Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20081216AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, December 16, 2008 Noon -Site Visit at 411 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear Lodge) 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL T. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT, OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ` ''' A. 411 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear Lodge), PUD Amendment B. Pitkin County Jail, SPA Amendment C. Aspen Institute (Greenwald Pavilion), SPA Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN ~,. ,~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: Planning and Zoning Commission ~~ Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician ~,p Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directot~ Y December 11, 2008 ~' MEETING DATE: December 16, 2008 RE: 411 S. Monarch Street -Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review Continued from December 2, 2008 SUMMARY: At the December 2, 2008 hearing the applicant asked to continue the hearing until December 16, 2008 so that the members of the commission may take a site visit to see the location of the proposed equipment structure on the 3`d floor roof. The commission feels that a site visit would help puf the enclosure into perspective regazding the height, massing and scale of the proposed structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As originally approved in the PUD, the mechanical azea was located away from the 3`d floor pazapet and railing and in a more central location, on the roof. As noted in the November 18, 2008 memorandum, staff felt that the change in the'~ocation of the mechanical equipment could not be approved administratively, as there haire been concerns about the prominence of a 4`" story on the building. The location of the mechanical equipment enclosure is closer to the edge of the 3rd floor than originally approved and staff cannot support the request. With that being said, the applicant has reduced the size of the structure further and the enclosure will assist in dampening sound. A further setback from the edge of the 3rd floor will assist in minimizing the impact of the structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to weigh the intent of the original approval with the practical constraints presented to them in making a decision. Exhibit A -Staff Findings {Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit B -Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit C -Application (Provided with 11/18/08 memo) Exhibit D -Revised Plans {provided with 12/2/08 memo) Exhibit E -Applicant Supplemental (provided with 12/2/08 memo) :~ ~: ~: ai, P1 Page 1 of 1 P2 RESOLUTION No. (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOFTOP 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. Clazk of Klein, Cote and Edwazds, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Beaz Land, LLC, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request, a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment dated September 23; 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen, the pazcel is ,,_ ,. identified as pazcel number 273718219002, and +tllii~legal description of the property is: THE ~., l„ DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDINC"i ' TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO and also known as Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Bear Lodge Final PUD Plan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443-(the "PUD"); and ` ;; ~t ,, y;' P3 WHEREAS, the current request is to receive approval for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment to amend the PUD to permit the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for a Planned Unit Development Other .Amendment pursuant to Code section 26.445.100 (B) (PUD Other Amendments); and•Commercial Design Review -Substantial amendment pursuant to Code section 26.412.080.B (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 November 18, 2008; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; 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 welfaze. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEF~'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. A Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment 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. B. Notice of the proposed Planned Unit Development Other amendment, and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment has been provided to surrounding property yit~ z P4 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 standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Other amendment as requested and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment application request for the property. The approval granted herein is conditioned on the following: A. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of Ordinance No. 29. of Series 2003; however the applicant has approval to enclose the spa mechanical equipment on the top floor. The enclosure shall have the same facade materials as the rest of the building. B. A change order shall be required to the existing building permit. Section3: ' 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. Section4• 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 awazded, 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. Section 6• The rights granted by the approval of this site-specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) yeazs from the effective date of the approved development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan P5 and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: ~: Notice is hereby given to the general ptiblic'bf the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 411 S. Monazch Street., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Resolution No. _ Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council. Section 8• The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval. Section 9: Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 10• Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the CiTy provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this appro4a1. Section 11• The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which aze genera] in nature and aze applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regazd, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the City. APPROVED by the Commission at its regulaz meeting on December 16, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FROM: COMMISSION: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney PLANNIG AND ZONING ;~1~J Erspamer, Chairperson P6 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk E3~IIBIT A -Approved site plan and elevations .; i ~b P7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo~ DATE OF MEMO: November 18~h, 2008 MEETING DATE: December 16th, 2008 RE: 485 Rio Grande Place -Specially Planned Area Amendment APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Jodi Smith, Pitkin County Facilities Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Manager / Pitldn County Commission approve the request to construct an addition to the County Jail Building with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE; Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.. LOCATION: Civic Address - 485 Rio Grande Place; Legal Description - Pitkin County Center Lot 1 and Lot 5 of the Rio Grande Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number - 2735-182-19-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay containing public buildings such as the County Court House and the County Jai]. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to construct an addition to house servers. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the SPA Amendment building an addition on the site. t. Photo of the ~.,' ' !, Revised 12/11/2008 Page 1 of 9 P8 Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: Currently, some of the City and County servers and other data equipment aze stored in the County Jail Building. The space where the equipment is housed is not lazge enough. The County would like to construct an addition to accommodate the equipment and future expansions of the equipment. 'The applicant proposes to add an addition to the Pitkin County Jail Building at 485 Rio Grande Place to accommodate data equipment and computer servers (See Application -Exhibit D). The subject property has a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay upon it and the SPA needs to be amended to incorporate't~eaddition. `a LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 A. This application does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined based on the scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority. Revised 12/11/2008 Page 2 of 9 P9 PROJECT SUMMARY: °' The project consists of adding apre-fabricated structure to the north side of the County Jail building. The facade of the structure will be covered with a brick treatment to match the existing building. The structure is approximately 10 feet high and 324 squaze feet (see Figure 2). SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT REVIEW: Since the original Specially Planned Area, known as the Rio Grande SPA Plan, was approved in 1977, many amendments and changes to approvals have occurred on this site (see Exhibit C for a list). The SPA approval was not very detailed at that time. The property was designated for County use; however items that would now be requu'~d to be documented in a current SPA plan were not accounted for. Building elevations, a~~ivable floor area, open space and other ~;. , dimensional standazds that may be customtz8c~ to?;commodate the needs of an SPA were not outlined in the original approvals for this SPA:' Later in 1993, the Rio Grande Master Plan was approved. That plan was designed to guide land use patterns for undeveloped land in the Rio Grande azea. The County Jail pazcel is located just outside the scope of that plan. Ordinance No. 10 of Series of 1993 does indicate that the property north of the County building is intended for future additions to the County Jail. Revised 12/11/2008 Page 3 of 9 Figure 2: The new addition in relation ro me ea~sung ~u••~•••s• P10 Since then, the Civic Master Plan was created. The Civic Master Plan was created to implement goals and principles around the Civic Core, including Galena Plaza and the Rio Grande Pazk. The County Jail Building is located in the Civic Core; however this plan does not address the County buildings. Recently, a process was initiated to create the Zupancas-Galena Master Plan that includes the County buildings, but it does not appeaz that the plan will be finalized in the neaz future. ~~. fi:,: , None of the past plans or ordinances outlirie fu4urb; $etails for additions to the County Jail, with one exception, Ordinance 10 of Series 1993. That Ordinance does make accommodations for future additions, though it is uncleaz whether or not those additions were the intended to be for the substantial construction that was approved in 1995. Staff Comments There are few items to review for this proposed addition because the current SPA is vague and does not define any future plans for buildings on the site. The underlying zone district for this SPA is the Public zone district. The dimensional requirements in this zone district are set by the adoption of the final development plan; however no dimensional requirements were set in any of the final plans or amendments to the plans. In a previous approval for an addition to the jail, the applicant was required to replace open space that was displaced as a result. In this application, the applicant has not proposed to replace the open space that will be displaced with this addition. Staff would prefer to minimize the visual impacts to the Rio Grande Park as much as possible. The building is proposed to be located over a loCaine between Lot 1 and Lot 5. This is not permitted by the building code. If approved, the appfcant will be required to apply for a lot line adjustment prior to applying for a building permit:lAlso the applicant will be required to work with the Parks Department to achieve an approved landscaping plan. The proposed addition will not require any mitigation for growth management. The addition will not create any new employees or create new net leasable space. Staff would prefer to see a master plan that encompasses the long term future goals and needs of the County buildings. If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to recommend approval to Council, it would be preferable to see an addition that relates to the building and integrates into the location. Based on the information that was submitted with the application, it appears that the applicant has attempted to reduce the visual impacts that the addition may have on the surrounding properties. The applicant has added a matching roof line and added more landscaping to integrate the addition into the existing structure more effectively. RECOMMENDATION: While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It appeazs to be consistent with the final development approvals of the various amendments to the SPA. It does not substantially change the exterior of the building and the same materials will be used on the fapade at}d,the roof features will match the existing building. Staff prefers to see a Master Flan thatl.dtidresses the long term needs for this site. ``'' ; ~t Revised 12/11/2008 Page 4 of 9 P11 Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. If the Commission decides to recommend approval of the addition to the Council, it is advised that they do so with the following conditions: 1) The applicant will be required to apply for a lot line adjustment or otherwise remedy the building location proposed to be over a lot line. The Building Code does not permit buildings to be located on lot lines. 2) The applicant is,required to remove snow or store accumulated snow on site. Snow is not permitted to be relocated to the Rio Crrande Pazk to limit damage to the sprinkler heads. 3) As per the Engineering Department, the landscaping rocks must be removed from the i :. right-of--way. 4) 'The Pazks Department requires a landscapinpip~an that provides for: tree protection, plant spacing, seed mix and irrigation, and weed rr~anagement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zaning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the proposed amendment, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to City Council to approve the consolidated development plan for a SPA amendment with conditions." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -List of prior plans and approvals Exhibit C -SPA from 1977 Exhibit D -Application h. a; 1';F Revised 12/11/2008 Page 5 of 9 P12 RESOLUTION No. _ (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO COUNCIL FOR A SPECLALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDTI'ION TO THE PITKIN COUNTY JAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT 485 RIO GRANDE PLACE, LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS 1 AND 5, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER, CITY OF ASPEN Parcel IdentiScaNon Number 2737-073-47-851 & 2737-073-06-855 WHEREAS, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. located at 412 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Pitkin County, 530 E. Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for a Specially Planned Area Amendment dated October 6th, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and ~~ WHEREAS, the subject property is ]ocated:ati485 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, the pazcels aze identified as pazcel numbers 2737-073-47-851 & 2737-073-06-855, and the legal description of the properly is: Pitkin County Center, Lot 1 and 5, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Specially Planned Area approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 1977 and again for the Rio Grande Master Plan in Ordinance No. 10 Series of 1993; and WHEREAS, the current request is to receive a recommendation for approval to the City Council for a Specially Planned Area amendment to amend the SPA to permit the construction of a 324 squaze feet addition to allow for storage of data egtaipment and computer servers; and I r~ WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for a Specially Planned Area Amendment Review pursuant to Code section 26.440.050 P13 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 December 16th, 2008; and, ~;E WHEREAS, upon review of the applicafion and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the request; 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 welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the Specially Planned Area Amendment as requested for the Property. i4~ The recommendation of approval granted herein is Conditioned on the following: 1. The applicant is required to remove snow or store accumulated snow on site. Snow is not permitted to be relocated to the Rio Grande Pazk to limit damage to the sprinkler heads. 2, The applicant will be required to apply for a lot line adjustment or otherwise remedy the building location proposed to be over a lot line. The Building. Code does not permit buildings to belocated on lot lines. 3. Remove the landscaping rocks from the right-of--way as per the Engineering Department. 4. The Parks Department requires a landscaping plan that provides for: a. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the Location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. b. Plant Spacing: Appropriate spacingr' will be required for ail new plantings. Coniferous Trees will require adequate spacing between trees and distance from z P14 buildings or structures to allow for mature growth. Deciduous Trees will require adequate spacing from structures to accommodate mature growth in height. c. Seed Mix and Irrigation: Applicant shall use the City of Aspen approved native seed mix and a temporary or permanent irrigation system will be required for establishment. d. Weed Management: Applicant shall detail and define how it will manage noxious weeds during the seed establishment period. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigationand 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 awazded, 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of December 2008. Attest: s; ~tE a 1,1' Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk LJ Erspamer, Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM James R. True, Special Counsel P15 EXHIBIT A In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, azchitecture, ]andscaping and open space. The addition to the County Jail is a fairly small structure, measuring 324 square feet and approximately 10 feet high. It is a pre fabricated structure that will be placed in the rear of the building facing Obermeyer Place and the Rio Grande Park. The addition will have a brick treatment to match the existing Jail Building and the roofline will be altered to match the existing building. The existing building is shown below in Figure A. The addition is proposed to be located where the picnic table is now sitting. Figure A -The existing building. The location was chosen because the County Buildings seem to be a stable use in the downtown campus area. The future of some-other considered locations may change and require removal of the equipment. The equipment cannot be housed within the Court House, City Hall or other buildings for several reasons: the older buildings are not climate controlled, the wiring systems are too dated and the structures are not able to support the weight. The SPA should be amended to reflect long term plans for the site prior to the approval of future additions. It is more efficient to look at the entire SPA site and determine how the long term needs could be met The original SPA was created in 1977 and could now Revised 12/11/2008 Page 6 of 9 P16 be amended to meet needs that may have changed since that time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. The addition will be used to house data equipment and computer servers. There will not be any plumbing or new staff created as a 'r'esult. No increased impacts on the public facilities or roads are predicted. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the pazcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. The parcel is suitable for development. It is mostly level. There are no' environmental constraints that would limit the location of the addition. The parcel is not located in the floodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space. The propased development consists of a prefabricated square unit that will be finished with an exterior treatment and roojline to match the existing building. The addition is located in the view plane from the pedestrian court at Obermeyer Place and the historically designated cabins located on the adjacent to the County Center parcel. Figure B below shows a 3-D view of the addition as it would appear from the pedestrian court at Obermeyer Place. ~ ~~ ~t: >:;~` With a creative landscaping plan the visual impacts from the surrounding properties is predicted to be minimal. It does not create significant adverse environmental impacts; however it does reduce the amount of open space that is currently on County Center. When the last amendment to the County Jail was approved in 1995, the applicant was required to replace any open space that was removed as a result of the addition. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the County Jail Building or this addition. This proposal is relatively minor in nature; however staff emphasizes the need to have long term plans to address future needs for each public service facility. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. This project is relatively small and not expected to require excessive public funds for the project itself or facilities for the parcel; hovi~ever, the cost of the addition will come from public funds. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Revised 12/1 ]/2008 Page 7 of 9 P17 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2). There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located. Density will not be affected by the addition. Stafffinds this criterion met. 8. Whether there aze sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. No new net leasable area will be created as q result of this project. No new employees will be required. This project will not require growth management mitigation. Staff finds this criterion met. ; ,;, Revised 12/11/2008 Page 8 of 9 P18 EXHIBIT B List of Prior Approvals affective the Rio Grande Area 1977 -The Rio Grande Interim SPA plan was approved 1981 -The relocated the snow dump and set aside an unspecified pazcel for a Performing Arts and Culture Center 1982 -The City and County exchanged the Aspen One, Oden and stable properties 1988 - A conceptual SPA Master Plan was approved that included the pazking gazage, the library, the Spring Street extension, the snow melt azea, and an arts usage azea 1989 - A final SPA plan was approved for the County Library and the pazking garage 1991- A final SPA plan was approved for the Youth Center 1992 -Ordinance 26 of 2002 is SPA Amendment to install pazk spaces and landscaping. Snow storage must be on site and is not permitted on the r/w or on the path. 1992 -Intergovernmental Agreement for Resolution 29 of Series 1992 approving land exchanges and easements for the library, the pazking gazage, land north of the jail, trail and transit easements, and the youth center building. 1993 -Ordinance ] 0 of Series 1993 approved the Rio Grande Master Plan and specified that Lot 5 should be used for future expansions. to the County Jail. (The Ordinance is included in the application) 1995 -SPA Review for an expansion to the County Jail 2006 -Civic Master Plan was approved Revised 12/11/2008 Page 9 of 9 p(J.1l~~~t L P18~! ~~,... _ ~~ ~~ ~'`'` ~~~' ;~ l / \ ~.! ti / i' /` `y i ` y Y~ ~' • Q 1 .. i K~ . '. ~ y 1 . ~ : ~; ,~V , ~ l ~ i ~ ~: ~ ~ ;y 1 , ~ ,~ e y ~~ 1 i= n1 ~ 4 q . ,13 f '. 1 r ~ t. '.: ^ ]S j ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ r, 4 k~ 1 ~ ~ , ~ t ~ l v,IS, ~ III ~ ~ 1 o .A LL h R . 9! S 9 S t. > T / r c ~ pe. 1. ,' \ . p 0. . ~. `. .~ t.. .,,t oa ZN ~ W Q~-" ~~ U ~~ ~~: 1~ _~ Qo~c•.~-.. '~1 ~•'1 ~. E .. l :.. > .. !~ :: ~,~ ~ ~ •-. 7: ~° . ~..... . ~~-' , > .: ..~ • .-.. - 1:~ •~• ~~~,. , a, ~~ •. -~ b~~: `: - t ~ ~~ i a a ', g ~j;~ ~ • 1, , `~ ~. ~ n •. / a ^~' r° ~ R ~~ ~ ;./rte^ ~+ ., ~m ml ~~ r Y % d I °1 ,~ , • ~ ~. r~,~ 1~ 1 ~~~ „~; ..~ ..~~~ ~; c ~~ .. ~~ "s J 't a N ~.~..~- N___._~.__.__ P20 _ ~ ---"_-~~ ~ ~k 0. ~ I ___ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ' \ ~.N l I ..) ~. / ~~ 1 ~~ ~i 11 ~ ,~ r ^~ ~.`~.. ~'.' U ., 0 ~ `w~, A Y L C N i. ro T N O ~ ~} 1 ~ 4 © f ~ ~ '. t.; 4' ~ Y ~ ~ ~ - ~NIWS v . ~ ~ ~.: -.~. .j .I ~,. - R: ka R ~ i ~ ~ i, _ Cqq N ;1 ~ ~ ~ 4 V Q .~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~~ 8 ~ 1 _ .~' ;' R o ~ ~~ y, u t ~! ~L ~ N ~ ~~,, _~ ~ ,,;~~. ~ , il~ i r__.._____~ _ ~`` ~__---~- `_. r' ~.., i ~~ ~~ ~_ `; ~~ ; c ~ ~A Z `~ ~ ~ ~ ~fy. N ~ ~ ~ . °' C ' VN3iv-n T C~3~' \ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a m--- `,~ ® ~ a V o N a ~~ F,, ~, ~~ ~_ ~ ~ `1 ;~ . ,: __ .• ig ~ ..'% q _... _ . _ . ... _ ~r -_ __ ` _ f - -------- _ _ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Direct~~ ~21 FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner JL, RE: The Aspen Institute -Greenwald Pavilion (Tent) -Consolidated SPA Amendment and GMQS Review, -Resolution No._, Series of 2008 MEMO DATE: December 11, 2008 MEETING DATE: December 16, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: The Aspen Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis, Curtis and Associates LOCATION: Greenwald Pavilion (Tent) -Lot 1- B ofthe Aspen Meadows Subdivision, commonly known as The Aspen Institute, 1000 N. 3rd Street, Aspen CURRENT ZONING: Academic (A) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests consolidated SPA approval for a permanent, summer-only tent, The applicants aze requesting a recommendation of approval for a SPA Amendment and for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Review at this time. Photo: The Aspen Institute, north portion of the lot 'STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission remand back to the applicant to continue to refine and consolidate the proposal into one application for the permanent, summer-only tent, prior to proceeding to City Council. 1 P22 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Planning and Zoning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council for the following land use approvals for a permanent, summer-only tent: Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. The review of a Specially Planned Area is (in most cases) a four step review process. Step one is conceptual review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, step two is conceptual review before City Council, step three is final review before P&Z, and step four is final review before Council. The applicant has requested a consolidated review (allowing atwo-step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then review by City Council). The land use reviews required as part of this application are: • Specially Planned Area (SPAT -Consolidated Review (Section 26.440.040 B) to allow for a permanent, summer-only tent. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council. • A Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facilit~(Section 26.470.090.4), to determine the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility, and to assess, waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Institute is one component in the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) approved through Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991. The Ordinance approved zoning map amendments to create several zones including Academic (A) and Open Space (OS) zone districts and Subdivision Review to create 10 sepazate lots at the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA. The Aspen Institute was originally located on Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, but in 1992, the First Amended Plat was approved to reconfigure the subdivision and created Lot 1-B, for the Aspen Institute. Lot 1-B is approximately 13.160 acres and has three existing buildings: the Bechter Building (on Gillespie), the Seminar Facility, and the Paepcke Auditorium building, this lot also contains the Greenwald Pavilion Tent. The Aspen Meadows SPA Development and Subdivision Agreement defines dimensional requirements (shown on the plat), off-street parking, site improvements, trails, financial assurances, and employee housing for each individual parcel (see pages 16 -18 of the SPA agreement for the Aspen Institute; attached as Exhibit H). The 1995 Lot 1-B Second Amendment to the plat shows dimensions, setbacks, and adds a site plan reflecting the addition and modifications to the existing Seminar Building. The amended plat states that "the Aspen Institute shall share continued responsibility to comply with the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan." The Greenwald Pavilion tent operated under a temporary use permit for 2005, 2006, and again received approval for temporary use under Resolution #8, Series of 2007. For seasonal uses, the City council determines the maximum number of annual recurrences, which shall not exceed ten (10) years. The tent has been used for a variety of events including the Aspen Ideas festival, the Dalai Lama blessing, and finished the season with lectures from John Edwards, the Cleveland Health Clirric, and John McCain. 2 P23 PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA in order to use the tent on a permanent, summer-only basis in order to construct a permanent floor for the tent, terrace, paths, a concrete pad for port-o- potties, install water, gas, electric to the tent, and to install AV cables to interconnect to the other Institute buildings. The permanent, summer-only tent, which is approximately 140 feet by 60 feet (8,046+/- sq. ft.), and is proposing to seat between 400-600 people. The remaining un-built squaze footage (3,271 sq. ft. from the 1991 SPA Plan (after the additions to the Paepcke Auditorium), will need to be expanded to accommodate the additional square footage for the tent. The initial application submission (December 20, 2007) proposed to keep the permanent, summer-only tent in its existing location. However, upon fumther examination of the site existing utilities that ran directly under the existing location were identified. The existing floor of the temporary use tent is crushed gravel over natural vegetation and topography. An amended application and new location were proposed in the November 7, 2008 drawings (Exhibit n that would keep the tent off of the easements. During the November 19, 2008 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting, it was determined that the per~anent tent could be located on the easements, however, the floor material installed needs to allow for immediate access to the utilities below -asphalt, not concrete). On December 9, 2008, the applicant submitted another alternate drawing showing the tent located on the utility easements (Exhibit J7 which has not been reviewed by the DRC or Staff. The addition of 600 seats in the permanent tent (which is approximately the same amount of seating as the existing temporary use tent which accommodates 400-600 people) allows for lazger scale events to be held at the Institute. The increase in visitors from the 1991 SPA will require pedestrian and vehicular traffic and transportation mitigation for the additional users. The application is not proposing additional pazking, but the Aspen Institute "has asked the Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), and the City of Aspen to jointly participate in an `updated' Lower West End Mitigation Plan" which is attached as Exhibit B. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and conceptually approved the permanent, summer- only tent. At the November 12 (see HPC minutes -Exhibit F) hearing, HPC decided 4-1 to bring the application back to conceptual due to significant changes to the application. Specifically, questions were raised about height, mass, landscaping, and the size and location of the proposed terrace. STAFF COMMENTS: SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the vamiation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional requirements for the benefit of the public. The pazcel currently exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development must be amended to allow the additional development. Although the addition of a 60'x140' (8,046 sq. ft.) permanent, summer-only tent would. extinguish the existing remaining un-built azea (3,271 sq. ft.) and require an additional 4,775 of allowable floor P24 azea, the underlying zone Academic (A) does not have any dimensional standazds -the standards aze set by the adoption of the Specially Planned Area (SPA). Allowing for additional development on Lot 1-B should be considered in the context of the entire grounds, if it is compatible with surrounding land uses, development, height, bulk, azchitecture, landscaping and open space. Strong attention to the relationship between the surrounding structures, pedestrian and vehiculaz site circulation, pedestrian amenities, significant view planes and environmental impacts should also be considered. In the Development Review Committee (DRC) comments, the City of Aspen Engineering Department commented that it "is unable to determine if there aze adequate public facilities" in particulaz pedestrian walkway bikeway connections from town to events and adequate public transportation facilities. A Transportation goal in the AACP is to "improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders, and automobiles in the Aspen Area. While the proposed tent adds to the "continued vibrancy of arts and culture as part of our community", it does not "maintain valued open space" or "improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and mass transit riders" by "adding sidewalk connections", and "requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate". Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish an `Aspen Institute Event Mitigation Plan' (a pedestrian bikeway connection and transportation plan that will be presented and reviewed prior to City Council Review). The revised application identified major utilities (water and sewer mains -see Exhibit ~ that run directly under the existing temporary tent, and proposes to relocate the tent to the north to avoid interference with access to the mains. If located on the easements, ACSD will require a revocable license to allow the terrace to be located over the easement and utilities, pending information explaining the material of the terrace, and will need to allow for any additional easements that may be required for access. The floor material in the current temporary configuration is crushed gravel over natural grade. The new permanent floor material would be either concrete (off) or asphalt (on), depending on whether the tent is located on or off the utilities. Pazks has requested a detailed tree protection plan, an approved tree permit and proper tree protection. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by the Parks Departrnent. Although the current temporary use tent has a crushed gravel base for a floor material, the original approvals required the material to cover, not remove the native vegetation. The proposed permanent, summer-only tent will require removal of vegetation, topography changes, and an increase in impervious surfaces with the addition of a terrace, additional paths, and fire truck access roads. The Fire Marshall has required a fire truck access road with a turnazound (hammerhead), with a width requirement of (m;n;mum) 14' with 1' each side for road base. The Land Use Code states; "the dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the. Academic {A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the underlying Academic (A) zone district, but is not compatible, nor does it enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, Height, bulk architecture, landscaping and open space. The removal of existing plantings and increase in non-landscaped surfaces, paved trails and vehicular access ways all 4 P25 detract from the existing pedestrian experience, and do not enhance the mix of development in terms of open space (Anderson Park) and landscaping. there will be an increase of 6'-4 in height from the existing temporary tent to the new `Tentnology' structure; the overall height from 20'-3 (existing ridge) to 26'-7 (at the peaks) and 21 '-1 (at the low point of the valleys). Although the height has increased, the variations in the ridgeline, sloping ends, and mesh sides improve (from the existing) the aesthetics and architecture of the new `Tentnolog~' structure. However, the landscape and open space will be negatively affected by the creation of a new terrace, frre safety hammerhead relocation of the bike path, and introduction of a berm with screening landscaping. The removal of existing plantings and increase in non-landscaped surfaces, paved trails and vehicular access ways all detract from the existing. pedestrian experience, and do not enhance the mix of development in terms of open space (Anderson Park) and landscaping. GROR'TH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM: With Ordinance 14, Series of 1991 (Exhibit G), the City Council granted fmal approval of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA}, which also granted a Growth Management exemption for an Essential Public Facility. Included in the Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement and considered to be an Essential Public Facility is the Aspen Institute (see pages l 6-18 of the SPA Agreement -attached as Exhibit H). As the Aspen institute has been considered an essential public facility in the past (Ord. 14 -Exhibit G), it is logical to continue to consider it an essential public facility. When determined to be "an essential public facility, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission" "the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purposes of promoting civic uses and in considerafion of broader community goals". Pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations, "each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employee generation". The applicant proposes no additional employees will be generated in the employee analysis provided with the application (please see Exhibit C). The Planning and Zoning Commissions role is to make a recommendafion to City Council as to whether the tent is an essential public facility and whether-employees are generated. APCHA Staff recommends that the applicant submit an employee audit prior to building permit issuance and two years after issuance of C.O. the form and methodology of the audit shall be reviewed by APCHA and be consistent for both audits. The applicant shall provide mitigation for any increase in employees unless otherwise waived by City Council. Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of "a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use by, or benefrt of, the general public and serves the need of the community". The addition of 600 seats in the permanent tent (which is approximately the same capacity as the existing temporary use tent) allows for larger scale events to be held at the Institute. The permanent status and associated SPA amendments will accommodate additional visitors from the 1991 approval, and will require an increase in impervious surfaces which sign~cantly changes the pedestrian experience in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and transportation mitigation for the additional users. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the essential public facility to determine employee generation. The existing temporary use tent does not require employee mitigation, but for the proposed permanent tent, APCHA Staff is requiring that an employee audit be submitted prior to building permit issuance and two years after C.O. Staff recommends approva! as 5 P26 an essential public facility, based on the previous determination in Ordinance 14, Series of 1991, and recommends reguiring an employee audit to show na increase in employees. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Zoning Officer, Pazks Department, Fire Mazshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Building Department, Housing Depaztment, Historic Preservation Officer, Utilities, Transportation, and Pazking Departments have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, The removal of existing plantings and increase in non-landscaped surfaces, paved trails and vehiculaz access ways all detract from the existing pedestrian experience, and do not enhance the mix of development in terms of open space (Anderson Pazk) and landscaping. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission remand back to the applicant to continue to refine and consolidate the proposal into one application for the permanent, summer-only tent, prior to proceeding to City Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFII211IITIVE~: "I move to approve Resolution #35, Series 2008, recommending consolidated approval of the Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Paepcke Auditorium." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -SPA Amendment, GMQS Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -Applicant Supplemental Information -SPA, GMQS criteria -letter dated 6/30/2008 EXHIBIT C -Applicant Supplemental Information -Employee Analysis -letter dated 8/18/08 EXHIBIT D -Applicant Supplemental Information -Traffic & Pazking Memo -email dated 8/19/08 Exi-iisiT E - DRC Comments - APCHA, Pazks, Transportation & Pazking, Engineering, and Zoning Exxt-ttstT F -Historic Preservation Commission Minutes - 5/28/08 (continued), 7/23/08 (approved with conditions), and November 12, 2008 EXHIBIT G -Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 -Final Approval of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA)