ~1 1'~''i~• `r~ti ~1 .. y_ °.E „~~~~-~Y~ ~ ~ ~ 1~iN ~. 9 ~lv S a ~ ^ re ~r .r ,~' ~~- , '' 'fir }~'{r.~ -~ ~ ~-~~• ~.3°i• ' ;' ~~ - ~: ~~' r ~- ~ ~o ~~ '~ ~91 ~ `~ ~v ~- a ~ v~