Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840327 RECQED OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning CommissiQn Mares 27, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, 14elton Anderson , Lee Pardee, David Nlhite, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS! OMMENTS Hunt questioned the memorandum on the Andrews McFarland property. Berry Edwards , city attorney, stated that Taddune disagrees with Bach's position. He assured the commission that Taddune is handling this issue. Hunt asked Edwards if Taddune supports the commission's position. Edwards said yes. PUBLIC HEARING: GRONTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM AMENDMENTS Harvey opened the public hearing. Alan Richman, planning office , opened the discussion. The old language of the code is a combination of policy statements and scoring system statements. The goal is to change the language to simple, straight forward statements on how exactly a project is scored. Most of the language , especially residential , has been removed from the scoring section and relocated to the section on broad policy. Section "AA" states points will be assigned to applicants who agree to provide housing within the housing guidelines. Prior to revision, Section "BB" compared bedrooms to bedrooms , floor area to floor area. Now the comparison is people to people, the number of people housed in each bedroom. A studio is 1 . 25 residents, a one bedroom is 1.75, up to three bedrooms housing an average of three residents. A formula esta- blished by the housing authority is used to identify the number of persons that would be housed both in the free market portion and the employee portion of the project; compare persons to persons. The commission allocates points to applicants as always. There is no change in the points formula. Every time square footage is codified, six months later it is out dated . The size of a unit and the income of the occupancy guidelines respond to people 's incomes. The change in the square foot prices he would prefer to have adopted by resolution annually. The code then would not have to be amended every year. Pardee asked if a statement that size and income levels are retained in the housing authority's guidelines is cross referenced in this section . Richman said "AA" addresses that; points are assigned for housing which complies with the housing guidelines of the City of Aspen . The first provision in 24-11 .10 states: "applicants only receive credit for those units which meet the 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 guidelines or the approval of the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority. " That statement encourages units meet the square footage guidelines, but applicants can vary those guidelines. Pardee suggested include "housing guidelines of unit size, income, etc. " An applicant might not realize that there are size guidelines as well as income guidelines. Include this language also in Section 24-11 . 10 (a) . Richman said "CC" , "DD" , "EE" and "FF" are eliminated. Richman said the commission requested commercial or lodging applications be scored on the basis of whether or not employee housing was located on the same site as the project. He asked if residential projects are also to be required to site employee housing on the same site. He thought it was irrelevant. The logic was to encourage housing on the same site as job location. Harvey agreed. Edwards questioned what sort of criteria is established for the housing office to review dormitory space. Richman noted there is a definition in the city codes on dormitories. Edwards asked how will the housing authority ' s review be incorporated into some sort of criteria. People need to understand the stan- dards. Richman explained that a dormitory could house different numbers of people. It is not clear that a dormitory would house six, eight, or ten. He suggests the housing authority evaluate a specific design to determine how many people the applicant intends to accommodate. Hunt asked how is a standard set for a dormitory, how is a number assigned. Edwards suggested defining standards by which the number is derived, not a number itself. The public should be able to look at some standards to determine what is needed for a dormitory. Harvey asked if the housing authority can provide criteria for dormitory. Richman said a definition for dormitory was determined for L-3 capacity. It might provide some guidance. Perhaps state in the codes a dormitory unit provides a minimum 150 square feet per person , including sleeping, kitchen, and bath facilities. Harvey said still keep in the code the review with the housing authority. Richman suggested defining a maximum size not setting a fixed number. The housing authority suggested the dormitory should not house more than twelve people, and not twelve people in one room, twelve in a series of closely associated separate lockable bedrooms with common facilities. Richman proposed the elimination of number five. He noted Jim Curtis concluded that section does not reflect today ' s financial reality. Pardee suggested include a provision for unique financing 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Spgcial Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission Hare 27. 1984 in bonus points . Richman noted that is currently the way it is. The scoring system reads so that the applicant does not meet threshold . Pardee said the points would not need to be delineated by half points. Instead, note this is an exceptional design and unique financing. Harvey concurred with the suggestion to include this in the bonus section. However, " unique" will have to be defined. Richman suggested seeking the advice of the housing authority. White said use Centennial as a case to derive " unique" guidelines. Hunt recommended change the word "will" to "may. " Richman said bonus points are discretionary. Pardee concurred with Hunt. It would be presumptuous to anticipate any unique financing methods. He suggested a provision that the commission "may" award bonus points based on beneficial financing for the prospective employee-buyers. Richman addressed the scoring system for commercial projects. White questioned the 51-100% housing; one point is provided for each 10% of housing. Bonus points are awarded only for housing provided up to 50% . There is no incentive to provide anymore than 50% . Richman said Section "AA" of provision three retracts what is in residential scoring section. Section "BB" is based on the commission' s comments that a commercial project should provide 50% employee housing. To be competitive in the whole system an applicant must score a certain amount of points in each of the sections and an overall 60% . He tried to insure if the applicant provides 50% of the employees housing, he receives 60% of the available points in this category and maintains a competitive status . One point for each 5% housed translates to ten out of fifteen points in this category. That translates into a sixty-six and two-thirds score. One is then competitive. He designed this specifically around the threshold the commission created. He is making sure that on one hand an applicant only has to provide 50% and on the other hand does not lose in the overall scoring. The two have to agree. After the 50%, additional housing is nice but not essential. Bil Dunaway, publisher of the Aspen Times , asked why the same number of points are awarded for middle income as low income. Richman said the reason for not differentiating points is that the housing authority felt that commercial and lodge developers ought to have the opportunity to house either middle income or higher income employees. The intent for commercial is to house the people generated by that project; the intent for resi- dential is to make up the community' s inadequate provision of low income housing. People are not forced to house their own employees. They are given the opportunity to house anyone in 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDIM Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Comission March 27. 