Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840320 RECORD Vice Chairman Welton Anderson culled the meeting to order 5:03 p .m . with commissioners jasmine Tygre Lee Pardee, er « White' Roger Hunt, and Paul Sheldon, «lter»u e't J«vi� , present. COMMISSIONERS'_COMME�TS At the request of Alan Richman, planning office Roger Hunt moved to hold the planning and zoning commission the 18th and 22nd of May; seconded b J o» meeti»gs o» favor; motion curried , y Jasmine Tygre. All in Roger OMPTYP Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of March 6 1984 ith the following correction: change "RVO" on the �i rs t w °RBO. " Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion cp«geeto OLD_�USINESS�__CURTON�MADSEN_�OT_LI#E_ADJUSTM�NT David White excused himself from the case. Colette Penne, planning office, introduced the case . he request is u lot line adjustment to an east-west lot alignment rather than the present north-south alignment. Parcel "B" ^ the south lot, was formed through u lot split procedure When Donna Cu southern bought the lot she went through GMP exemption to locate r�o» unit as u deed restricted employee unit The two « tseco»d units on the lot upset the Mudsens They had unit. d o potential bought their house that lot would^ be limited to«mesinwAe»futhey mouse. Curton went through the GM, exemption and y �� family duplex right The solution ' » received the l . the , was suggested by Council to switch o�� ^c e eust-west configuration making the lots the same size as the original north-south configuration. The planning office's problem is that the entire proposed lot t for neconstruction of the duplex is at least 64% slope and high zg h us 67%. She indicated that Section 20-9 ( u ) of th e code, the suitability of land for subdivision, was not adequate!--.- answered. That section reads "bused on findings by an engineer engineering geologist or other Professional , » planning and zo i ' is to determine whether the land should be e�o subdivided or wh � ng it is unsuitable for reasons of flooding, rock slide mud cer steep topography, etc , " , reep, 1 ' . ` RECORD_OF_pROCEEDHGS Penne submitted u building envelope which showed the projection of u proposed house from the slope and the magnitude of the hillside cut. The proposal is to position the house into the hillside approximately 21 ' and u deck would extend an additional 6' beyond that. She questioned the identification of the yards. Bill Drueding, planning department, indicated to her that what is shown us the 5' side yard will be the front yurd . If this finding is firm , the house will have to be moved down the millside five additional feet. Pardee asked if the zoning of the house is R-6, is there u lO' front yard setback. Penne said yes. Penne is concerned about the luck of findings by u geologist and engineering geologist. The commission should review that information to determine the suitability of the site. Studies are not offered in the application nor has there been uny proposal to assure that any problems which might be caused by the construction will be addressed and mitigated. If the commission is inclined to approve this, add u condition asking for immediate revegetution of the hillside and one which addresses erosion and drainage. There are certain sections of the code written to provide review mechanisms for sites with high visibility, for viewplune reviews, for 8040 greenline, for steep slopes, and for proximity to flood plains ( stream margin review ). This site is technically within the limits of stream margin review but it is not u problem and the lot should be exempted. Mandatory PUD requires that slope reduction be considered for u building site. There is not u mandatory PUD on the parcel because there was u flat buildable site. This present solution on the slope was not anticipated. There may have been u PUD zoning when the lot was zoned. Pardee asked about the FAR. Stun Mathis, architect for the applicant, calculated 6,000 square feet. Penne said if the commission could apply slope reduction as per mandatory PUD, there would be no density credit allowed for uny land in excess of 40% slope. Therefore, if this was designated PUD the commission would not allow its development. The planning office does not feel this alternative is better- than the former flat building site. The planning office recommends denial . If the commission is inclined to recommend approval , 2 RECORD_OF_pROCEEDI��GS there are six conditions which should be attached to the recommen- dution to Council . Whether the commission denies or approves this, planning office approves grunting the request for parking exemption to allow the provision for four parking spaces ruther chun five. Pardee asked the applicant what is the size of the proposed structure. Stun Mathis is planning u 1 ,300 square foot employee housing unit, and roughly, 1 ,800 square foot free market unit. Pardee suggested the applicant make u commitment to 3,500 square feet. Mathis would commit to 3,500. Purdee's concern with the envelope is the 4,000 square, that is u monstrous structure. 3 , 500 square feet is more acceptable. The concern is the public view entering town. The original envelope occupied the entire hillside. Tygre questioned slope reduction. Would the 3,500 square feet be calculated in the PUD figures? Mathis said no . He noted � even before this lot line adjustment request, and without any review process at all , the building could be sited on the side slope to the maximum FAR. The applicant would commit to u maximum FAR. Mathis said the applicant would accept the request to revegetute to the extent it is vegetated currently, the request for engineering studies prior to final approval , and the request to address erosion concerns. The building envelope has been indicuted . He questioned the magnitude of the slope cuts. Penne indicated he has already shown how deep the cuts will be. Pardee believed the deeper the cuts the better, the building will not be so visible. Mathis noted he is not building off the face of the slope , but buck into the hillside. Pardee preferred building five feet lower, it would be less offensive to the Mudsens' viewplune. Hunt -asked if that is five feet horizontal or surface? Mathis answered it is horizontal distance. Penne directed u question to Burry Edwards, city attorney. She was pre-opting an application of an existing home in Castle Creek. The request is to build u second kitchen. Therefore, the home becomes u duplex. The applicant has u 7,800 square foot lot. The applicant has to apply slope reduction because the lot is in the PUD. If the 30,000 square foot building site 3 is not met, the units will not be allowed . Is it due process to ignore the steepness of the slope and allow the two units? Edwards said the Curton application does not have u mandatory PUD. Mandatory PUD procedures cannot be applied to this slope . To apply it would be u denial of due process. Hunt agreed with the planning office's recommendation. He also believed the deeper the building could be sited into the hill the better. But the building will still be quite visible from the highway. The lot is not u satisfactory building site. Sheldon concurred with Hunt . Connie Madsen noted Knecht did suggest the commissioners contact her to review the property to show the commissioners what an unsatisfactory building lot is, the lot the duplex was originally approved to be built on. The lot is very small . The lot zs the backyard of her house. If Curton is allowed to build there, Curton 's house would be ten feet from all the windows that provide the light for her home. Her home would be ruined. Curton has been kind enough to work around this problem with the help of the City Council . The neighbors do not want this. She commented no commissioner came over to review the lot from her home. The property is landlocked. Access would be through her property and the Bergmun's. Pardee favored the application. In support of those who may oppose this, the responsibility of the commission is first to the city-at-large, the citizens, and tourists, then to the neighbor- hood , then the individual property owners. There is definitely u greater visual impact to the citizens-at-large by locating the building on the hillside. They may commiserate with Madsen, but the commission is charged to protect the integrity of zoning and the public . Madsen understood. But the current proposal is not noticeable. Pardee explained the commission is not un architectural review committee. Dick Knecht presented some history. He agrees with the planning office , the current proposal is not proper . But the alternatives are worst. There is an unvucuted alley. The neighbors consolidated their yards together there. It is u nice older, part of town . Curton mad the right to come through the alley, and destroy the landscaping. The residents were unhappy. The original concept would have ruined the neighbors' and Mudsens' situation. Council tried to appease all concerned and came up with this 4 ' RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS alternative. Nothing is good. But Curton does have u right to build . Rather than violate everything in the neighborhood, Knecht believes this is the best alternative , although it is not ideal ., Doug Allen, representative for the applicant, submitted some photographs of the property taken from the bridge from u wugoneer , and two feet higher. The area is not pristine. There is u cyclone fence and phone wires. At the lust meeting most of the commis- sioners could not even recall what was on the other side of the bridge. The visual impact has been overstated . The applicant has the right now to build over the hill on the existing lot without the lot line adjustment . The visual impact of the proposal would not be uny more than what is there at the present time. Donna Curton, applicant, cited u situation at Boulder where one entered the streets through someone else' s property, culle�:! ______lots. It is unattractive. She did not wish to see thzs become u precedent in Aspen. Lee Pardee moved to recommend approval to the Council of the Curton-Madsen lot line adjustment with the six conditions contained in the planning office memorandum, "Curton-Madsen Lot Line Adjust- ment , " dated March 20, 1984, page three, with u seventh additional condition that the building be limited to u FAR of 3,500 square feet . In addition, he moves to approve the reduction of parking as proposed by the applicant. There was no second. Roger Hunt moved to recommend to City Council to deny the lot line adjustment for Curton-Madsen because of the steep slopes, visual impacts of the unnecessary extension of the development pattern, and the greater suitability of the original lot site. He included in the motion to forward to Council the plunniny office' s recommendations of March 20, 1984, and u seventh condition that the building be limited to u FAR of 3,500 square feet . It is necessary that City Council know what they exactly are upproviny. Also he moves to approve the parking exemption requested by the applicant. Seconded by jasmine Tygre . A roll cull vote was requested by Anderson: Tygre, age; Anderson, nag; Pardee, nag; Hunt, age; and Sheldon, age. Motion for lot line adjustment was denied, parking exemption was approved . RECORD_OF_pROCEEDINGS Penne presented revised plats. She said the engineering department is the applicant along with the water department. The engineering department worked with her as she revised the new plat . Lust year Council adopted Ordinance 18 which adopted this especially planned area for the City of Aspen water treatment plant . An omission from that plan has been identified. There are three small storage sheds which are actual physical barriers to the construction of the new treatment plant . They have to be demo- lished . They will be replaced by u new storage facility of 1 ,000 square feet. The original three buildings total floor area is 425 square feet. The increase space is needed to store the treatment chemicals, chemicals which are precluded by law from being stored inside the water treatment plant. A separate building is required. This amendment to the SPA plan removes three sheds, includes the proposed storage building' and moves the fence to encompass the buildings. This plat properly conveys the full property plan . When Ordinance 18 was adopted with public zoning for the property there was u reduced version of the site plan recorded us an exhibit to the ordinance. The engineering department requests the full size plan be recorded as the SPA plan. The umendment clears up the omission and provides u full size SPA plan.. Penne noted the changes mentioned in the fourth paragraph, page one, of the planning office's memorandum "City Water Treatment Plant-SPA Amendment, " dated March 20, 1984, have been made, The SPA data section was confusing and the FAR has been revamped. The FAR is .08: 1 on this property. Parking areas were requested to be specifically shown on the plat. The proposed water plunt expansion appearance has been corrected. She recommends approval of the amendment to the SPA for the city water treatment to Council with the condition that the full size site plan be recorded with three changes ( listed us "A " , "B" , and "C" in the planning office memorandum dated March 20, 1984 ). Anderson asked what is meant by "full size . " Penne explained lust time attached to the ordinance was u legal size sheet which only took the developed part and showed the luyout of the water treatment plant. It did not show the entire property. Therefore, there was an inaccurate depiction of FAR und the total site. 6 .-` RECORD_OF_PROCEEDI�GS Chuck Roth, engineering department, added that the document has been recorded pursuant to Ordinance 18. It is in the clerk's office with signatures,, Jim Murkulunus, water department, clarified why there is u need for the increase in storage space. In addition to the shed that exists, presently all the activated carbon which is prohibited in the plant is stored outside on the north side of the building' covered with tarp. The net effect will be more pleasing if all the present chemicals stacked outside can be located inside The visibly unattractive sheds will be removed. ^ hunt asked if "c " in the recommendation no longer applies. Penne said yes. Hunt asked if the chemical storage is relatively dungerous . Murkulunus said the carbon can be explosive in u wurm, dry locution. The carbon is like coal dust and should the bug break in the plant it would be u mess . - Anderson closed the public heuring. Penne directed the commission to delete "u " and "c " of her recom- mendution. The delineation of the Parking spaces on the plot needs to be done. It is shown in the data section that there are certain parking spaces ulloted to certain areas like the caretaker's house and the maintenance building, but they need to be shown on the plot, "B" becomes "u" . Hunt asked if it is necessary to sag full size site plan since this is going to be recorded. Penne said not necessarily. Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the special area planned for u city water treatment plant Pursuant to Section 24-7.2( d ) with the following condition that the parking spaces be delineated on the plat; seconded by Jasmine Tygre All in favor; motion curried. ^ PUBLIC_HEARING:__GMQS_CODE_AMENQMBNTS Alan Richman, planning office, presented four administrative issues The language reuds .."° the project must be essential and publicly developed. Does it mutter whether an essential project is governmental or private? He believes that publi` � or private is not the issue. Hunt cited Ruby Park , developed by u private entity as u transit center, and it is essentiul But under the present rule it is not exempted. Richman indicated � 7 ' RECORD_OF_pROCEEDI|�GS it would not apply as an essential governmental project . Any project which has u quasi-governmental status, e.g . ' school district, is not u governmental fucility. The performing arts center is u questionable essential fucility. It clearly is not u public project . He did not know if it should be considered an essential facility or not. It is u community facility one sense. The question is should that kind of project even have an opportunity to present itself as an essential fucility. The language currently does not provide for that., ^ Tygre asked how is "essential " to be defined is the problem If very specific criteria is not provided to evaluate 'essential '' ^ there will be many problems. Pardee disagreed . He recommended u procedure for u hearing before planning and zoning with u recommendation to Council as to whether u � is essential Richman related that in the lust evaluation f this, it wu ^ - impossible to define "essential . " e" Th ~ some conclusion was reached that Pardee suggested. Anderson suggested expanding "essential " to include governmental Projects and community facilities, broaden the language. Richmun said the issue is whether one thinks other projects besides governmental projects deserve preferential treatment . hut is required? Could some essential facilities, e.g. , water treatment ever compete? Is the bus maintenance essential? Or is the juil ' essential? Tygre suggested broad criteria with conditional use language attached. Define projects which would pgt be considered Define whut the benefit to the community is to be, financial ,considered. etc . Identify different categories under which the cultural , w c e commission could consider, for example, u performing arts -c'n�'r Richman did not approve of profit v.s. nonprofit as u- `� ^ Tygre agreed , but state that is ngt the critical factor ,criteria. cu uctor . Richmun first used the dictionary definition of "essential , " For exumple food is an essential part of any community, therefore, u market ' could be considered an essential community fu�ility. That is stretching the definition perhups. He can try� to provide some criteria to work with, perhaps defining "essential , " Tygre ugreed She noted many times in these deliberations the determination ^ of whether something is essential is very personal . To the extent that can be minimized that is helpful . Richman suggested language "open to the community at large " as u criteria . 8 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS Edwards suggested investigating condemnation cases for ideus The public entity who is condemning has to demonstrate there ^ is u necessity for public use. The courts consider what th= criteria are for that aspect. The cases might provide ideas ., White agreed with Purdee~s suggestion. Pardee noted community goals change. A parking facility in the past may not be an essential public need today. He wants the code flexible He cannot predict the public needs. If the language is too restrictive the code will have to be revised in order to exempt certain ' cases. Richman did not recommend u list of essential needs Is " essential " something open to the community? Should an essential Project provide u basic service that the community is dependent upon?upon? He will provide u broad definition. Secondly, Richman addressed the exemption of 70:30 and 100% employee housing. The lust time P&Z reviewed this, the commission requested all employee housing projects be deducted from the quota system. He thought Council had agreed to that. At the second reading, however, Council changed their position They ` q«o requested thut 7O:3O pro �ects not be deducted from the ^ t« That is inconsistent with the employee housing policy w''i ^`" the commission just adopted in the GMPP update. What does t commission recommend'.*? ' '= White requested that 70:30 projects be deducted. Pardee agreed with the deduction. He said it is u glaring inconsistency with everything the commission has done to update the growth management plan . Tygre and White agree with Pardee. Richman addressed the expiration provision. The stuff has not administered the procedure that the building program be required within two Years from the date which the original growth management application was submitted. The requirement has been to submit plans to the building department within two years. ut this has left the stuff in an ambiguous position because the plans sit at the building department for long periods of time and are not duely processed. The uniform building code sets out certain Parameters, 180 days is allowed to get the plan check completed, and another 180 days to get the building on the ground The allocation does not jive with thut. In other words once ^ one has submitted plans to the building department , the allocation is protected. That is the way the language reads now. The two systems need to be interlocked. ^ 9 RECORD_OF_pROCEEDIfVGS Pardee suggested what the new hotel has agreed on with their time table is something the commission should incorporate and muke mandatory. The two years expires at the time when the commission is engaged again in reviewing new applicants . � the expiration was three months earlier, applicants would ` kno how many units are available. He recommended allocations ruw twenty-one months . » Richman suggested it be less than three gears rather than two Someone who is trying to get through the land use process wil � have u twelve month period after receiving an allocation . - they miss one building season after that they ure out ^ r is u tight time framework. ^ That Pardee argued Council might grunt an extension of the limit He cited the Aspen Mountain Lodge. It has been through many procedures. An extension could and should be granted . The city suffers from the person who cannot get his general or �imit�d partners together, the city suff'.�s An allocation i limited which is not used If there - ^ s grunted the use of the allocation^ ere s « legitimate reason for deluging the applicant can come buck to Council He favors twenty-one months for those who go through u reasonable ^ number of procedures. White asked about the Pass situation. There were three different competitions the applicant had to go through. Puraee said he would have u legitimate reason to go to Council . Pass is an exceptional case. He presented the first m lti He was required to go through four different multi-use project ^ Pardee suggested perhaps it should be an administrative*» comPetitio»s^ determi- nation if the applicant has to go through inrdinunt number of administrative procedures Anderson� ~' " r based on u certain keypoint in the r s«ggested u time limit the date when the allocation process. Richman recommended the application. I o» s received versus submission of . n response to someone applying in two ureus from an administrative standpoint he would make the projec � subject to this lust date the application was submitted I � it is submitted in September November, and Jun ^ � start the clock in January to b ' fair t 'th ««ry' one would � o e applicant. White said twenty-one months is too short �because money �s tight Hunt suggested for the multi-GMP applications start the cloc� upon the lust necessary approval for GMP Richman'' ^ Pardee is concerned with people who have u piece of u agreed. ��� land, . =`=^,= 1 O un allocation, and do not have the financing . Someone with allocation may sell the land. Others may let the the uelwcuti«» expire . In the mean time, legitimate applicants do� c^ h o» allocations. He directed Richman to review the not «»e allocations elapsed. ow e Projects whose . many projects have started after tw t one months? en y- Richmun wants the procedure clarified. A straw vote wus tuk Pardee , Tygre, Hunt, White, Sheldon fuvored twenty-one months,, Richman addressed the fourth issue: should Public be required for any lot split. Lot splits are some of cthe«rz»gs basic procedures. They are not particularly controversial emost comPlicuted. Council wants to open them up to public ior und to notify neighbors of lot Splits, This hearing after the Curton-Madsen case. Richman s w«s questioned lot split reviews Anderson's n «rg«ed for expediting is that it is ^ » s e:Perience with one lot split very controversial . Richman clarified that the issue is lot splits not lot line Planning office determines when pre-opting u case if ther s^ re any issues or problems. If not the case goes to Council dirt«re ec why waste the commissioners' time. Why not act expeditiousl �y' Anderson opened the public hearing and moved to continue h Public hearing on Tuesday, March 27, 1984. «e e TOP_OF_MILL_CONCEPTUAL_PUD Sunny Vann, planning office, anticipates providing udditi l information as the application proceeds through due o»« He tried in the memorandum to briefly outline some of Process ^ concerns and issues and to explain the remaining the the Process The 7OO S Galena ng s eps of due Therefore,. . u enu project did receive u GMP allocation. will be is out of the review process at this time. o»^ ^l e uo essed again at preliminary PUD. Council lust night directed planning office to draft u resol ti granting conceptual PUD upprovul , subject to further discussion« o» of some of the issues Council i ^ approval . e will keep the s Proceeding toward u conceptual of the resolution,, eP e commission posted of the final points This discussion is for the remaining PUB, the Top of Mill and 11 RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS Summit Place. He will give the applicant an opportunity to present the basic program for this particular project. The project is u reconstruction of existing residential units on the property, therefore, the project does not require u GM!::' allocation. The applicant must demonstrate compliance of the proposal with regards to GMP regulations. There is u rezoning request associated with this proposal as well . The rezoning is not required for the purposes of the use proposed or for the density since FAR will vary under PUD regulations . The public hearing for the rezoning is scheduled for the April 1Oth meeting. He requests the discussion of rezoning request be deferred to that meeting, although it can be talked about tonight generically if it relates to the proposal . After the applicant makes the presentation, he will explain planning office 's concerns surrounding the proposal . He suspects as Council completes its work on the conceptual PUD and awards quota, the applicant will come buck to P&Z und discuss employee housing solutions. Once there is u firm count on the units, the issue will appear on the agenda sometime in April . All u9pects of the project will come together at preliminary submission. White asked if the project will be reviewed at preliminary in Mug . Vann said he did not know. He does not know how long conceptual Top of Mill will take. Optimistically Council will vote on it next week. Tygre asked how the units for reconstruction are counted . Is u unit equivalent to u unit, whether it is single family or Q duplex, or does u duplex count as two units? Vann explained under the code kitchen and associated rooms, baths, bedrooms , ore counted as u dwelling unit. A duplex is two dwelling units. Under the reconstruction provision there is no connection between the number of rooms before construction and square footage of the reconstruction. John Doremus, representative for the applicant, introduced Ke Top of Mill . ( He refers to u site plan and u variety of cross sections displayed on the wall . ) The complex will be single family and duplex configurations. There are three single family units, the rest are all duplexes. They are located on five and half acres. The units will be approximately 3,000 square 12 � RECORD-OF-PROCEEDIy�GS feet in size and three stories in height. The lower story will be 50% below grade and will be built into the hillside . The features are ski-in and ski-out access. The main ski-in trail will access from the Little Nell area as well as from Fifth Avenue . The ski-out trail will be between two buildings down to the lift. Blomquist requests another ski trail to the Little Nell area along an existing trail . Whether there is public access is not known at this point. The applicant is willing to work on that. There is u plan for two pools and low grade parking. The other feature is u large open space easement adjacent to the property which will be managed and maintained. Other feutures include pedestrian orientation, access, and parking. Summit Place is fairly simple. It was designed as u fourplex. It is partially constructed with foundations and subgrude basement for all four units. Two units have roofs . The third unit is partially built. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the fourth unit design and add one more unit to the two existing units which already have u building permit. The third and fourth units never received building permits. The applicant is acknow- ledging one new unit. The applicant plans to eliminate the fourth unit to provide u ski-in access not only to the hotel project and 700 S. Galena, but to the entire neighborhood The access also serves as u trail wag into the wilderness from ^ Dean Street. It is an important trail . The plan is to use one unit for Summit Place and thirty-three units for the Top of Mill . The applicant suggests using an allocation of thirty-four units of the forty approved existing units The remaining six units in the existing inventory would be granted to the hotel . Summit Street is 5,000 square feet and Top o'' Mill is 240,000 square feet which is the five plus acres. Doremus points to sections of the proposed Top of Mill . One section is taken across the top portion of the site plun . The vertical section is u north-south section up and down the hill . This shows realistically what the grade is in the bowl . One section shows the final underground parking plan which is under the two large elements of the plan. The entrances to the parking ure shown . There is u very limited exterior surface parking for six curs off the streets. The streets were kept in u trudi- tionul linear pattern following the old pattern of the city streets . The vehicular access to the Top of Mill units is u left and right turn to the underground parking. The