Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080805Aspen Plannin¢ & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 05, 2008 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 332 MAIN STREET, SUBDIVISION REVIEW ..................................................... 3 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, CONCEPTUAL PUD ........................................................................................................................... 4 Aspen PlanninE & Zonine Commission MeetinE Minutes - August O5, 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Brian Speck, Dina Bloom and LJ Erspamer were present. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Amy Guthrie, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed the city agendas. Toni Kronberg spoke about the Civic Master Plan and an update on the ZG Master Plan. Stan Gibbs asked about the floor area issue of above grade and garden level for the Aspenwalk because he did not want this to come up again in the future. Jennifer Phelan responded that one of the parameters in the affordable housing requirements was that 50% of the finished floor be at or above grade. Phelan said that Aspenwalk as it was designed is garden level and that will not count to meet the 50% requirement so they will have to do some re-designing to meet that requirement when they come back for final. LJ Erspamer said that he would email wording for a resolution to the commissioners and staff. MINUTES MOTION.' Stan Gibbs requested corrections to the minutes on page 3 "the rotary door was or was not in the corner because some drawings indicated that it was" and "the applicant stated that the double doors are the plan and not the rotary door "; on page 7 strike ~e and replace with "office space ". Mike Wampler moved to approve the minutes from July 15`h as corrected; seconded by Brian Speck, all in favor, APPROVED. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LJ Erspamer stated that his wife works at Stewart Title and two people have signed the document from 332 Main Street. Jim True said that would not have an impact on LJ's authority to participate. Stan Gibbs said that he lived 2 blocks from 332 Main Street but did not receive a notice and thought his house was over 300 feet from the 332 Main property. Amy Guthrie said that he was not on the list. 2 Asgen Planning & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes - August 05, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: 332 MAIN STREET. SUBDIVISION REVIEW LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 332 Main Street. Jim True reviewed the public notice and was in order. Amy Guthrie stated that 332 Main Street was an 1889 Queen Anne Victorian house that was in the Main Street historic district. It currently has a one story addition built in the 1960s that is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new addition and this has been through the Historic Preservation Commission for review. Guthrie said the reason that this was coming before P&Z and Council was the demolition of the one bedroom or studio apartment that was being replaced and one more unit was being added and that meets the definition of subdivision. Guthrie said that this was the creation of a new multifamily residential unit. This application has been in the process for sometime and they are subject to residential multifamily housing replacement as it existed in 2005, which is different than the version on the books today. Because it was a land marked building they were eligible for a growth management exemption to provide the new unit and that's how they accumulate the rights to be able to develop the project. Guthrie said that they were approved for a project approximately 1,000 square feet less than the maximum; HPC did grant a rear yard setback variance in order to work within the boundaries that were left when the house was preserved in place. Guthrie said the staff finding was that it was in compliance with the subdivision criteria. Mike Wampler asked if this lot would ever be eligible for a lot split. Guthrie replied no because it was only 4500 square feet and they would have to have at least 6,000 square feet. Cliff Weiss said that 2b stated no more than 1 free market residence is permitted and asked if this gets over ruled because of historic designation. Guthrie replied no that they were replacing an existing unit that was already accepted as part of the development on the site; they were creating one new unit and are able to access that growth management exemption and this will be the only time that they will be able to get that exemption. Stan Gibbs inquired if either or both units were going to be deed restricted. Guthrie responded neither; the existing is not deed restricted but because they are demolishing and replacing they do have to provide affordable housing mitigation but the units on site will both be free market. The mitigation will be cash-in-lieu. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August OS 2008 No public comments. An email from Christine Quinn was submitted with a concern about parking. LJ Erspamer asked if any fences were encroaching. Guthrie said that parking will come off of the alley and the curb cit will be removed. Weiss asked if there were any variances from code. Guthrie said that HPC granted a setback variance from the mixed use zone district on the east side reducing from 5 feet to 2 feet and the rear yard setback was waived. John Muir recalled a 3 foot setback. Weiss asked if the house on the east side was setback at all from the lot line. Gibbs said that if housing continues to allow people to pay cash-in-lieu for housing we will see a lot of housing disappear and will continue to whittle away housing units; this application adheres to the code. Weiss said that there was not an affordable housing unit on site. Phelan said that the code has changed to have the cash-in-lieu allow for payment. DeFrancia agreed with Stan. Muir responded that the unit has not been occupied since Alice Brien has owned the property and it had been partly occupied for 5 years prior to that and it was in terrible shape. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #28, series 2008 recommending City Council approve fhe subdivision at 332 West Main; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Bloom, yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; Speck, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; Wampler, yes; APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01/08; 07/15/08): ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN CONCEPTUAL PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on Aspen Valley Hospital Conceptual PUD. Jennifer Phelan noted this was the third hearing reviewing the proposed master plan for the remodel and expansion of the hospital site. Phelan said that the meeting will include site access and traffic analysis submitted in the conceptual application along with parking and easement issues. Phelan said that at the next meeting on August 19`h there would be a resolution drafted. Phelan said that the site access to the property was currently through the main access at Castle Creek and Doolittle Drive; the master plan proposes a secondary service access, a looped service road, that will have an entry point at Whitcomb Terrace and loop around the hospital to take some of the traffic from the main access and split up some of the traffic generated by the hospital. Phelan said that 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Aueust O5, 2008 Castle Creek Road would have to be raised if this is accessed at Whitcomb Terrace. Phelan said that there were improvements for the main entry to maintain the current level of service for Castle Creek and to maintain that over time. Phelan recommended between conceptual and final the applicant look at possibly a different location for the service road or how to mitigate some of the impacts; is it necessary to raise Castle Creek Road; is there an alternate solution that meets the needs of the hospital; the recommendations of the traffic engineer to include a larger area of improvements on the main entry and a detailed traffic impact analysis be submitted at final and work with the city engineer. Mike Wampler said that he did not understand raising the road; why can't the road be approached from the other side instead of having to raise the road. Phelan stated there was a concern about raising the road and grade and visual requirements. Staff asked for an alternative solution that isn't as impactful and look at that between conceptual and final. Leslie Lamont said that the proposal that was in the application was at Whitcomb Terrace that does not work from a safety perspective engineering standard because it was too steep coming down to Castle Creek Road. Lamont said that there was concern from Parks and Engineering for the dumping of snow in the first pond submitted in the first proposal for the use of the trail to haul the snow to the first pond. Lamont said that the neighbors and staff wanted Doolittle Drive improvements looked at as well with regards to safety issues. LJ Erspamer asked if traffic flow was going to be one way with one entrance and one exit. Gideon Kaufman asked that the drawings be utilized to show the proposed entrance and existing entrance. Alex Ariniello, LSC Transportation Consultants, said that he has been working on this since the summer of 2006 with an employee survey. Ariniello utilized a power point for the traffic study procedures, data collection, existing traffic, alternate mode use, trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, project background traffic, tota12030 traffic, roadway level of service, roadway level of service 2008, roadway level of service 2030, site access improvements, parking demand, travel demand management and Aspen Valley Hospital study update. Ariniello said the traffic study includes an "A" to "F" grading; "A" being the best and "F" the worst and it was based on the delay at the intersection. Cliff Weiss asked if there was a mitigation plan for ambulances through the round about. Ariniello said that a two lane round about would allow for cars to pull over to the right for an ambulance to get through. Erspamer asked if Rich Walker could attend the next meeting on the ambulance issue. Weiss said that he wanted to hear from city streets department; he asked if the round about was city. Phelan replied that it was a state highway. Ariniello said that the intersection was operating at level "B". 5 Asaen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetin¢ Minutes - Aueust OS 2008 Ariniello said that they were still working on the new access point would have good levels of service as well as the existing access. Ariniello said there would be aright tum lane at the new access; they were looking at the Doolittle and Castle Creek intersection for the bus stop and passenger loading area. Ariniello said that they surveyed the employees and staff on parking and projected the demand into the future. Ariniello said that the typical parking demand rate is 3.5 parked vehicles per 1,000 square feet; they estimated patient stations parking spaces at .75 parked vehicles per each patient station. Stan Gibbs asked where the numbers for medical office come from. Ariniello replied it comes from national rates for medical office. Weiss asked if the number included guests and supplies. Ariniello replied yes. Gibbs asked if this report takes into account winter conditions. Ariniello answered there were traffic counters throughout the year on State Highway 82. Wampler asked if they weren't increasing the services at the hospital except for the medical offices why were the traffic numbers increasing; where were these numbers coming from. Ariniello responded they were increasing the square footage for the current offices, check-in area and hospital rooms. Lamont said that the medical office spaces are calculated from what traffic count is generated, parking demand and employee generation perspective. Lamont said that Ariniello looked at straight engineering manual standards that say for "x" square feet of patient stations that are added they generate "x" much traffic and they haven't gone back in and factored in the decompression argument with parking and traffic generation. John Sarpa said that this was pretty conservative even with the traffic issues in this city. Gideon Kaufinan agreed that these numbers were calculated at a higher rate. Erspamer asked if the bus ridership would improve if there was a direct bus route to the hospital and back. Ariniello replied that from the survey a direct route would improve bus ridership. Bobbie Berkley, public, said that as it is now you go to the doctors office and then to the hospital and then back to the doctor's office; the medical offices in the hospital would remove cars from coming into town. Erspamer complimented Alex Ariniello as being the best traffic consultant that he has encountered and the complimented the hospital for using him. Erspamer asked for an explanation on the numbers that exceeded the noise level of the helicopter from Tom Dunlop's report and the touchdowns. 6 Asgen PlanninE & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Au¢ust 05, 2008 Phelan said that parking was the next item; currently there were 175 surface at grade parking spaces in the two general areas on the site and the applicant was proposing a total of 339 parking spaces in a parking garage with two accesses and surface parking. The parking garage took advantage of the typography that slips away and should fit into the site better and not protrude out of the site with the parking structure. Phelan said that the parking estimate was based on an old proposal of 29,000 square feet and the current proposal was 17,000 square feet. Staff requested that the parking be re-evaluated at the final application so that there wasn't more parking provided than necessary. Lamont said that the MLS space was still shifting around. Weiss said that he had not seen much in the way of diagrams of the parking structure; he asked if that would be seen only at final. Richard Wolfe replied that he had elevations to address that; it was shown on the elevations and they would have a better presentation at final. Wolfe stated that the parking structure was half buried as the grade falls away it reveals itself to the north for the full two stories that it is and they were proposing to drape it in a metal skin to erase the typical standard precast beam and column appearance. Sarpa said that you will only see the parking structure for a split second driving up to the hospital. Erspamer asked the floor heights and the heights of the building. Rich Wolfe said that when the building was constructed in the 1970s it was about 70,000 square feet and has resided in this growing residential neighborhood. Wolfe said there were screens of trees and shrubbery and the two story addition to the east will continue to benefit from the screening of that cottonwood stand along Castle Creek Road. Wolfe utilized the elevation drawings to show the building itself and the material palette of red brick, buff and red sandstone. Wolfe showed the new service road curving around and the basement level is exposed, which has the greatest dimension. Erspamer asked if the mechanical would be on the side of the building. John Schied replied there would be some rooftop air handling units with a screen of these units. Leslie Lamont said the 2 story element was 30 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet and the 3 story height was at 49 feet 6 inches and the height of the parking structure at the north end was 29 feet and the stair tower was 34 feet. Lamont said that the heights were the maximum. Jennifer Phelan noted on page 7 of the memo was a portion of the site plan to show the easements that were currently on the site; there was a 100 foot easement paralleling Castle Creek Road from the property line when the plat was originally recorded. The Nordic Trail has its own separate easement and so do the utilities and the pedestrian trail. Phelan said the parking garage structure would encroach into this existing easement so the easement needs to be removed and she would go to other departments for review. 7 Aspen Planning & Zonine Commission Meeting Minutes - Aueust OS 2008 Lamont said that in 1992 the hospital sought an amendment to their 1989 Master Plan that was approved as part of this amendment the hospital proposed three 2 story townhomes for hospital housing and they did not comply with the housing guidelines so therefore would not count towards the mitigation. Lamont said that was why this parcel shows up platted and the county had a setback requirement of 100 feet from all significant roads and that 100 foot easement did not get platted until 1996. Lamont said that they think that this 100 foot easement was a mistake and they wanted a bike trail easement and the PMH parcel was required in 1992. Lamont said that when they re-plat the property they will clean up the plat. Kaufman said that one of the reasons that the hospital was doing the overall Master Plan was to plan the whole property and not piecemeal. Wolfe using slides reviewed the new OB addition and where the service road will be coming through; the new patient wing of phase 2 and the parking structure. Wolfe showed the view from across Meadowwood Drive to where the Nordic Trail crosses over. Weiss voiced concern about the parking structure. Chuck Frias, public, said that he was involved with the community advisory committee and they have done a great job addressing issues and the applicants have met with Measdowwood. Frias said that lighting was an important issue to be addressed and the landscape screen would help. Frias supported everything. Bobbie Berkley, public, said that they have done a good job involving the entire neighborhood with site plans and site tours throughout the process. Phelan recapped the last three meetings for the resolution; conceptually the size, architecture, design and use were okay. The parking garage needed more detail for the final review and so did the lighting for the parking garage. The parameters were okay for the growth management with regard to employee generation to include what the hospital will generate with volume, support services, decompression and increased efficiency. For the medical office space staff recommended an audit of other offices and the use of credits was okay; work with Parks Department and the neighbors with regards to the finalization of the Nordic Trail location. Staff recommended further review/study on the detention ponds be required for snow storage, in particular vehicular use was not permitted on trails, so an alternative solution for access or snow storage needs to be considered. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to extend the meeting until 7.•10; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. 8 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August O5, 2008 Phelan continued that reconsideration of the service road be undertaken to look at the raising of Castle Creek with a less impactful solution. Include a greater study area for improvements to the main access including the RFTA bus stop, the crossing and the pedestrian trail to be brought in for final. There needs to be a detailed transportation impact analysis with a broader scope and re-evaluate the parking needs with further study with more information at final. Work with other departments on the 100 foot easement to mitigate any potential impacts to the trail and more history on the affordable housing parcel to remove that from the final plat. Alica Miller, public, works for the hospital stated that there were car pools for the employees and they continue to look at that. Jim Timberlin, public, employee of the hospital, stated that he worked with the transportation committee and said the van would be running 7 days a week beginning in Glenwood Springs to the hospital. MOTION.• Mike Wampler moved to continue the meeting for the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Conceptual PUD to August 19`"; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:10 pm. i ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9