1984 the community , but commercial and lodge have not been given points based on low, moderate, or middle income levels. Pardee thought every applicant had to be prepared to provide whatever income level of housing the housing authority defined as needed in the metro area. That determination had nothing to do with the employees who worked there. Richman said upfront the applicant is not scored on low, moderate or middle. The scoring system has always been that way for commercial . Pardee reiterated that everyone has to be prepared to be assigned low income housing. Richman said that may have been the policy when the commission administered exemptions. Pardee said the housing authority decides the level of income housing needed at a particular time. Richman said a proposed unit might be 1 ,000 square feet and not affordable to a low income individual . That is a recommendation the housing authority might make . Pardee said the housing authority should not be reviewing the applicant ' s project but stating the needs of the city. May be the 1,000 square feet would have to be divided into two units to make it affordable to low income employees. The purpose is to fill the voids. Given the choice, applicants would provide only middle income housing. Jim Adamski, housing authority, explained that the housing autho- rity' s philosophy is that new commercial generation should take care of their employees. Residential should address the short fall issue. Pardee said the commission ' s position has been a builder has to house 50% of employees generated, but not necessarily their own employees. The real question is would the applicant build a middle income project which is close to market. Adamski noted if the housing authority was presented that , the housing authority would require a breakdown of employees by job description and salary range. That has been done in the past. Harvey asked how he tells if in fact those employees are housed in that facility. The guidelines should reflect the needs of the housing authority. The commission does not score an application based on low, moderate or middle income housing. Richman said only residential is scored on that basis. The intent in residential is to fill the community' s needs. Harvey suggested that the code be changed to read that the commission will assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide housing which is in compliance with the housing authority. He suggested a pre-application conference with the housing authority. Pardee and Tygre thought that was the current procedure. Tygre understood if the applicant could not afford to build what was required, he could not build. Richman said the current policy says commercial or lodge applicants 4 REC ED OF PROCEEDINGS Bnecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 are not restricted to house employees of their own business. Change the language to state if the applicant houses employees at large , then the housing proposed needs to reflect the needs of the community at large. Pardee emphasized al1 applicants , regardless if they are commercial or residential need to provide the needed housing. The housing authority needs to be advised of this. And prior to submission of applications, the housing authority should determine what is needed based not on the type of employee but the needs of the community at that time. Richman noted he would include as a provision "a" in Section 24-11 . 10 that an applicant only receives credit for units which meet the guidelines determined through a conference with the housing authority. Pardee suggested include the words "guidelines, size, income and mix. " Harvey said change item three , page four to read each applicant who agrees to provide housing which complies with the housing guidelines of the City of Aspen will receive points . Richman will include that in- the guidelines. Harvey said provision 24-11 .10 will inform the applicant of the specifics . Tygre suggested deleting "middle. " Richman argued that "middle" may be back in two years . He is trying to make the code generic. Richman then addressed data by zone districts. He suggested include "employees per 1 , 000 square feet net leasable. " Also give the applicant the opportunity to propose an alternate standard to the housing authority and to demonstrate the standard is too high. He noted the addition that if no new employees are generated then an applicant should be eligible for all the points. This addresses primarily L-3 lodge or a small commercial development. White again said there is more incentive to provide housing up to 50% but not more than 50% . Harvey argued there is incentive if the process is competitive. If the total number of points is increased, then the number of points needed to reach threshold needs to be increased. The ability for the applicant to reach threshold has to be maintained. Richman agreed with White con- ceptually, but practically it would be a hardship. Tygre agreed with White. Ideally the applicant should be encouraged to house the greatest number of employees possible. This system does not encourage that. Is it fair to award bonus points above the to an applicant who houses 75%? Richman said Harvey ' s point is more appropriate. If the applicant goes above 50% the applicant is more competitive. Harvey said the fifteen points could be distributed such that one point is awarded for each 5% of housing up to 60% , one point for each 10% housing up to 90% , and nothing 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27a 1984 for the 90% to 100% . But, he would prefer to try the new system for awhile. Adamski agreed , give the system a chance. Dunaway suggested deleting the 51-100% , and award one point for each 5% housing. Richman said if the commission wanted twenty points of commercial to be devoted to housing it would not hurt anything. Harvey asked if there are twenty points then what percentage does the applicant have to house to win the 60% . Richman said the applicant would need twelve points. Harvey said then the applicant would have to provide 60% housing, that is a problem. Richman noted all of page five will be included in Section 24-11 .10. Richman explained the universe of number four in the old system gave points in Section 3 (employee housing need) based on 0- 50% . Applicants were required to score 30% of the points and provide 50% of the total employees generated to yield the 15% . Then applicants were given bonus points if 50-150% of the total project was provided. Now the universe is 100% . Number four is a waste now. No one will exceed 100% . Richman replaced number four with the language that points should be awarded for providing on-site. He suggested points for on- site, a lesser number within Aspen metro area-, and no points for outside the metro area. Pardee said there is only a two point difference between housing on-site and within the metro area. He understood unless the housing was within the metro area no points were applicable. Richman said the last line is irrelevant. Pardee said the bonus is only two points for on-site housing. No one will build on-site for two points . He suggested awarding zero for metro housing, and four bonus points for on-site. Harvey said some large scale projects may not be able to locate 50% of employee housing on-site , e. g . , Mill Street Station. Pardee said a mixed solution should be given a percentage of the bonus. Harvey said the question is how to deal with the applicant who cannot locate all the housing on-site and at the same time encourage the applicant who can locate housing on-site. Tygre agreed with Pardee' s suggestion. The four points could make someone more competitive. The four points would not preclude a big project which could not house all the projects on-site from the competition. white asked if the land parcels which _a not contiguous are included? Richman said the code requires the land to be contiguous. Harvey suggested deleting "Housing is located within the City of Aspen . . . Metro Area: 0 points. " Richman said the language must indicate that the applicant does not have to score on this 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 category . One cannot force the applicant to build on-site . Indicate that these points would be given towards the overall 50% threshold. Richman then addressed the lodge employee housing system. Lodge items are grouped into categories. Employee housing is not a category onto itself. It is grouped in the public policy goal. It is grouped in the rehabilitation and reconstruction arena for L-3 lodges. The points formula reflects the threshold. In case of lodge the threshold is 35% . An applicant who provides 0 -40% housing could receive eight points for housing 40% of the employees. Eight of the fourteen points is slightly above the 60% threshold for overall competition. Seven of the fourteen points is 35% which translates to 50% of the housing points . Harvey questioned the figures . 22 to .54 employees per lodge room. Richman noted that is a wide spread. That is the housing authority' s conclusion based on the differential between the kinds of levels of service that a lodge may be proposing. The housing authority looks at specific services : bar, restaurant , maid service , etc . Hunt suggested modifying the language. Keep the numbers of employees per lodge rooms dependent on the level of service. "Provided" is the wrong verb. White suggested using the "A" grade lodge system to determine the one employee per lodge room. Pardee said the goal is to make a generic codi- fication; do not include anything. State that a pre-application conference with the housing authority is to be used to determine with the applicant the type of services provided and the number of employees per lodge room. Harvey said include language "according to the guidelines available from the housing authority. " Adamski concurred with the decision to place the onus on the housing authority. Anderson cited the Endeavor Lodge. There are 2 . 5 employees . The enlargement of the lodge resulted in fewer beds, fewer people, but larger rooms. There is variability from lodge to lodge. Tygre said include in the guidelines "based on the kinds of amenities. " Richman said the lodge applicants usually list the positions. The housing authority and the applicant will develop the standard based on level of service proposed. No specific standards should be in the code, only direction where the applicant needs to go. Richman changed "BB" to reflect the discussion. Edwards said the commission might be saying that the housing authority has the opportunity with every applicant to create different standards. Richman responded the opportunity is being 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDING. Special Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission March 27. 1984 given to present another standard in a commercial project. In a lodge, service level is so varied that each applicant should have the opportunity to set the standard. Harvey said the housing authority should have standards for lodge applications. Edwards warned that some guideline must be determined. Anderson said the commission relies on various agencies ' recommendations in GM P scoring . Richman suggested standards be on file rather than in the code. Edwards said rules on file are necessary. Harvey said the language . 22 to . 52 employees per room is a broad enough range to cover the varied amenities. But the housing authority should standardize as much as possible. Pardee asked if there is a hotel standard for referencing the number of employees per room, for the quantity of maids provided for the rooms , etc. Adamski said each hotel is different . A restaurant may provide a roaming chef, a waiter for every two tables. Another restaurant may provide a waiter for every ten tables. He agreed the housing authority has to adopt better standards to meet the commission ' s decision. Harvey said the lodge association may have figures on employees. Adamski said a threshold criteria is needed to apply to different situations. The question is quality and service level. White said the quality rating of "A" to a "AA" is determined by the overall square footage and the number of employees to rooms. Richman explained the employee factor represents full time equivalents. The housing office estimates 1 .4 jobs per employee. One per room would be divided by 1 . 4. This would be closer to the . 54 figure . . 54 may be alright. Edwards reiterated include in the code that the guidelines are set by the housing authority. The guidelines are to be reviewed and modified by the housing authority once or twice a year. When there are guidelines people will be assured that they are the only guidelines within a certain period of time. There will not be the perception by the public that there will be new guidelines to be dealt with every time they come in. Also, the code would not have to be recodified every six months. Harvey asked if someone submits under the lodge application a hotel application, with a hundred rooms , with "x" number feet of restaurant, with "x" number of square feet of retail space, does the commission apply the . 54 figure. Richman understood these factors include commercial space, conference space, etc. The applicant is not required to compete for commercial space. It is considered accessory to the principal use , unless the restaurant is for everyone ' s use. The applicant does have to 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 mitigate the impacts of the accessory space. Harvey asked Edwards if the language should be that the guidelines are set by the housing authority. Edwards said the guidelines, which are set and formulated by the housing authority, are subject to the reasonable approval of Council and P&Z . Indicate the guidelines are reviewed annually or semi-annually , whatever time period is appropriate. The guidelines do not have to be listed in the code. Then the codes are not changed every week . Pardee disagreed. List the housing authority' s duties and obli- gations. Indicate the housing authority should maintain an updated current list. Harvey continued the public hearing to a later date. ARTS WEST BALLOT QUESTION Richman said Council will deal with this on April 9th. Council requests the commission look at the ballot question Arts West is proposing, specifically, the language dealing with planning. The question the voters are being asked to approve is the transfer of some parcels : parcel "A" , the land on which the performing arts center itself is to be built; and parcel "B" , the site which would be used to replace the building for Cap' s Auto Supply. The commission should review the location of Cap' s. The language associated with the specific size of the parcel for Cap' s needs to be reviewed. The commission should also review the language which talks about zoning which the City Council will enact to accomplish terms of the sale and which talks about specific zoning of both parcels "A" and "B". Richman presented history. There was a master plan prepared for the entire Rio Grande property. It specifically identified a site of 6 , 500 square feet for the relocation of Cap' s. The site is just south of the McFarland building on Mill Street . Colette Penne, planning office, explained the site is near the retaining structure, near the trail. Richman said P& Z and Council endorsed the master plan of 1981-82. Hunt asked if the master plan allowed the extension of the Rio Grande rail right of way into the Rio Grande property. How does parcel "B" effect that? Penne said it does not. Part of the master plan was to keep the right of way open all the way to the Rio Grande. She is not sure of the exact alignment of the Rio Grande right of way. That has to be worked out. Parcel "B" is part of the master plan. It is not new. People were aware 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27-. --19 4 of the right of way, the parcel does not preclude this. Hunt said he does not have enough information to make that deter- mination. The commission gathered around the site plan provided by Arts West for discussion and clarification of the proposed Cap ' s relocation. Involved in the discussion were Andy Heck, represen- tative for Arts west, and Stoney Davis, owner of Cap' s. Richman noted no specific SPA plan has been adopted for the Rio Grande. There are concepts in the master plan which never were incorporated into the site plan. Penne said that on the master plan and in conceptual submission of subdivision PUD parcel "B" is shown as a 0 . 15 acre parcel. That translates to the same size parcel of the current Cap' s Auto Supply. The parcel is designed to fit on the master plan in a triangular configuration. The ballot question suggests a parcel which is twice that size. Heck addressed this issue. Arts West needs the city to donate enough land that will support the proposed facility at a 1 : 1 FAR. The proposed site will be expanded east a little bit . Cap' s site presents an architectural problem and logistic problem for access. Pardee asked about parking. Heck indicated parking will be part of the entire solution. Richman said parking does not relate to the issues at hand. Pardee explained that the city is proceeding on trading, buying, condemning, and yet an appropriate amount of time has not been allocated to address the parking issues. Everything was approved based on the ability to have a transportation parking center immediately adjacent to the facility. Heck argued the fundraising issue needs to be addressed. That cannot be addressed until a specific site is designated. Money cannot be raised for an unidentified site . The priority is to identify a site, then participate in any solutions necessary for the parking. Tygre expressed concern over the parking also. The priorities for that piece of property are being twisted. This is a discussion about conveying property to the arts center, but it is only one of a whole list of uses that are proposed . Pardee said the land was purchased for transportation and parking. Heck 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Spgcial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1484 explained the land was acquired from the county for the singular purpose of building a performing arts center. If the land is not used for a performing arts center by 1992 the land reverts to the county. Pardee said certain property was designated for parking. There is now confusion over the location of the transpor- tation center. The land was bought with the seventh penny for this purpose. The proposal now has changed. The commission may foreclose the possibility of a transportation center. Parking needs to be planned within the facility designs. Penne explained what the applicant is asking for is consistent with the plan which shows a parking garage with bus turn arounds and transportation extensions onto Spring Street. The Rio Grande is bogged down. It is a very important piece of property. It is the biggest remaining parcel to be developed in town. The master planning process took two years. The land trade was agreed upon between the city and county. This is the result of the land trade. Arts West is ready. The city has not committed to a parking garage. There needs to be some kind of movement on this property. This is consistent with the master plan and land trade. Harvey said the proposal is consistent except that more land now is outlined for the facility. Before any action is taken expert parking advice is required to prevent inadequate parking solutions. Harvey cannot answer the number necessary for parking. The outside figure was a 400 space garage. He does not know if that would work . Depending on the size of the auditorium, a certain amount of use will need to be available for the performing arts center. The Hotel Jerome has a sixty space commitment . The city needs an impound lot. Part of the garage would have a setback to accommodate the height of tow trucks. A consultant can provide information, then the commission can decide what kind of land deal is permissable. Penne suggested may be the voters should indicate whether they favor the use of the land for a parking garage. It would be unfortunate to have the facility built, and have 750 people attend a performance without parking. Richman referred to the 1982 ballot question. There is a need before any land trade for the Cap site is consumated for City Council to fully evaluate all alternatives. That has not happened. The commission has not been involved in the planning alternatives for the Cap site. Arts West Aspen has been spending quite a bit of time with Cap' s to develop the alternatives. In December, 11 RECORD Off' PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Ma=ch 27, 1984 Arts West went before the new Council to make sure the new body agreed with the decisions of the previous Council about transfer of the land for the center and for Cap' s. Council reconfirmed the earlier decisions. Harvey said the county owns the parcel where the jail is located. How large is the parcel the county owns? What land does the city have to work with surrounding the jail parcel? Does the county own all that land? How much land is available to the city for a parking structure? Penne noted the stables are part of the trade. Harvey made a request to find out what land the city has available for parking. He also requested an expert' s recommendations. Pardee said he does not want any action to preclude a transportation center . White said the voters might be confused if there is no master plan for the area and no indication of parking use. Richman presented the issues surrounding the Cap' s trade. The previous ballot question did talk about the commission evaluating alternatives. Jay Hammond, engineering department, raised some good questions in his memo dated March 22 , 1984 , about whether this is the most desirable site for the intended use. He raised questions about curb cuts, traffic, parking problems, impacts on the river, etc. From the land use standpoint, Richman does not support the site for commercial use. It is not an appropriate place for Cap' s. It is not reasonable to plan for public development and then plan a commercial use which does not exist in the current space. He recommended looking for other sites. The city can use its condemnation power, pay the people a fair market price for their property, and Cap' s can relocate within the market. As a planner he cannot recommend a Mill Street frontage where there is substantial redevelopment occurring. This is a high priority parcel in the city of Aspen. The Jerome, the performing arts center, the jail, the parking, are high quality developments. If the commission decides the proposed relocation is appropriate it must review the question of the parcel size. The ballot question refers to a parcel of 13 ,200 square. The existing Cap' s parcel is 6,500 square feet. The exact existing square footage is ambiguous because Cap' s is using parking spaces in the Rio Grande parking lot. There is confusion on where the exact use ends. The parcel included in the Rio Grande master plan is 6 , 500 square feet. If the parcel is to be increased, some detailed site planning is required to address the impacts on the right of way, on the playing field and on the river. 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDING$ Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27,, 1984 Harvey asked if a resolution should be forwarded to Council . If so, he suggested a resolution delineate the specific issues which need to be addressed before the voting. Richman said Council has asked the commission to address planning issues which the ballot question brings forth. Both the Council and the commission have asked if the land trade is going to preclude transit, parking garage , etc. Plans are needed to detail what the city has in ownership, and what the city would like to do with the property. That is the first issue . The question of alternatives for Cap' s relocation is the second issue. And the question of the size of the proposed Cap' s parcel is the third issue. The zoning question is the fourth. Pardee agreed that the proposed locati3 Y -or Cap' s is not good. There is no street frontage. The site is on the river. It is next to the last , largest park in Aspen. An auto parts store clearly does not belong there. If there is no alternative site, he recommends condemnation. The commission expressed general agreement. Richman said then the size issue is irrelevant. Harvey disagreed. The size may be an issue. He does not think Cap' s can operate with 61500 square feet and no parking facility. Cap' s uses much of the Rio Grande parking lot. What are Cap' s needs? Hunt suggested locate Cap' s elsewhere on the property. His primary concern is the right of way. Richman identified confusing language in the ballot question. He quoted from the last paragraph of the memorandum dated March 27 , 1984 , issued from the planning office: "Council will enact such legislation as may be necessary. . . to adhere to the current C-1 zoning restrictions. . . " He understands the area is zoned SPA with no underlying zoning. Arts Wests needs at least a 1 : 1 FAR for the building. Heck wants to go to the voters and ask for a 1: 1 FAR. Richman suggested a clearer way of phrasing that without referring to the current C-1 zoning restrictions, since the C-1 zoning restrictions talk about use, height, etc. Pardee said Council does not understand SPA and PUD procedures. Submitting the FAR issue to the voters circumvents Council. Clearly, this is in the public interest. There is no precedent problem. Follow the code procedures. Keep the property in the SPA zoning. Do not spot zone with an underlying . Richman said Council prefers to eliminate the SPA altogether. It 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27. 1984 prefers to provide within a PUD regulation a special PUD as opposed to standard varieties of PUD' s. Pardee questioned if the intent of the zoning code is being circumvented to comply with something that is already authorized under SPA and PUD requirements . Richman explained SPA does not require an underlying FAR. Pardee asked why create an unnatural, artificial solution. It is already zoned SPA. There is no problem. Hunt asked if this is not a public use within the SPA. Richman said yes. The question is can the SPA procedure deal with the questions of FAR, height, etc. Harvey asked how there can be an FAR if there is no underlying zone which calls for an FAR. How can there be a violation of FAR? Richman noted the public zone states that all the area and bulk requirements are set by special review. Pardee said if the commission follows the zoning codes, and if there is no underlying FAR requirement for SPA, then the applicant can do what he wants. Hunt moved to direct Alan Richman to write a resolution along the lines of the commission' s concerns for adoption at the next meeting, April 3, 1984; seconded by David White. All in favor , motion carried. CONTINUATION OF CONCEPTUAL POD REVIEW—TOP OF MILL Sunny Vann , planning office, noted this is not a public hearing. This will be the last time the commission will meet on this issue. April 10th is the first regularly scheduled public hearing for the rezoning portion of the project. The applicant requests the architect make a presentation this evening to present the concept of the proposed project as well as to address other technical issues with respect to drainage and traffic in the site area. The discussion will then be opened to the commission. John Doremus, representative for the applicant, introduced Chris Glaister , architect for the project. He is a partner in Design Development Resources/ ___ ____ and Roberts Architects in New York City . The firm is doing master plans for Robert Redford at Sundance for the proposed Community of Arts. The firm is doing major redevelopment plans in such places as Richmond, Virginia, Washington, D. C. , Columbus, Ohio, and West Berlin . The discussion will emphasize the rationale for the Top of Mill plan. The emphasis will be on the land and the architectural 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27,E 1984 plan. Time will be saved for a presentation by A.J. Zabia from Rea-Cassins and Associates on storm drainage and utility plans and changes. Glaister said he has been working with John Doremus and Joe Wells to- develop a rational ,- sensible, attractive scheme for the Top of Mill property. Top of Mill property begins at Summit Place and moves south to the base of the mountain (he refers to the top of a site plan of the project) . The square footage available to him for the development of units on this site is 100,000 square feet. He started by doing a series of plans which tried to maximize the number of units in relation to a rather crude understanding of the market in Aspen. His initial plan showed approximately forty apartment units in a series of configurations similar to the size of the Mountain Queen. That plan was presented to the client. It became apparent there were problems inherent in pursuing that particular line. The creation of more lodge type units on this piece of property raised both technical questions from how to service the units, to how to provide sufficient parking to support forty units in that location. It also raised some land use planning and some fundamental aesthetic problems. The technical problems with the initial scheme were issues of density of the site. The result was too many parking spaces. The result was too large of a footprint and not enough open space. The result produced a series of building walls which ran at right angles to the slope. The result perpetuated some of the unfortunate aspects of the previously developed lodge district. Different approaches to the problem were investigated. The result was an innovative and different approach on developing this piece of land. It is not innovative or different in a national scale ; it is innovative and different in relation to what has gone on previously in Aspen. It was more appropriate to build single family residences on the property rather than build lodge units and apartments. Single family units are more appropriate for what is a fringe area of an already built- up downtown Aspen. The result is lower density. The result is a different building type. In many ways it reflects the traditional land use patterns which are found in every small town; multi-use buildings breakdown further away, and single family units increase. 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 The single family concept breaks up the building walls which would have otherwise been created if the Mountain Queen model was followed. Spaces are provided through the buildings which would allow views from the interior of the site. Furthermore, in terms of marketing and in terms of the quality of development that his client was seeking to provide with the hotel, the single family type development matches the high quality hotel. This approach was discussed. There were no models in Aspen . In other resorts there were some hopeful signs that this was a viable approach. The problem he faced in selling the idea to the client was are there enough units to produce enough square footage to meet the financial criteria of the overall project. He returned to the drawing boards, and after much work came up with the present plan (drawings are posted on the board) . There are thirty-three units. They exist in a number of con- figurations, either in single free standing units, or duplex units, staggered or paralleled. The site is a very particular configuration. The site falls into at least two sections : one section from the end of the existing termination of Mill Street down to Summit Place, and the second section which falls within the bowl. The bowl is presently used for tipping waste material . Possibly a subcategory is the upper portion of the open ski slope which retreats to Lift One. He indicated an important grove of trees to the southwest of the project. An important determining factor are trees located in a prominent linear axis up the mountain side following the axis of Mill Street. He presented a photograph of the site. The three sections of the site are : the lower section paralleling Mill Street, the bowl section which cuts back into the mountain, and the slope which runs up into the open space easement of the conservation zone. The thirty-three units are designed in a very dense pattern. There is a virtue developing a site plan with individual units which are placed close together. They are carefully and logically placed on the site providing views out to the mountains . At the corner of the units there is a lip where the main living space is. There are double height windows which provide views of the mountain. The major problem in developing the site is automobile access. He chose after looking at many alternatives to limit the penetration of the car into the property. It was a very conscious decision. 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SReoial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 It makes sense. The project is built at the base of a mountain. To limit penetration of the car, even to that precinct around the town, seemed to be a logical land use decision and a good environmental quality decision. The complexity of the construction process is increased. The cost of the project is increased. Mill Street is the lower portion of the site. The lower portion of the site from Summit Place south has an underground garage with twenty-four spaces and services the building immediately above it. The rate is approximately two spaces per unit and nominal four spaces for guests. The upper portion of the project is serviced by a large garage which contains fifty spaces, forty- six spaces for the condominiums, and four spaces for guests . In addition there is guest parking on the service road, six spaces. The total is eighty spaces for the entire project . There are three issues associated with the design of the circulation system which make the system work. First, he is aware of the neighbors from Fifth Avenue apartments. The service road, which provides access to either end of the project and to the in-and- out of the parking garage, is deliberately used as a buffer to the existing development and the nearest units to the proposed development. The setback is almost 80 ' from the edge of the property to the face of the neighbor ' s building. In another portion of the lot the setback is 601 . The second issue is Summit Place. The entry into the lower garage from Summit Place is not an open thoroughfare. That planning and circulation decision reflects a value on the direct connection between the ski trail easement and the hotel project as an integral part of the PUD plan. That value is dominant over the need to have through traffic below Summit Place . During the winter that is essential to linking this portion of the project to the mountain. Continuous circulation around the entire PUD is not required. The intersection between pedestrian moving systems and vehicular moving systems can be designed to provide emergency access if necessary especially during the summer. It is not possible to have a ski trail across the road without major structural engineering consideration at that intersection. The units developed for the site are a standard unit sitting on a footprint of approximately 321x321 . The duplex units will either parallel or stagger each other to provide better views. There will be a three level townhouse configuration. The idea of the unit plan is to provide the individual identity of a single family home and at the same time provide the flexibility of sharing a wall to conserve building space. To reduce the 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 perceived bulk of the buildings most units are designed with lower floors backed into the slope of the hill. On one side of the house the perceived view is two stories, and on the other three stories. This dual sided configuration works with the natural slope of the property. The large parking garage structure at the property frontage is a difficult, intractable , solid object. In this area the units back into the parking structure. The unit on the lowest level contains a _____entry, a steam room, mechanical facilities, and either one or two bedrooms, either 151x15 ' or 151x201 . The entry level of the house contains a kitchen, living room, and dining area. The upper floor contains two alternate layouts. One includes a complete master bedroom suite and a double high living room. The master bedroom suite breaks down to a bedroom, major bathroom, sitting room, and a couple of Juliette balconies. The alternate plan includes two bedrooms. The opportunity is there to build a modular house whose footprint remains pretty constant, and provides customized interiors. The rigorous design controls of the layout allow alterations to be made in the external treatment of the units without breaking down the homogeneity and consistency of the overall development. Within the development, external materials will probably be stone for the exposed lower portion of the structure, and wood or stucco or whatever other material for the upper portion. This system allows certain buildings to be highlighted within this common matrix of unit types. The two units which sit on either side of the open access of Mill Street might be treated with stucco and painted some elegant color. They would be contrasted by dark wood units. There would be some differences in the external treatment of the units in the precinct created by the access roads and the units which sit farther up the mountain. The planned amenities for the residents include two pools and ski access. The character of the duplex development encourages corridors of space. The space tries to market the axis of the attractive trees up the mountainside. Visual reliefs are encouraged from Mill Street. The longitudinal sections illustrate 15 ' spaces between every second building. There is a different feeling when one is inside an architectural space that is contained by buildings that are relatively close together. Being able to see out, to see between buildings, to see the ground plane provides important visual relief. That 15 ' open space provides a different quality to the interior space than if that space was a continuous building wall, like the Mountain Queen. 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Mare 27, 1984 The buildings are a standard 321x321 . They exceed the height limit. The roof is 38 ' high. The mid-point of the roof on the steep side of the building is 351 . He favors a vertical clustering of the space on the site knowing this requires a special variance from the city. The argument is stacking up the buildings frees up the ground around the buildings. Breaking down walls provides the light giving gaps between the buildings and mitigates some of the impact of building higher. There has not been a detailed study at this time of the overall visibility of the project from the town. Based on the study of the impact of the hotel from the town, the roofs and chimneys of some of the units would be visible from Durant Street. The visibility of the roofs in no way detracts from the view of the mountain from downtown. Some of the roofs and chimneys which run up the side of Mill Street might be visible from another part of the city. The configuration of the land is such that the contours run rather steeply to the point at the top of Mill Street. Then the contours flatten and retreat to a deep bowl which is the central part of the site. In that major location of the buildings, the buildings most visible are the ones which front the proposed east-west street north of the project. The ones behind are not so visible. When one gets closer to the project, the most visible buildings from Mill Street are the one which sit on the lower portion of the project (near Summit Place ) . Those have to be dealt with in a different context . The scale has been modulated by setting the units back and stepping them down the hill . They are broken up to read as individual units. The other major view is up Mill Street, up to the mountain. Two units have been separated to preserve the view corridor . The third issue is that the design goes beyond the 8040 greenline contour. He asks for a special exception. The contour runs across an area where fill has been placed in some places and not in others. There is some artificial raising and lowering of the tcL,_)graphy within the bowl. Some areas where the 8040 has been crossed is the area of the bowl which sits back at the top of Mill Street. That bowl is defined on the ground by the 8050 contour line which defines a flat, level natural configuration. Although the design goes beyond 8040 , it goes beyond at the most logical place. There is no damage to the viewplane from the rest of the town nor is there a major impact on the conservation and activity center of the area. David white leaves the chambers. 19 RECORD OF PRQQEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 Harvey asked what happens to the Aspen Ski Club lift. Doremus answered that there are two existing lease areas on what are called Little Chief and Big Chief mining claims within the city limits. As a result of the Cantrup estates, ownership of the property outside of the city limits is being conveyed to the ski company rather than on a continual lease basis. Traditionally it is leased. This is an advantageous sale to ski company for the land above the designated line in the Little and Big Chief claims because the ski company no longer has to pay lease money. Land within Little Chief will be leased. There will be a new lease which leases all the property south of the 8040 line and beyond the line of development whatever that turns out to be. The ski company will lease almost twice as much land and it will be a permanent lease. The lease will be determined at the time this plan is approved. The ski company will terminate the lease on the east side when this applicant gets a building permit. The ski company has a lease on the entire property. That is a terminable lease. The ski company has a larger lease area beginning the minute the bankruptcy decision and sale is concluded. Certain eastern property is terminable when the building permit is issued to develop this project. The ski company will lease everything fifty feet away from the development. The ski company picked up everything for a ski easement fifty feet away from the highest building on the hill on the east side. Mine dumps are located on the east side. Doremus said the ski company is assisting the applicant in relocating the ski club to a grander site. The suggestion is an old lift terminal for Lift 1 , a park currently owned by the city although the ski company lawyers think the ski company owns it . All parties favor an expanded building there to house the ski club permanently. The applicant has committed to the ski club to build a new building at least the size of the current building on the site. The ski company is phasing out the use of this area by the club. Harvey asked about the lift. Doremus said the rope tow will be removed. It is not beneficial. When the rope wears out there will be no attempt to repair it. Other provisions will be made for ways for the club members to ski . A suggested site is the base of the Fifth Avenue area. The ski company may retain the Willoughby jump. The president of the club is happy to get out of that area and move to the Lift-lA area. Everyone is in an agreement. There has been a draft of the agreement and a general agreement with the ski company although it is not signed yet. It will not be signed until the bankruptcy sale is concluded. The ski company has agreed 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRecial Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 to provide maintenance for this trail . The ski company has found the trail to be acceptable with an easement of 15% slope and a width of a minimum 30 feet and maximum 70 feet. Pardee asked how much open space is there in the Top of Mill . Doremus answered the project covers less than 50% of the ground on the site itself. There is also an open space easement. It is 2 . 5 acres. The ski slope will be maintained. Eating areas can be provided for summer use with barbecue pits , etc . , as long as the facilities do not impinge on skiing. Novak clarified that the open space is the 50% space defined by the buildings plus the 2 . 5 acres which is the dedicated ski portion. 70% of the whole site is open space. There is 30 , 000 square feet of footprint versus 240 ,000 square feet of ground. Vann said the applicant has maximized the open space of the project by using a three story structure with a small footprint. The applicant increased open space by increasing building height . Pardee noted that single family structures are allowed in the conservation zone. Vann said that is only for a small upper portion of the site. Basically there is no construction proposed for the conser- vation zone. Doremus said there are two units which impinge. Vann said there is no problem with the vacation. The same conditions need to attached as those required by the hotel. Pardee said he would like to see the project laid out in the aerial- pbo-to-graph -for -the purposes of seeing which trees are architectural enhancements and which exist. The big question is the density and height. The underlying zoning as it exists needs to be addressed. Sixteen units are allowed in this zone district. Vann said he is not getting involved in the residential zoning now, he is only explaining what the circumstances are. He proposes to bring some statistical information about density at the time of the rezoning question. It is part and parcel of it. The rezoning is not necessary for the use. Single family configuration is allowed in the R-15 and L-2. This is a PUD. In the existing zoning everything in the 8040 is conservation. The city owned parcels are zoned public. There is also a piece zoned R-15 PUD, a portion of the bowl. If the project was a discrete site involving only the upper portion of the site, there would be a limit to the number of units which could be built based on the caring capacity of the R-15 portion. The PUD is 10 , 000 or 15 ,000 square feet per dwelling unit, which would determine 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27. 1984 the number of units to be built. But since this is an entire PUD in an L1-L2 zone district, there is no limiting factor on the number of dwelling units which can be built in the single family duplex configuration other than FAR. There is no underlying minimum lot requirement in the L-1 zone district except for multi-family uses, not single family duplexes. The Summit Place portion is zoned L2 , the Top of Mill portion is zoned R-15 . Technically, the FAR is set for the entire PUD. That determines how many single family duplex units can be built. But the applicant has proposed to vary the FAR of the PUD to obtain enough square footage to build thirty-three units then cluster on the proposed portion of the site. That is one approach. The application request was to rezone the entire PUD L-2. There is no restriction on caring capacity other than FAR. The extent of the variance of the FAR is large. He is against that. It is inappropriate to change zoning to make the numbers look good. Pardee said the applicant needs to address the caring capacity of that parcel of land and justify thirty-one units at increased height. Vann proposed that be done at the time of the rezoning. Additional statistics will be presented. Pardee wants information before that meeting. Vann said the code does not offer good guidance for multi zoning sites. Pardee said in a PUD there is an underlying zone which offers guidelines. This project needs to be broken down. How many units are in R-15? There is no designated square footage or unit number for public land. He requests some analysis based on zoning, on both the square footage and unit figures. The elimination of a few units may decrease the congestion. May be twenty feet is the appropriate distance between units as opposed to fifteen feet. Or may be thirty-five units should be allocated. Wells commented that any attempt to determine what is permitted in the underlying zone would require six different interpretations by the commissioners ' on what underlying zoning really permits. To think the commission can compare what is allowed in underlying zoning is essentially not going to be the case. Pardee believed the area to be transitional between recreational and lodge. It was designed that way. He supports the R-15 zone status, a transition from high density to no density. He will make his assumption based on a transition area. Tygre said that technically in a conservation area a single family unit is allowed, but not duplexes. Wells explained single family units are permitted but the question is are attached 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 276 1984 single family units allowed. Pardee asked if the code permits single family duplex use. Vann noted he did not consider duplexes in the conservation zone. Tygre wants the underlying zones determined and defined for use and density. Doremus interpreted the R-15 PUD L allows single family duplex by right and lodges and hotels by special review. The applicant believes the duplex and the single family configuration is the most appropriate use for this zone. Vann said the commission can go through the statistical analysis; depending on the interpreted assumptions, there is the flexibility of a PUD. There are no minimum lot area requirements for single family duplexes in L1-L2 zone districts. The density can be accommodated in the PUD. The question is the applicant proposes to cluster the project on portions of the property which are zoned conservation, R-15 , and L2 . The cluster configuration is proposed because of the shape of the bowl. There is no 8040 criteria which cannot be dealt with. The ultimate question is does the clustered proposal as submitted work in this specific location. Numbers will be provided to help guide the commission through that decision-making process, but it is going to be a real problem. The same problem is happening with the hotel. Hunt said single family dwellings are allowed in the conservation zones. Single family has never been addressed as duplex. He is not interested in a through road on Summit. But, that is a transportation link to Lift 1-A. He does not want to prevent a transportation crossing there in the future if it is necessary. There is nothing incompatible with a trail system going over a transportation link. Vann agreed that the development should not preclude the possibility of a future transportation link on Summit Street. Hunt said the second problem is Mill Street. Can Mill Street handle that amount of density at the top? This PUD covers two-thirds of the sides of Mill Street. The right of ways or road beds have to handle the density. There is no solution presently. Vann suggested hold off on the 8040 greenline approval at this time. The sections do give some idea of the scale, but he would like more detailed elevations superimposed over those in order to make a better determination of the impact. The majority of the project will probably not be seen. But spot elevations are required. One area of concern is the portion on Mill Street near the Summit Place. The heights in the upper portion of the project will not be seen except internally. The only visible units will 23 RECORD OF PROCEE12INGS SRecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27, 1984 be those that front the proposed east-west street at the top of Mill Street. The architect proposes to control the views of those units. The buildings fronting Pull Street at Summit Place are three stories. They are visible from the street . There may be some visual impact to the public at large , not just to the internal part of the project. In order to meet the unit count, buildings have been designed dense and three stories high. The appropriateness of the variance for a height of 38 ' in those locations needs to be reviewed further. The applicant needs to provide additional information with sections and elevations. The visuals will help determine how tall the project actually is. Glaister noted the actual grade on Mill Street is an artificially established road way. It does not fit with the architecture. He will bring back some sections for the commission ' s review. The buildings may be dropped so the lower portions of the building may be below grade on Mill Street to meet the criteria of the code. Vann ' s interest is not the technical interpretation of where it is measured from but what the apparent height is from the observation point. Anderson suggested longitudinal sections which show Fifth Avenue. Include sections of the surrounding buildings to provide a better relationship of this project to its surroundings. He noted Cantrup provided aerial photographs with his property lines overlaid. He suggested the applicant provide models and photo- graphs. It is helpful to see the topography. Pardee suggested a footprint on the aerial photograph. Tygre leaves the chambers. Novak said his planners believe the R-15 PUD L, a classification which little is known and whose significance is totally unclear, should be rezoned to L-2 . Since this zone district is unclear, the rezoning to L-2 would simplify the FAR calculations. There is no historical record on the R15 PUD L. The question is does the project fit within the PUD. How does this project ' s FAR relate to the rest of the FAR in terms of the entire PUD? Last night Council said there is 310 , 000 square feet for the lodge, and 438 , 000 square feet overall . That is a straightforward response without involving the underlying zoning problems . The Top of Mill is 100 ,000 . Galena is 20 , 000 . The hotel is 310 ,000. The issue is the project a nice fit? That question has no reference to changing the underlying zone. Vann does not think it needs to be rezoned. He does not want to do the rezoning unless there is a point. Novak asked why is the rezoning essential. What is lost by not asking for the rezoning. He 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 27. 1984 does not understand the reason. Vann explained why the rezoning is not appropriate. L-2 allows single family duplexes and multi-family units. The purpose of the zone is to provide a low density transition area. The R- 15 accommodates that. The purpose of the PUD is to assure that the development is done according to PUD. The "L" is to allow short term use of a R-15 density project. That is his interpretation of the R-15 PUD L zone district. Pardee does not want to change the zoning code to accommodate a misinterpretation by Council . A PUD will adequately handle this kind of problem. The commission does have to rezone the public area to R-15 L. The "L" indicates a little higher density than the residential R-15. It is a transition area. Vann said there has been no public comment because the conceptual PUD is not a public hearing. It is published for April 10th. One could forego the problems of rezoning by withdrawing the request. Take public comment not on the pros or cons of the rezoning but with respect to the project as a whole. Vann said the conditions for the lodge are subject to review by Council for this particular portion of the project. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 45 p.m. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 25