plan is 13 RECO8D_OF_PROCEEDINGS to eliminate the connection of Summit Street. The traffic planner concluded the street serves no real purpose. The uniqueness Of the plan is the pedestrian quulity. The garage plan shows the possibility of driving to the guruge beneath the Top of Mill units and accessing the units immediately through elevators and the courtyurds. Doremus discussed the solution of the fire control problem A building located in the southern portion of the Top of ^ill in the trees is, in effect, u stationary fire truck It'' is Fully equipped as u fire truck should be. Those elements that wouldbe difficult to move from the fire station to the outlying area to the actual condominiums themselves, the hoses and ludders etc, would be housed in those structures so that there would ' be no long hauling of any equipment. The only requirement is the fire fighters get to the structures. That is the proposed solution. This solution has been applied to other areas successfully and has met all fire safety regulations and insurance requirements The applicant expects to engage u fire control consultant to ^ Provide specifics at the preliminary stuge. Doremus said u consideration of u PUD project is one takes liberties und varies what is normally permitted in various zones as u tradeoff for certain public benefits and improvements . Doremu'.�- listed the major benefits the applicant is proposing as u resul`` of the PUD which would improve the neighborhood. ^ 1 . Open space is 53% as opposed to the required 25% for this zone. Included in the 53% open space is two and u half acres of open space easement which was previously mentioned. 2 . All parking on the entire PUD is underground , none of which is required. 3. The applicant is providing quality accommodations on the entire eleven acres. 4. The applicant will remove all the unsightly, substandard facilities . None will be retained., 5. The applicant has integrated u landscape and streetscupe , plan on the entire eleven acres., 1 4 ` RECORD-OF-PROCEEDIyfG8 6. The applicant is bearing all the utilities . 7. The applicant is providing u major trail link and construction of u ski easement which will benefit the entire neighborhood. S. The applicant is making substantial water and sewer line improvements and proposing u sophisticated and communitywide drainage plan. The drainage plan is something provided for the entire neighborhood. Joe Wells, representative for the applicant, addressed the parking and circulation issues. First, TDA, who has done all the trunspor ' tution work on the project to date, was retained to examine the real need for parking on the project. Their assumptions were bused on 100% occupancy in the winter, 80% occupancy in the summer, 1 .5 spaces per one and two bedroom units, and 2 .5 spaces for three and four bedroom units. They concluded that the peak winter demand for Top of Mill was seventy-five spaces and for Summit Place five spaces. There are currently eighty spaces at the Top of Mill and six spaces at Summit Place,, TDA's conclusion that u reduction was appropriate was bused on past reports. The concern was how applicable was that work . Since then, TDA begun u preliminary study which commenced u few weeks ago. TDA came to town and did u week long survey of parking demands. That report will be available shortly. But at the present, the actual demand will probably be less than the figures which have been used to date. The basic assumption on circulation is that the thirty-four units at the Top of Mill and Summit Place will be generally tourist oriented and therefore generate less traffic than the existing long-term units. Anderson asked if these units would be managed like the Gant. Will the units be taken off the market? Wells answered thut the occupancy characteristics will be somewhat lower than the more middle income units in the community. Nonetheless, all the transportation related amenities associated with the hotel will be available to these units. Anderson asked if the applicant envisions in five years the units will be occupied only three or four weeks out of the year. Doremus noted u study has done on that issue. Bob Callaway, applicant, noted that these units 15 RECORD_OF_pROCEEDIMGS will be in the million dollar range. He studied the Mountain Queen which is comparable. Very few of the Mountain Queen units are available on u lease basis, most are owner-occupied . Cohen said out of the fourteen units, five are included in the rental pool . Alan Novak, applicant, commented that the majority of the units at the Top of Mill are expected to be owner-occupied and not available for the short-term rental market. The owner° occupant is expected to be transient. A good portion of the gear there muy be no one in the units except u maid or u house- keeper. Anderson explained the commission may react negatively to the low occupancy rate in units located in the lodge district of town. There is Proposal also to rezone to lodge-2, consequently there should be active occupancy. Callaway commented that buyers may be corporate buyers, and the units may well be used u lot more . Vann said the density, the curing capacity of the land, he ability to build units there, and the ability to be consi '~tent with both county and the land plan almost preclude multi-f^mily type units. The intent is u low density transition area be 'ween Q more dense traditional lodge district and the mountain. The cost of u parcel of land of this size in that locution precludes the ability to provide u unit that will be u short term rental unit on u week to week basis in the traditional lodging sense ,, The use plan intimates the units were not going to be u traditional nightly lodging accommodations and that the frequency of use ' was different than that of the lodge hotel . Novak asked if it is the view of the commission that the Mountain Queen is being misused. Anderson said no. Novak expects the characteristics of the use of his units to be similar to the Mountain Queen. Anderson said there is no benefit accruing to the city, other than property tuxes, to have expensive reul estate sitting vacant most of the time. There is no income generated for businesses. Expensive, vacant structured do not benefit anyone. A third of the Mountain Queen units are mid- termed or short-termed. Vann argued although the units may not be leased as short-term accommodations, the person owning u unit in this price range may well lend its use to other people which will bring people to town. The number of nights muy be less but the expenditures muy be greater . Pardee said the important thing is that the area is u transition area , zoned R-15 and conservation. The project meets the intent 1 6 RECOAD_OF_pROCEEDINGS of the land use plan, it is u transition area between the mountain and the high density lodging area. Novak said the L-2 rezoning request is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding structures. The Mountain Queen and Fifth Avenue are L-2. This project is between them. It is logical it should be L-2. The intensity use is bused on available data of the complexes nearby. They are expensive units. They are sited at u wonderful locution. The owners will not necessarily put them in u short-term rental market . Anderson said it is not necessarily appropriate t^ short-term million dollar units. - Wells addressed circulation, u concern with engineering und Hunt. The question is the closure of some of the streets is of greater value than the trail-link. The applicant feels it is more appropriate to encourage auto disincentives by allowing skiers to ski buck into the heart of the lodge district and then circulate to their units than it is to maintain the access route. That is u judgement cull . The applicant tried to do both with u skier bridge or underpass but the grades did not lend themselves to thut. The natural grade is perfect for u nruil . There is u 30% slope on the downhill side. There is no room to adjust the difference in grades. The result would be u steep pitch. Wells said TDA concluded it is inappropriate to encourage circulation, especially in the winter , at the top of two very steep roudwuys. Hunt did not favor u transportation system requiring u road crossing the trail in an effort to service Lift 1-A. But Lift l-A has to be serviced eventually by some sort of transportation system . He is not infatuated at all by the road . The project fully covers more than two-thirds of the site at Mill Street Mill Street narrows terribly near the bottom. All aspects 0.(-, ^ the project must be integrated. He disagrees with the engineering depurtment. Mill Street, especially in the winter , is not u adequate access. It is too narrow. Pardee asked if the applicant' is within the zone setbacks. Hunt said the applicant may well be.be. But, it is time to correct some of the sreet right of wuys Why perpetuate u bud situation. The present plan does not address ^ Mill Street . Pardee said the applicant is addressing only the top of Mill . Hunt said part of the problem is down at the botto of Mill Street, it is choked. He also does not think the applicant has addressed satisfactorily visitor parking as opposed to resi ' dentiul parking in the area . Aguin' the very narrow portion of Mill Street at the south end is exacerbated . This is his 17 RECORD-OF-PROCEEDI�GS major grievance with the project. The only adequate solution now is no parking on both sides of the street. Doremus said the parking has not been addressed because the applicant does not know what the city wants. Does the city want limited parking or angle parking, what? The applicant cannot solve the problem because the applicant does not know whut needs to be solved. Hunt said from u practical point of view driving up Mill Street is u real problem in the winter time . No improvements are provided by the applicant who owns more than two-thirds of Mill Street. Wells said the applicant to committed to participating in the improvement district to address these issues. Off-site problems would be better deult with through improvement district discussion than through the commission discussion, because these are citywide issues , or at least districtwide issues that go beyond the scope of this project . The applicant agrees the problem should be examined. Anderson suggested it would be appropriate for this discussioo und for the next few meetings to identify problems and not neces- surily to resolve them at this time. Doremus encouraged the commission to identify problems so that the applicant could respond to them. The architect is more capable of answering questions dealing with the actual design and siting of the units . The architect will be here next week. Doremus is happy to try to answer some of those questions but it might be better to wait until next week. White expressed support for the ski access, but he is concernec about the access to Lift 1-A. He wants to keep that open bu� not necessarily as u street. Doremus said the commission can decide on u trail or u road. White is opposed to City Council 's suggestion to reduce the applicant's parking responsibility. There is u benefit derived from the applicant dealing with the parking. If the applicant is not required to address the parking then parking on Mill Street needs to be addressed. Doremus said, even if Council chooses to reduce parking the operator may not agree to that. The operator wants to run u four-five star hotel operation and adequate parking is mandatory. "Adequate" is defined as what is really needed not necessarily what the code requires or what the city concedes to. The same attitude applies for the Top of Mill . Most likely the applicant will adhere _ to the principal of what is needed will be provided. White agreed with that . The applicant appears to be offering some 1 8 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS solution which will alleviate some of the Mill Street problem. Vann deferred his comments to u later time. Wells addressed water and sewer. He has letters from o,th serv1ces supporting that there is adequate capacity. He described in the post all the anticipated improvements of the two systems . One of the issues with regards to the 8040 elevation is the adequacy of water pressure. The applicant is committed to boosting the water pressure which is presently inadequate for the upper units. There are two elements to the storm drainage. The applicant proposes to deal with the on-site problem with either on-site ponds or by handling the peak water in the parking structures . Presently it is unresolved. The issue evolves around 16 ,000 cubic feet. The second and larger issue is the off-site storm drainage. It is u severe community concern which has never been dealt with. The applicant proposes to help the city solve that problem by providing 2.75 acre feet of storage in either detention ponds in the areas above the dwelling units or working out an agreement with the ski company to deal with the problem at u higher elevation on the mountain. A hundred gear storm problem at this time cannot be dealt with. Vann said the basic reviews required for this application are conceptual PUD subdivision, review of the proximity of the units to the 8040 greenline ( which s u P&Z only review ), and viewplune review since the structures are impacting the Wheeler Opera house viewplune. While there are strict reviews each issue is directly related to each other in the conceptual PUD submission. Vann clarified this is not u published public hearing. There was u mixup on the public hearing for the rezoning. That public hearing is scheduled for April 10th. There is no public hearing requirement for 8040 viewplune and/or conceptual PUD but it is the general practice to take public comment. Vann proceeded to discuss the planning office's review of the application. The site involves u land trade with the Koch Lumber property. There are approximately eight lots at the top of Mill Street which are currently public , conservation , and owned by the city. The applicant proposes to trade the Koch Lumber property for those eight lots. At this time the proposed trade has not been considered by Council . Council will use the planning and zoning commission's recommendation with respect to this in determining the appropriateness of the trade. For purposes 19 _ RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS of the commissioners' review he requested that they assume thut those lots are available for development by the upplicunt. If the commission has substantial problem with the concept , he would convey that recommendation to Council . Assume those lots are part of the parcel in question and review the application on its merits. The planning office concluded after reviewing the conceptual PUD concerns the proposed site design is consistent with the design requirements and the intent of the PUD regulations., Architecturally the building is being clustered . Open space is being maximized. Lund use planning indicates u reduction in density as u transition between the more dense lodge development and adjacent mountain and open space. The use of single family duplex configurations is appropriate for this site. Locating the parking below ground maximizes open space. Views of the surrounding mountain are maximized . There are u number of areas of concern which warrant further discussion by the planning and zoning commission. Some are technical in nature, some design in nature. The planning office at this time believes the visual impact of the project is minor. The view of the site is restricted to the view on Mill Street unless one is at the upper level of Mill Street near the site. The single family duplex nature of the project will serve not to block the lower portions of the mountains. He requested for the 8040 greenline review more detailed information at preliminary PUD which will enable the planning office to provide u better evaluation of the elevation of the building and the visual impuct. He suggested formal action on the 8040 greenline review take place concurrently with the preliminary PUD approval , It is appropriate that the 8040 concerns be addressed at this time and these concerns passed onto the applicant prior to preliminary PUD. The engineering department and the planning office are concerned with overall circulation in the area. The city has pursued the acquisition of Summit Street for u number of gears. The acquisition of an appropriate right of wag was part of the review of the Summit Place duplexes. The purpose of that acquisition wus to improve overall circulation in the area , primarily for emergency vehicle access in the event other streets were blocked. He concurs with the applicant there are trade-offs involved 20 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS with the trail which would link the upper site with the lodge and the extension of Summit Street. At this time engineering has recommended against any development activity which would preclude in the future the use of Summit Street. The construction of the trail appears not to do that. Reserve the right to address that issue later. The applicant wants to make u case for not extending Summit Street. Vann also wants to evaluate the additional information from TDA. The trade-off does not need to be decided upon now so long as the proposed improvements do not preclude in the future u possible extension of Summit Street. Transportation issues in general for the entire city will be reviewed, and the major thoroughfare plan and all extension to it will be dealt with at that time. Simply utilizing that for u trail would permanently preclude the extension of Summit Street. He is also concerned with pedestrian and potential skier access to Lift 1-A, and more desirably to Little Nell . The effect will limit vehicular traffic for skier drop-off in those ureus . ideally u shuttle could be used like other condominium complexes. Trail access would be helpful . The planning office is investigating alternatives which would allow an east-west link. There is accessible terrain behind the Alps but it is questionable whether there is the ability to utilize the private property. The planning office is exploring trail access between the two base lifts. As it relates to this project, the proposed building does not preclude those opportunities. There is u concern about the impact of this pro ject on the Willoughby Ski Jump and the ski club rope tow. The project Proposes us part of the land trade to relocate the ski club building to Q more appropriate locution and to reconstruct the fucility . That is not u major concern. He understands that the ski company currently maintains leases for the uses of the rope tow and the base building on privately held property. The applicants ure currently discussing with the ski company locating the rope tow further up the hill . The ski company may no longer be interested in maintaining the Willoughby Jump. He requests additional information be provided with respect to the applicant's discussion with the ski company with respect to those basic community fuci- lities. [hose are primarily the site design and visual considerations at this time. He requests holding off on the 8040 greenline until he has an opportunity to adequately assess the visual 21 RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS impacts with more detailed sectional analysis , elevations, und revised topogruphy. Generally the planning office concurs with the reduction of the parking proposed by the applicant, given the information submitted to date. Similar investigation by the planning office indicates that parking requirements for the nature of this operation is excessive. The applicant is currently involved in an updated parking survey in that area bused on peak season occupuncy . Planning office is requesting the results of that survey to further confirm the reduction of parking. He is also concerned with parking on. Mill Street. The original application of the hotel talked about u reduction in off-street parking, subsequently it has been amended. He is not sure if that reduction included all of Mill Street. He wants to discuss that area with respect to circulation.. The primary concern with circulation is the access for merc�.,; vehicles. The applicants recognized the difficulty in accessing the site as currently designed. A fire engine cannot munuever there. There are no comments from the fire department at this time. The applicants are requesting to discuss in conjunction with the engineering and fire department the nature of the proposal , the access problems in terms of the fire trucks, the ability to evacuate people, and the elevators which access the parcel . It is not an issue which is irresolvable at this time. He needs additional information at conceptual 1evel . The applicant is also requesting o vacation of u smcll piece of Mill Street, at the very top of Mill Street. The east-west street which appears at the top of Hill Street does not exist Qt this time and will be constructed by the applicant. It will probably be private with u gate house at the access of the project. That east-west street requires u vacation just south of Mill . The engineering and planning office would agree that particular portion of Mill is not essential to overall circulation of the area provided that the east-west street and the general circulation and access to the fire station are acceptable to the fire depur- tment. However, in the hotel review Vann wants to make sure that u utility access is preserved. The applicant should demonstrute the benefit which would accrue to the city as u result of the city volunteering to vacate u portion of public right of way ,. The issues are technical . There is no particular problem with 22 RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS the vacation at conceptual level . There is u rezoning request. It involves that portion of the project which is currently zoned R-15 PUD L. It allows lodge use subject to PUD approval in R-15 density and in R-15 use in that locution. Those city lots above the 8040 greenline are zoned conservation. He deferred discussion of the merits of the rezoning to the April 10th P&Z meeting. This project could be accomplished without the zoning. The rezoning is not essential to the use. Single family duplexes are acceptable in L-2 and R-15 zoning. Nor is it required for density since the number of units is u function of FAR, and the FAR can be varied in the L1 or L2 zoning in the PUD regulations . There is u problem with the multiple zone districts, with PUD overlay, and with the luck of specificity in the code on how to address development rights. He is against the rezoning. This application does not require an exemption from growth management for reconstruction. No P&Z or Council action is required . However, he proposes that reconstruction be run past P&Z for verification purposes with attached conditions that might be applicable. In this case there are forty existing units which have been verified by the building department, in conjunction with the planning office and the applicant, which are proposed to be reconstructed. There are thirty-three on the Top of Mill and one for the Summit Place triplex. The remaining six would be constructed as part of the resort hotel for short-termed condominiumizution. There are u couple of conditions he recommends to be attached to that reconstruction. They are provided for in the code. And they are not controversial . The 8040 greenline review is popularly misconceived. The miscon ' ception is that construction is prohibited from the 8040 greenline. All the 8040 greenline requires is that any development above it or within fifty yards below it be reviewed for u variety of technical problems which have to do with water pressure, access, avalanche dangers, unstable slopes, etc . The major nontechnical concern is the visual impact of u project which would be developed near the 8040 greenline. This applicant, is proposing to place three units above the 8040 greenline . The portion of the site where the applicant is proposing to build above the 8040 greenline is the base of u bowl which is both natural and created by the excavation and general activity of the area. This area is less visible than other portions 23 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDI�GS which are below the 8040 greenline. The visual impact at u conceptual level creates no problem. He does request that formul action be deferred until preliminary PUD at which time there will be more detailed site plans and elevations which will allow better assessment of the impact . The technical concern associated with the 8040 greenline is water pressure. The engineering and water department identify u problem in the upper units which the applicants have agreed to mitigate with the installation of booster pumps. They will be designed to the specifications which are satisfactory to the water and engineering department. He requests additional information from the applicants on access after they have met with the fire department. The fire department needs to assess the proposed solution. The other concern is the subsurface mining activity. The mups indicate very large stopes in the area. He requests some subsurface exploration. He is concerned with the fill and the potential subsidence. Those are issues which have to be detailed and addressed prior to preliminary PUD approval,, The other technical issue identified is the proposed drainage solution which the applicant is willing to address for the entire Aspen Mountain PUD site. There is u retention problem, the nonpolluted snow melt runoff from the mountain. He is concerned how that will be towed into the slope~ The actual concept which the applicant has proposed will work quite well . He does request more detailed designs. The final issue is mountain viewplune review. The Wheeler Opera House viewplune projects at such an angle that it intersects the site below the Top of Mill proposal . The effect would render all the development above that elevation of 7,800 feet within the Wheeler Opera House viewplunes. The code provides when that type of circumstance arises that PUD regulations will be followed to minimize the blockage of the views of the adjacent, mountains. He believes the application of the viewpine in that context is Probably inappropriate. The viewplune regulations were designed to control development in the foreground and to preserve the views of the upper mountain. To u limited degree the development of the Mason and Morse building and the variance grunted has had the effect of raising the affected viewplune 24 RECORD-OF-PROCEEDI�GS if one applies it stringently. The affected viewplune intersects the site above the majority of the proposed construction. In uoy event, none of the potential development appears to block the views of the adjacent mountains from the origination of the Wheeler plane, from Wagner Park, or any other open public area in that vicinity of town. Once again, he argues the 8040 greenline regulations more aptly control scale, bulk , and engineering concerns at that elevation of the mountain. For the purposes of this application mountain viewplune considerations ore moot . Vann did not provide any specific recommendations on the issue of FAR . Council is still contending with the FAR associated with lodge portion of the project. He expects following the Council 's conceptual review to receive some FAR information relative to this portion of site of the PUD as well as the overall PUD itself. He believes FAR is not the issue. Depending on how the code is interpreted, and methodology by which the commission calculates FAR, the FAR can be any number desired. Vann proposed following the public hearing on rezoning that the commission consolidate its comments with the other referral agencies in the planning office into u series of specific recom- mendations which would approach u resolution. He asked if the commission requires additional information on the areas summarized here . Pardee advised the applicant to treat the conceptual process as u preliminary. He requested visuals of the mountain viewplune and the Wagner Park viewplune because Council is going to require this . Council seems to misunderstand the intent of u PUD. The land is u transition area. It is zoned R-15 which allows sixteen units. L-2 rezoning allows what is being asked. If one does not understand the intent of PUD, one will view the rezoning W on attempt to increase density. The applicant should be aware that is the strategy certain councilmembers will take. That is the crux of the entire problem. Council will argue that this is u transition area zoned R-15, and allow only sixteen units. PUD permits increasing FAR to best use the site . The applicant should address that and the commission should review that . Hunt commented on transportation and circulation. Would the applicant consider entering the garage straight from the top of Mill Street rather than using the s-turn solution. There 25 RECORD_OF-PROCEEDINGS is probably some rationale for that solution , but he would like the applicant to consider using this method. The current solution loses potential visitor parking spaces . Wells said that is u design consideration which the architect will address next week . White requested Vann summarize reconstruction procedure. Tygre left the chambers .. Anderson commented that on the stretch of Mill Street near the top there is low construction, but there are some good size trees . How are those trees to be addressed? One should respect where physically possibly the existing vegetation. Callaway noted that the applicant has gone fur beyond the practiced conceptual procedure. He would like to do that here. The commission has addressed every issue Council has addressed but in u different form . He requests the commission's input on these issues. The commission can anticipate better than the applicant what needs to be addressed.. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. A_~~A .~_~I^°~_------------------------ Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk