Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840410 RE-CO BD__QF-P EEDJT(5 Special Meet' - P nning-ad _Zonina Commissi L- ii 10, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 03 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin , Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, and David White present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS White commented on the commissioners leaving meetings before they end, it is disruptive. He also complained that sometimes he feels rushed in making decisions. Harvey said it would be a good policy for commissioners to stay for the entire meeting , until 7 : 30 p. m. or 7 : 45 p. m. , or inform Harvey in advance of an early departure. Mike Slugocki , county transportation department, said the county has an RFP out for a consultant to the transit development program update . He requested a member from the P&Z be appointed to the selection committee. David white volunteered. PUBLIC HEARING: TOP OF _MILL REZONING REOQEST Sunny Vann, planning office, said the request for rezoning that portion of the Top of Mill site which is currently zoned R15 PUD L to L2 has been withdrawn by the applicants . There is an additional parcel which is zoned both public and conservation, which is owned by the city, and which the applicants are proposing to acquire through a land trade for use as part of the Top of Mill project. For the purposes of the commission ' s review , assume the land trade will occur. The applicants also request that that portion of the city owned property below the 0040 greenline , which is currently zoned public, be rezoned to L2 . No action on rezoning can take effect until such time that the property is transferred to the applicants. Council has given permission for the commission to consider proposals on city owned property. The commission is requested to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of rezoning to Council. He wished to itemize the conceptual PUD issues associated with Top of Mill. He would also like to identify those issues the commission needs further information on for a later date. Time is an important factor for the applicants. Vann clarified the portion of the rezoning application which is withdrawn. The request for rezoning involved two separate parcels : one parcel owned by the applicants, the other parcel owned by the city. Welton Anderson arrives in the conference room. 1 RECORD OF__PROCEEDING$ 5pCAJ_ Meetjm9�� r 'named Zoning C�m�ission.._ A _.10 1984 Vann recommended originally the denial of the rezoning from F15 PUD L to L2 because the rezoning is not necessary to allow the construction of single family duplexes in this particular area. The rezoning primarily enhances the FAR calculations . The applicants request the public parcel be rezoned to L2 . Vann said the R15 PUD L zone would be a more appropriate zone district. Whether the public parcel is zoned R15 PUD L or L2 , the project as currently proposed can proceed and be approved. The specific reasons for the objection to the L2 rezoning are as follows. The development of single family duplex configurations is consistent with the intent of the recreation-accommodation- transition zone, the L2 is not. Rezoning to L2 is not necessary to achieve the desired level of development. This particular project is conditioned upon PUD approval . It is not appropriate to zone the project a category which allows development which is inconsistent with the land use plan. The specific allowed use in the L2 zone is the lodge multi family type. L2 is an overkill situation for the accomplishment of a result which is already accomplished with the R15 PUD L zone. The primary benefit to the applicant is the increase of allowable FAR for this development . This has been addressed by Council in terms of the overall FAR for the project. The R15 PUD L category appears to have been used to insure that all development above the L2 zone district would be more residential in character . The zone category protects the district as a transitional area between the the more densely developed L2 zone district and the conservation-recreation zone of the mountain. The 15 ,000 square foot minimum single family lot area required in the R15 zone insures that by allowing single family and duplexes only. There are no minimum lot area requirements in the L2 zone district. The number of units which can be built in the L2 zone is a function of the size of the unit and the maximum FAR. The project as proposed is consistent with the land use. But there is no guarantee that subsequent use of the property will be consistent , although, that problem can be remedied by tieing the zoning of L2 to the PUD plan. He does not favor an overkill zoning approach when the zone can be accommodated more easily and consistently with the R15 PUD L. Harvey asked how big is the site. Vann replied it is 14 , 500 square feet. David White leaves the conference room. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meetin4 PlAnnin4 AndZ_Qning Commission April 101 19BA Joe Wells , representative for the applicants, reiterated the major request for rezoning has been withdrawn. fie addressed the more appropriate zone category for the public parcel . He noted that the point at which the land use plan defines the line between the transition zone and the high density lodge is not at the top of the hill, it is at the middle of the hill . There are fairly sizeable areas of L2 zoning in the transition zone. The commission has to judge whether this particular site is in character with other sites zoned L2. He believes the site is less visibly vulnerable than the Mountain Queen site to the west . The application is consistent with either zone district. There is a lack of definition of the effect of the L overlay. There is one reference in the code of the L overlay in the use section. R15 PUD L is a confusing zone designation. The L2 is favored because is the only zone which allows the maximum development. Pardee asked if the applicant plans to come back in the future and revive the zoning application for the R15 PUD L. John Doremus, representative for the applicants , said no. Pardee said if the applicant is to do that then he wants public input on both parcels and at the same time. Harvey said the applicant has to rezone the public parcel. Vann said there are no minutes for the 1975 rezoning. But , the rezoning changed the use. Rezoning parcels to R15 would have created a nonconforming status for most of the parcels , including the Mountain Queen. If the parcels had been zoned L2 at that time there would be no reason to turn down a multi family application other than it was inconsistent with the land use plan. If there had been other vacant parcels, those parcels would have been zoned R15 as well. The fact is there were essen- tially vacant parcels. Tax sales in the late 1940 's were required by the city on revenue vacant lands. R15 density is more consistent with the use determination by the city than the types of uses permitted under L2. dote, single family and duplex configurations are not allowed uses in the L2 zone district. Fallin asked if the city had any other plans other than generation of tax revenues for the public parcel . Vann replied the land in the conservation zone district has no planned use. Two lots are proposed to be located in the public zone. The area is encumbered by a fifty year lease to the ski company for some nominal amount per year . It is also the area the ski club con- structed its facilities. The applicants are currently negotiating with the ski company on the relocation of the ski club facility and the abatement of the lease. The city has not used the land 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning CommissioD_ A. il- 1984 for any particular period of time. The recommendation that the commission makes with respect to this is subject to Council approval . The land trade or out right purchase of the property is subject to Council ' s approval also. If Council decides the land has a public use, then the trade will not happen. Tygre asked then why consider rezoning the public parcel at this time. Vann said the city ' s ownership of the parcels is essential to the applicants ' development. At the beginning of the PUD consideration, the city said it would not be a co-applicant. Any decision with respect to trading that land depends on the specifics of the proposal of the trade or purchase. The city agreed to let the applicant apply using the land which the city currently owns recognizing that if the city is not happy with the solution or if there is not an attractive offer for sale or trade of the land, the applicant will have to come up with another design solution. Conceptual PUD is to be considered on the assumption that an appropriate agreement can be worked out for the trade. It is important when conceptual goes forward to Council that Council have the commission' s recommendations. If Council can work out an appropriate trade and but the trade is not in the public interest , Council needs to know from the commission how to zone the parcel. If the parcel remains public , the applicants have no use for it. The only reason the applicants will pursue this parcel is to incorporate it in their proposal . In order to do that the parcel has to be rezoned. If the commission feels there is some reason why that particular public city owned parcel should not be transferred to private ownership and/or should not be rezoned from public, that is an appropriate recom- mendation. Because of the unique nature in which the land was obtained and because the land has not been used for any public purpose other than by the ski club, the Council said at a conceptual point of view it would entertain proposals on that property provided that the ski club problem is addressed and an appropriate trade or sale is arranged. Harvey opened the public hearing. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, asked what is the disposition of the ski club land. Doremus explained the trade involves land which is being leased above the city limits and which is going to be conveyed to the ski company. The applicants have offered in writing and in this application to replace the ski club house with an equal or better facility in a location which the ski club, ski company, and the city collectively agree to. The tenative idea is to locate the facility as an addition to the old number one base terminal. Vann said a proposed condition 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and ZoniII_q Commission April_ q 1984 of conceptual approval could be that the specifics of that be detailed out prior to preliminary PUD approval . Conceptually, if the trade is made, the city is amenable to moving the facility. Dunaway asked what terrain the ski club needs. Doremus replied the ski club does not mind relinquishing that land. The ski company prefers that also because it does not want to manage that area. The ski company offered to work out with the ski club places where the ski club' s activities can continue. Tiehack has been suggested. Vann noted the ski club planned to disband the use of the rope tow at the end of this season . The lift is then inaccessible to the ski club in that area. Harvey asked if the lease on that land would be retained until agreements are worked out . Doremus said the applicants are trying to buy the lease with an offer to replace the building. Harvey favored the R15 PUD L zone for the land below the 8040 . He asked if these are subdivided lots. Vann replied that these lots probably merged as a result of the 1975 merger doctrine. Pardee suggested the resolution indicate that the applicants can achieve the proposed project under the R15 PUD L zone district. Include the argument that the use of higher density allowed in L2 is not consistent with the transition zone. There is a general consensus from the commission favoring the R15 PUD L zoning category. Vann discussed FAR, density, and caring capacity. It is complex because of the multiple zone nature of the PUD. The PUD regulations do not provide clear guidance for calculating the FAR. The general concept is that most residential zone districts have a minimal lot area requirement. when applied to the parcel it establishes the total number of units which can be constructed under a particular zone category. However, the L2 zone district was amended in recent years to allow single family duplexes in addition to traditional lodges and multi family uses. For some reason there is no minimal lot area requirements in the L2 zone district established for single family and duplex uses. For multi family uses it is the same as the R and F zone district. For lodge uses it is a function of the overall FAR and how large the applicants choose to make the individual lodge rooms. In the absence of a minimum lot area requirement for a specific parcel zoned L2 , the only restraint as to the number of units which can be placed on single family or duplex parcels, is the total lot size (the overall external FAR) , the size of the individual units the applicant chooses to make and the ability to site plan the project consistent with other requirements. In this particular case , the applicants have a reconstruction 5 RECORD QF PROCEEDS Special Meeting Planning-and—Zoning Co sion April 10. 1984 exemption from growth management for approximately forty units. There are existing dwelling units scattered throughout the PUD which can be torn down and reconstructed subject to certain provisions on site. Therefore, no GMP allocation is required for the Top of Mill . The applicant chose to use the credits of this project to compete for the 700 S. Galena. The credits exist. There are no GMP requirements. The Top of Mill area is zoned R15 PUD L, public, conservation , and L2 . He distributed a handout on the caring capacity. The basic premise is there is no ability to take this Top of Mill site with its four zoning districts and give a hard number as to how many units can be built on it under the existing zoning. It is easier to look at the FAR issue . He will only discuss lot three of the PUD, a discreet analysis. The lot consists of the following zones : R15 PUD L, 75 , 000 square feet; L2, 45 ,000 square feet; public (city owned parcel) , 14 , 500 square feet; and conservation (above the 8040 greenline) , 105 ,000 square feet. This does not include that portion of Mill Street which is zoned R15 which intrudes into the proposed deve- lopment. The analysis excludes any vacated rights-of-way. In the R15 zone district in order to determine the maximum number units a few assumptions are made. The numbers can be calculated several different ways . He chose the assumptions which produce the maximum number of units which could be built at the Top of Mill . The 75 ,000 square foot parcel could be be divided into three duplex lots of 20 ,000 square feet each. There is a 20 ,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for duplexes. This would produce six units. An additional two single family lots of approximately 15,000 square feet each could be generated. Excluding streets, access roads , etc , a total of eight units could be sited at that portion of the site zoned R15 PUD L. In the portion of the property zoned L2 , the 45 , 000 square foot piece which fronts Mill Street, there is no minimum lot area requirement. The number of units that could be built is a function of how large the applicant wishes to make the units . If the units are 1 ,000 square feet, then forty-five units could be built . If the units are 5 ,000 square feet, then nine units could be built. He used a 3 , 000 square foot unit because that is the average size of the units contained in the applicants' proposal. He assumed for purposes of the calculations that the public parcel would be rezoned to R15 PUD L. The additional 14 , 500 6 RECORD OF P EEDINGS Special Meeting _Planning and Zoning Commission Anr l_LQ,._1_984 square feet is included in the R15 PUD L calculation above to produce the eight units. In the event the public parcel is not rezoned, the applicant loses one unit. The conservation zone is not a sterile zone. It allows construction of single family residents on ten acres or larger. In this case there are two discreet ownerships : the city owned parcel which the city could convey as a nonconforming lot-of-record; and the privately owned parcel which is 94 ,000 square feet . In both cases , a single family dwelling could be built on a nonconforming lot-of-record. The total count under those particular assumptions is approximately twenty-five units, plus or minus. The applicants proposal is thirty-three units. The other assumption is the ability to vary the FAR across the entire PUD site. Vann said the conservation parcel at one time was individual lots, rather than merged into one continuous lot. Harvey asked if the lots could go back through a subdivision exemption. Vann said they are nonconforming. Vann said this analysis is a guide for the carrying capacity of the discreet parcel, the Top of Mill. Vann distributed another handout, a floor area and floor area ratio analysis of the entire Aspen Mountain PUD. It provides the restrictions on the entire site and individual components of the project. There are calculations on the four lots which comprise the Aspen Mountain PUD. The information is taken from the surveys. The FAR is calculated in every possible manner based on the fact that the planning office provided at the beginning of the process the applicants with certain ground rules as how FAR could be calculated. Some of the issues are debatable because of the vagueness of the code. One could argue other methods of calculating the FAR. To circumvent the argument issue, he included all possible ways the FAR could be calculated. Top of page two deals with lot three, the Top of Mill condominiums. The overall site is approximately 240 , 000 square feet. That excludes 2 ,800 square for the rights-of-way but includes the conservation parcel. With the rights-of-way the square footage is 242,000 . Excluding conservation the square footage is 135,000. The applicants propose a total construction of approximately 101 ,000 square feet, with thirty-three units of 3 , 000 square feet each, and 2 ,000 square feet for accessory uses. He attempted to calculate the allowable external FAR, on the portions of the 7 RECORD OFTROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission AAriJ__JQ� 1984 property for which FAR is available, excluding the rights-of- way and the conservation zone which has no underlying FAR, require- ment . The L2 at 1 : 1 provides 45 , 000 square feet . The R.15 , to which the FAR residential requirements are applied to the maximum, provides plus or minus 72,000 square feet. It is somewhat higher because two single family houses are allowed in the conser- vaton zone : one on the city owned parcel , one on the private parcel. There is no restriction on FAR in the conservation zone. Theoretically, anything could be built. There is a practical limitation, but there are homes in Aspen with 10 , 000 square feet. The 72 ,000 square feet is compared to a proposed external FAR of 101 ,000 square feet. The allowable FAR on a 72,000 square feet is . 53 : 1 . The ratio is somewhat higher because a certain amount of square footage for conservation must be included . The crude estimate for two house may be 15,000 square feet total. The total allowed FAR is then closer to .7:1 . What is allowed is compared to what is proposed on page three. The planning office originally suggested that the conservation zone in terms of counting FAR for the entire site not be included. Lodge units cannot be built in the conservation zone. Second, there is no allowable FAR which could be aggregated with the FAR of the lodge zone. Discreetly viewed, residential units can be built at the Top of Mill . It is reasonable that the conservation land be included in the FAR overall calculations . There is a proposed external FAR, excluding the rights-of-way and including the land zoned conservation, of . 42 : 1 with an allowable FAR in excess of . 53 . The project is below the allowable FAR. If the land zoned conservation is excluded, the FAR is . 73 : 1 . At the worst , the FAR is at parity, and at the best is below. The allowable FAR for the entire site is . 92:1, depending how the calculations are made and excluding the credit for con- servation. It is difficult to argue that the applicants have used the FAR to exceed underlying FAR requirement for the site as whole. The bulk permitted under the underlying zoning has been moved around on the project site, the largest concentration occurring on the hotel site. Pardee said Council granted in the conceptual approval the FAR of 1.17:1. The Council granted a total square footage of 438 ,203. Vann said Council qualified that that was subject to revision depending on the review of the Top of Mill site. PUD is not being used to increase overall FAR. PUD is being used to relocate units on the four sites. Dunaway asked if there is 8 ,500 square footage of commercial space included in the total square footage. Vann said yes , 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984 although there is no right to build it at this time. Pardee summarized that Council in conceptual approved with reser- vations the 438 , 000 square foot . The Top of gill , excluding rights-of-way and conservation , is .75 : 1 . FAR is therefore not the question. Unit count is the issue. The applicant complies with bulk, height, mass, and setbacks. Vann said the GMP exemptions and FAR are not the issues for the Top of Mill ; site planning designs, access, height, etc. are the issues. Pardee said the L in the R15 PUD L suggests a transition area between lodging and residential areas. The zone does not therefore dictate a strict number of units defined by the R15. Twenty- five units, the number arrived at through a strict interpretation of the R15 , does not take into account the L portion of the PUD. His concern is with how the units are placed on the site, how the the bulk and mass are hidden. In reviewing the underlying zone, the numbers are close enough for compliance. Vann said the common understanding of the R15 PUD L is that it provides for accommodations use because of the location , but at a density of R15 to allow the transition between multi family uses and higher density to the north and the recreation accommodations . The PUD accommodates the steep slopes, the proximity of the mountain, and PUD allows flexibility within the strict applications of the zoning regulations. The PUD provides the ability to vary FAR under the regulations. Harvey asked if the zoning, which allows for a R15 density and lodge use , is to prevent construction of one large structure, or is the zone to be adhered to strictly for mathematical calculation of unit count and square footage. Vann, speculating, said single family and duplexes are only allowed in a R15 zone to limit bulk and multi family structures. Anderson said the R15 PUD L zone allows the ability to short term. Tygre asked about replacement. She asked which site the accumulated reconstruction credits come from. Vann replied the provisions of the code require that something torn down from one site cannot be moved to another site. There is not a TDR ordinance in Aspen. The requirements are the units be reconstructed on the site which they aretorn down. Reconstruction has to be accomplished within five years of demolition. The interpretation with respect to this PUD is that the whole PUD is one site. The entire PUD is in joint ownership. This is an interpretation by the city attorney. Dean Street is to be vacated. Mill Street is the only element separating the parcels. The project is physically linked across Mill Street. Under the PUD regulations the different 9 RECORD D"ROCEEDING Special Meeting _Planning and Zoning Commission Anril 10, 1984 parcels are one contiguous site for redevelopment. Tygre said then the thirty-three units came from other portions of the overall site. Thirty-three units clustered at the Top of Mill is different from spreading thirty-three units throughout the entire site. She is concerned with the number of units clustered on the Top of Mill site compared to what has been there before. Vann said that is a site plan issue, not a reconstruction credit issue. There is a flaw in the code. Presently a home can be moved to another site, be demolished, and then be reconstructed, via a moving permit. At this time, Vann wants to restrict the reconstruction to the hotel, the Aspen Mountain PUD site, because he does not want to barter TDR' s across the community until provisions have been legislated. Whether thirty-three units are appropriate for the parcel at the Top of Mill is a separate issue . The land can carry it from a FAR point of view. It can carry it from a zoning point of view. The question is can the design work . If the applicants want to build thirty-three units the square footage isreduced. The 3 ,000 square feet is the actual unit size, not a minimum lot area requirement. 3 ,000 square foot units transfers to twenty-five units. Harvey suggested a site visit when the specifics of site planning of these units are discussed. He suggested the applicant stake out the property and indicate roof peak heights. Vann outlined the conceptual PUD issues. First, there is a problem with circulation and access. The applicants are requesting not to extend Summit Street in order to construct a ski easement across Summit Street which links the two portions of the PUD together. The city engineer concurs with planning office. Their position is to allow the street to be used for ski access, but do not construct anything that would preclude the ability to extend Summit Street in the future on behalf of the city. (A site plan is presented by Chris Glaister, architect for the project . ) The applicants intend not to build a fourth unit at Summit Place so as to maintain ski access to the hotel property. The city has been interested in acquisition of an easement to allow the extension of a portion of Summit Place. The concern is the lack of access to a certain part of the neighborhood between Mill Street and Monarch Street. There are no east-west connecting streets. Summit Place allows for that. The applicants prefer the ski access and prefer to reduce traffic, but will agree to the road. Make sure that structures are not built in the easement right-of-way. Make sure the platting documents do not preclude the necessary rights-of-way at preliminary review. Bob Callaway, applicant, noted the ski company would maintain that ski access. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and ,Zoning Commission April 10. 1984 Wells commented that the applicants have moved forward on the lodge improvement district to get this program underway. fie anticipates that one issue that needs to be addressed is the circulation issue. The applicants have offered to bear the expense of front ending the design cost study for the district, so the city does not have to be concerned with funding the study. A recommendation on what to do with Summit Street will come out of the district' s study. There may be a way to accommodate a dual use for the street. But he does not think a ski access and a two lane road can be accommodated. Vann recommended a condition in proceeding to preliminary that the design does not preclude the use of Summit Street . The applicants are also proposing to do the lodge improvement district design work prior to preliminary submission. The city engineer is reviewing the TDA traffic analysis. Planning office at preli- minary will offer more specific recommendations. Vann said the second issue of conceptual PUD is the narrowness of Mill Street with on-side parking for access of a project of this scale. There are problems on Mill Street with parking. Construction has exacerbated the parking problems at times . The engineering department hopes, as part of the preliminary PUD submission, to clean up of the rights-of-way over the entire length of Mill Street so as to provide an adequate access for emergency vehicles and cars. As part of the lodge improvement district, design work is to be done prior to preliminary PUD to look at the overall on-street parking requirements for the area for a cohesive policy for on-street parking requirements. The current width is sufficient to provide access. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said the current physical dimensions of the street are adequate. There are places near the lodge area where the right-of-way actually intrudes into the street. The hope is to clean that up. The hope is to grant strips of right-of-way to accommodate the street. The other concern is the physical design and placement of sidewalks , land- scaping , etc. Right-of-way is not critical for those purposes, but building positions and setbacks are. Vann said an inadequate policy for on-street parking in this area has contributed to the problem in accessing Mill Street. The buildings are set back from Mill Street. There is flexibility to address this issue. He recommended a condition of conceptual approval that as part of the lodge district improvement design work , which the applicants have proposed to participate in , 11 RECORD ff PR EEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984 that the problem of Mill Street parking , access, pedestrian access, etc. , be addressed, as well as , engineering ' s concerns for cleaning up the right-of-way . This would come in with the preliminary submission. Wells said he is not confident that all that can be done through the improvement district and done by the preliminary submission date. The applicants have tried for movement in CCLC and Council. There is already a two week delay. Vann suggested on those portions of the frontage which the applicants control, the applicants have a responsibility for addressing the pedestrian access , etc. Harvey suggested the applicants work with Hammond. Vann said the third concern which can be addressed at preliminary PUD is the accessibility of the units for fire protection purposes. The applicants have retained a consultant. The ski club activities , the applicants, and the ski company are in the process of resolving the specifics of the agreements. Conceptually the vacation for those uses in that location is fine, but details of the relocation are required at preliminary PUD. Street vacations, the engineering department said the 2 , 800 square feet of Mill Street at the southern most terminus of the street is not essential to the overall circulation pattern. Therefore, it is appropriate for vacation. It will be incorporated as part of the east-west access street internal to the project. Specific benefits accrued to the city need to be clarified as a result of the trade-off. There is a question about the acces- siblity of current utilities. This will be part of the resolution. Retention of mature vegetation on-site, he referred to a site plan which summarized the existing vegetation. There is some vegetation that will be removed and replanted. David White returns to the conference room. Chris Glaister , architect for the project, said a tree survey is being done at the Top of Mill. There is an attempt to identify the mature trees which have a chance of survival if removed now. They will be relocated to a nursery until the property is developed. The trees will be replanted throughout the entire PUD. There is a blue spruce, a fine specimen, on a corner which cannot be saved. Most of the damage is to Aspens, which grow quickly and can be replaced. He refers to a proposed conceptual landscape plan which indicates basic replacement of vegetation. 12 RECORD-OF _PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and zoning Commission April 10,-1.9-8-4 There are two areas : the vail of despair and the sacred grove. The sacred grove will be violated. But the intent n the long term is to reconstruct the sacred grove. Vann said the submission of detailed landscaping is part of preliminary. Anderson asked if the regrading is so severe at the parking garage that the trees cannot be saved. Glaister said the grade cannot be worked with. There is substantial earth movement. There is no chance of saving the trees near the parking lot area. The northwest corner , the construction work around the pools and the units will require regrading back to natural grade. Trees die around regrading. Vann said most of the trees are visible from the site itself. Harvey corrected him that the trees are visible skiing. Anderson said clusters of trees are visible from Mill Street also. Glaister said there is not enough room for construc- tion, there is ten feet between the existing edge of dill Street and the foundation walls of the buildings. It may be possible if there is an extraordinary tree to build around the tree and save it. If there are specimen trees which warrant that type of treatment, that action will be taken. Vann said given the fact that the units are marketed at substantial prices, it is reasonable to assume that a good landscaping package will be provided. Anderson noted the Mountain Queen attempted to save the trees. Vann said Jim Holland, the parks department , is the authority on the trees. There are two choices : require the applicant to redesign the site plan because the preservation of the trees is paramount ; or approve the site plan and allow the removal of the trees, and require preservation of the trees identified as part of the survey in conjunction with Holland. Harvey said the commissioners will have to do a site inspection with Holland when the survey is done. Anderson said do not redesign the site plan but adjust the plan as much as possible to save the greatest number of trees. Vann will draft a condition for the resolution which indicates the commission ' s concern and which is subject to preliminary review with a detailed survey and site inspection. Vann said the other issue is the allowance of duplexes in a "C" conservation zone. There are two ways to look at this issue. The conservation zone allows by right a single family dwelling. There is a specific provision in the code that says , within the PUD, row houses are allowed but not multi-family houses. The use cannot be changed. To accommodate the single family objective, single family units can be clustered in the configuration of row houses (attached) . This project proposes single family units which are clustered. They can be viewed under the row 13 RECORD OF .PROCEEDINOS. Special MeetnaYPlannina and Zoning Commis ion April 10, 1984 house provision . Four or five units intrude above the 8040 greenline in the conservation zone district . Glaister said two units are completely in the conservation district, a portion of other units trespass the zone. Vann said the position of the staff is that the 8040 greenline does not preclude development above it. It establishes certain series of criteria to insure, first , that any development has no visual impact, and, second, certain technical related issues have been addressed. The engineering department has raised technical questions. The request is to delay approval of the 8040 greenline until preliminary PUD where there will be more detailed information. The visual impact should be negligible because of the unique nature of the site . It has been graded and filled such that there is a natural bowl. Portions above the 8040 greenline are less visually vulnerable than areas below the 8040 greenline. From a PUD point of view it makes sense to back the units into this location so they are hidden from view. A strict interpretation of the single family allowance in the conservation zone could be applied : two units currently attached can be broken and used as per the provisions of the code, which increases the site coverage . Or the row house provision can be used to treat the project as a cluster which helps minimize the footprint and reduce the apparent bulk, etc. Harvey asked if the conservation zone is part of the PUD, and does the conservation zone have a PUD overlay. Vann said the zone is part of the PUD. The whole project is being developed as a PUD. The only portion of the property which has a mandatory PUD is the R15 zone. Harvey said if there were forty acres in the conservation zone, could four clustered single family units be built in that zone. Vann said the PUD regulations only allow for clustering and the row house configuration. Harvey is concerned with excess carrying capacity in the conservation zone if the conservation zone is discreetly looked at. Vann replied if the commission just looks at the conservation zone, more units are being put in the conservation zone than is allowed by that allowed square footage . However, because of the PUD, clustering is being allowed over certain portions of the site. John Keleher , president of the ski club, said he has talked with Alan Novak, John Doremus, and Art Daley. He is aware of the development of the property. He thinks something mutually beneficial can be worked out, although nothing has been done but the exchang of hellos. He is not concerned with vacating that particular site. He wants something which serves the club' s needs . The rope tow is not necessary to the club. Lift lA is a beautiful lift for the club; the terrain works well. Lift 14 RECORD O PROCEEDINGS Special ftttina _P,anning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984. lA is not used that much except for conveying people to the top of the mountain. He favors a location in town. There appears to be no conflict at this point with the applicants. Pardee noted that a condition of the resolution is the agreement be formalized prior to preliminary PUD. He asked if there is a long approval process within the group. Keleher said no. Tygre said two single family units are allowed in the conservation district: one on the city-owned parcel, and one on the applicants' parcel . Theoretically, using the row house rule, two single family units sharing a common wall are allowed in the conservation district also. Because of the overlays, is that what is happening on the site. Vann presents the overlay with the 8040 greenline superimposed over the site plan. 8040 is the conservation zone. There is the right to build two units in a row house in the conservation district. There is also the right to build units in the other portion of the parcel. The design philosophy has been to locate pursuant to the PUD cluster concept units on the site in the area where they have the least obtrusive visually. The 8040 greenline review provisions say any unit in proximity to this line has to meet certain technical provisions, for example, the fire and water access, and the development must not visually impact views to the mountain. Based on the conceptual presentation, the location of the two units in the conservation zone and the movement of the other units over produces a better site plan in terms of the apparent open space in the project itself as opposed to one massive building. The visual impact of these structures from particularly the Wheeler Opera House viewplane will be minimal because of the nature of the site. Harvey is concerned with locating the units in the conservation district with no PUD overlay even though it is part of the entire PUD process. Vann said there is no distinction, it is PUD or it is not a PUD. Whether the zone is zoned a mandatory PUD or not is irrelevant. Tygre replied the use of the land above 8040 is one question. The other issue is the intent of the conservation zone . She is concerned with the higher density in conservation which is zoned for lower density. Glaister stressed the concept of density comes in several different gestalts. Density can be talked about in great length as Vann did in the exposition of numbers per units per square foot, ratios of FAR, units per acre, etc. Also density can be talked about as a visual concept. From an architectural point of view the concept of density is considerably changed by making the decision not to build attached apartment type units like the Mountain Queen and Fifth Avenue. He presents a drawing. The 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Spgcial Meeting _Planning and Zoning Commission April 10. 1984 units proposed for this project are single family units joined by one common wall. This introduces a new unit type into Aspen. It is consistent with the objectives of the land use directives which is to break up the long walls of building into small units. The intent is to create a thin scatter of individual structures rather than long continuous frontages. Consider the length of the facades of the present buildings , Fifth Avenue is 55 feet high and has a continuous frontage of 200 feet long, it is enormous. Fifth Avenue uses the hill and variations of the roof line in an attempt to break down the silhouette. Historically, there have been big long continuous facades in the area. This project is hidden behind a very big building even though the project is sited at a higher elevation. His intent is to design small buildings. Compare the footprint with the existing buildings. The building mass in this project is broken up. Light, air, and visibility is punched between the buildings. The concept is difficult to grasp without viewing the site itself. As a general approach the design of the building type discourages problems associated with multiple unit lodge type structures. He is sensitive to the area especially as the design moves up the mountain . There are economic penalties with the design . But he is sensitive to perceived density as opposed numbers density. Vann was at first concerned with the violation of the conservation zone district. But the more he thought about it, he was not so much concerned with encouraging development in an area that is supposed to be preserved, but with the intent of the zone district . The intent is to maintain the transitional areas at the base of the mountain, to maintain views to the mountain, and to prevent development creeping up the mountain. The 8040 elevation in some places is highly visible, in other areas it is completely invisible. When the intent of the conservation district is applied to this particular portion of the conservation zone district , it makes more sense to allow the flexibility to spread the units out to achieve the desired density pattern than to strictly adhere to the code of not crossing the line which results in a tighter more constrained type of development. The proposed design appears to be consistent with the underlying PUD regulations. If the question is increasing density, increasing unit count , for example, to four in the conservation district, then he opposes the design because that is not the intent of the regulations . But the design ' s flexibility maintains the intent of the conservation zone. Tygre ' s concern is with the number of units. She agrees part of the intent of the PUD is to allow flexibility to provide 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984 a better site plan. Callaway encouraged a site visit. Vann suggested a site inspection from the top of Slalom Hill. Harvey said if the units in the conservation zone are visible, there is a problem. If this can be accommodated then fine . Vann said that is why he has requested delay of the 8040 greenline approval until more detailed specifics are presented at preliminary PUD. Conceptually the idea makes sense. Pardee concurs with Tygre ' s and Anderson ' s reservations. He justifies the intrusion into the conservation district, because there is less square footage intrusion with the current proposal. The conservation district does allow for two single family units which could be 7 ,000 or 8 , 000 square feet. The decision will be made on the ability of the proposed project to fit in the site as it exists, that is the concern. Anderson and Fallin agreed with Pardee. Glaister addressed the concern of visual impacts on the 8040 , the affected viewplane of the Wheeler Opera House, and the frontage of the Top of Mill . He attacked the issue of the height of the buildings from two different perspectives. First, the units he looked at the units themselves. What can be done with a building which is approximately 40 feet from finished floor to roof peak? What can be done then to reduce the overall height of the building without destroying the concept which has been carefully crafted to meet market ideas which work with the site? He reviewed the site, especially the area of most concern, Mill Street. Second, he put heights of the proposed units into context with the heights of the surrounding properties. He presented elevations and sections. 75% or 80% of the original unit types are backed into the bowl. The original unit type is designed with an uphill side and a downhill side. The uphill side is 10 feet lower in height than the downhill side. The units are disposed around the site to take advantage of the slope. The perception of height is less if the unit is bunkered into the mountain. The basic unit is a single unit or a unit with an attached wall . The vertical height from finished floor to the peak of the roof is forty feet. The decision for the forty feet is not arbitrary. It is an internal architectural decision. Typical floor heights for luxury buildings are nine feet. If the height is reduced to 8 '-6" , then there are three floor levels at 8 ' -6" each with 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10,E 1984 a 1 ' -6 " ceiling allowance. The height of the roof should have some architectural proportional relationship to the rest of the building. A 12 foot roof is desired to maintain the architec- tural integrity. The building footprint is 1 , 000 square feet , it is quite small . The reduced square footage minimizes the footprint on the ground, increases the square footage of the entire site, and provides the opportunity for views to the mountain between the buildings. The rooms are relatively small for a luxury market. The marketable square footage is quite small; the dollars per square feet are relatively high to make a profit. In order not to cut into the rooms in the upper stories with the roof, to avoid a dormer affect, to maintain the scale of the rooms, the rooms are set above the 8 ' -6 " ceilings. There are no penetrations by the roofline into the rooms in the upper story. That forces the roof up. There is no way getting around that. That is how the forty foot roof height was determined. The integrity of the unit is maintained. He refers to an elevation. Essentially bringing down the roofline intrudes into the rooms at the top floor. At the risk of losing the elegance of the pitch of the roof, which is an architectural problem , there is the flexibility to reduce the roof height to the maximum of 38 feet. The roof will flatten. He looked at a 36 foot roof . That is achieved at a certain expense. 6" is removed from the room height, lowering the internal ceiling height to 8 feet. The roof is lowered by overlapping over the first level of windows and intruding on the corners of the rooms. The ability to do big punched out ceilings in the master bedroom and in the living space is lost. It is an architectural and marketing loss. The real problem is dormers. Dormers are needed to provide head room on the balconies and at the corners of the rooms. The result of the 36 foot height is a roof with dormers which project up into people ' s view. The architectural and visual result is larger and heavier than the result of an elegant, simple, pitched forty foot roof. He argued that the view of a single pitched roof with a narrow gable turned toward one from the city blockse less of the mountain than the view of a squared off off roof with a dormer. He evaluated the effects of a roof reduced 34 foot. The result is an extremely ugly roof condition not acceptable to the client. The result requires significant intrusions into the rooms, the result is a six foot ceiling height in the corners of the rooms. Vann noted that each unit is measured on the downhill side from front grade to the crown of the roof. This is not a code measure- 18 RECD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10. 1984 ment . Glaister said this is an honest evaluation. He did a calculation for code purposes which shows the finished height from finished floor to midpoint of the roof which is 31 feet. He advanced the notion if ground level is measured at the midpoint grade between the front and back of the house (downhill side v. s. uphill side) , then the overall height to the midpoint of the building is 26 feet. Claister then looked at the specific visual impacts of the buildings on the site. He first reviewed Mill Street. He presents a north- south longitudinal section of Mill Street. The red line shows natural grade, the black line shows the height of the proposed project two weeks ago. At the lower portion of the site (the Mill Street frontage) the finished floor level has been adjusted clown to a 36 foot high building in order to make the roof height as close to the Mill Street grade as possible. In some cases the reduction is four feet. In the other portions of the site, the floor levels have not been adjusted. He argued that is it not necessary to adjust downwards on the upper portion of the site, because the units are made invisible by the surrounding buildings . A significant reduction is achieved in the height of the buildings on Mill Street through this solution. He took the underlying code requirements for L2 buildings and measured from midpoint of the roof down to natural grade. He concluded that some buildings comply with the code requirements, one building is two feet over the allowed 28 feet, one is four feet over. He argued by lowering the buildings, the units are almost in conformance with existing underlying zoning requirements for that zone. In the conservation zone and the R15 PUD L zone, the calculations are more difficult. Nevertheless , because the natural grade rises, the building heights are substantially under the requirements of the zoning districts. Vann noted the reason to vary the height is to accomplish a less visible project. The natural grades bring the project into compliance. The proposed plaza has no visual vulnerability from other vantage points other than to the site internally , and should not be a penalty against the height measurement as long as the roof heights work for Wheeler, Wagner Park , and Mill Street. Harvey said the thrust of the commission' s concern is the wall effect which might be achieved along Mill Street. Vann asked why the units are not staggered. Glaister explained if the units are staggered the units behind are too close . The goal is to keep the units as far away as possible from the 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10. 1984 retaining wall . Also stepping buildings does not break up the building mass. There are more subtle ways of breaking up building mass, for example, with a hole or visual corridor between buildings. Harvey said the concern is that from one station point one can see through the hole, feel the light and space , from another station point one sees only the wall ; certain lines of site will be blocked. Glaister said in response to the height, a very accurate plotting of the neighboring rooflines was made. The highest pitches of the Fifth Avenue Apartments sit at 8056 and 8055. The highest point on the Mountain Queen is 8064 , it runs down to 8028 . The lowest portions of Fifth Avenue are 8033 and 8023 . The ridgelines (the visible heights of the roof) are calculated at 8034 . Summit Place is 8030 . As one moves up the hill , the project sits at 8038 , across the street an existing building sits at 8033 . The visible portions of the proposed project from down the hill sit at 8058, the same as the top of Fifth Avenue. The project is below the height of the ridgeline of the Mountain Queen. Fie concludes that the perceived view from down the hill , of the pitched roof of the project will be below or at the same level of two existing major structures, neither which one can see . Draw a line between the top of Fifth Avenue Apartments and the top of the Mountain Queen, that gives an indication of the height of the proposed project. Claister has a urban design problem with staggering buildings back from building lines on a public street. Aspen is made up of a wonderful grid of streets, buildings built up to the streets , and it looks good. The place where the town falls apart is where people have ignored the grid of the streets , carved off corners at 45 degrees, pulled back from the street. Grid lines are important. As a good designer there is a fabulous grid of streets in downtown Aspen, and it works exceptionally well. Harvey said the concern is the perceived wall . Pardee said the concern is for the citizens-at-large, not for the private owners. Pardee suggested pulling apart more the two units located at the southern portion of Mill Street. (Glaister presents site plans. ) That area is sensitive, the view of the hill is important. It is the transition area. He does not want the look of New Fork Brownstones. Harvey said the argument of preserving the integrity of the grid in town is good, but in this area, streets do not have the same grid pattern. There are hills and dead end streets. A natural blending may be more appropriate. 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Panning and Zoning Commissi A)ri _10, 1984 Doremus asked if the commission in general agrees with this concern. Anderson is not concerned. White said it - it not a major concern but he wants to hear the rationale for the solution; Fallin agreed. Glaister understood the concerns. The design rationale is based on the grid pattern with the major streets. The two critical intersections are Mill and Durant Streets and Mill and the proposed east-west street. The orthogonal quality of the streets is important. The two intersections bookend Mill Street. The street creates a space just by being there. He felt the space carved out by the grid and in the rest of Aspen could be replicated mere. The visual access, the site line up Mill Street, is continued through and up the mountain by a plume fo trees. It is a visual access line which runs right through the site. In order for the system to read as a system, the two buildings at the intersection of Mill and the proposed east-west street (southern most portion of Mill Street) are essential to create that corner. That may be the most critical intersection in the grid, it is the notional visual extension of the real grid represented by the intersection of Durant and Mill. The two buildings hold the view, they frame the view of the mountain. Anderson is pleased with the solution. Pardee said the concern is the visibility between buildings of access to garages, concrete pavement, and three storied vertical flat facades. Anderson said that is visible only at one point -near- the-Top -of Mill project. - Vann -noted that- the- project- is not a repitition of the typical architecture which has been used for luxury condominiums. The way the project steps up the site, when viewed downhill from the mountain, the most visible portion of the buildings is the short backside. The project will read from the mountain as a series of two storied elevations. The treatment of the facades may not be the most desirable , but the only place the facades are visible is from inside the project itself. It is not all wall. The most critical facades are the facades fronting the east-west street. Glaister said what is largely visible is off of Mill Street . Some roof tops and pitches may be visible. Unfortunately, Summit Place is a real site line blocker. Anderson said it was originally designed as a duplex , and it did not have to go through any review. Vann is still concerned with the Mill Street elevation. He 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning_ Commission April 10, 1984 wants more details at the preliminary level for a determination of the 8040 question. At the conceptual level the visual changes on the site plan design need to be delineated, he does not have a. clear consensus of the changes. Vann said the final issue is the parking request for reduction under the code requirements, from 130 to 80 spaces. He presented an updated parking study. Hammond also reviewed it. It was submitted primarily for the parking discussion on the hotel . Based on the information, substantiated by other surveys by other entities in other locations, the one space per bedroom is excessive with respect to this particular project given the the occupancy characteristics of the project and the projected winter and summer peak demands for parking spaces. The strict application of the code requires 132 spaces. The proposal is 80 spaces. The -projected winter peak demand is exactly 66 spaces, which provides a 30% cushion. The additional information substan- tiates the request for reduction. Doremus said the survey for the winter period is entirely new. It is the only current survey which exists for both lodge and condominium use. The survey includes ten condominiums over a five day period during the peak winter week at the end of February. The survey produced a general demand of . 68 spaces per condominium unit for the winter. Vann said the proposal is approximately . 5 spaces per bedroom or two spaces per unit. The most updated survey , done by the TDA, would tend to indicate . 68 spaces per condominium in the winter. Similar work by other consultants indicate, particularly for ski communities, one space per unit to one and a half spaces per bedroom. The applicant has also proposed a series of measures in conjunction with the hotel operation and the Top of Mill to further mitigate the need for transportation : van transit service for skiing, service to the airport, participation in the improvement district, improvement of pedestrian access, etc. N arvey said two spaces per unit is adequate. Tygre suggested reviewing the code again. It is not fair to be so arbitrary with the code. If the state of the art parking allows for reduction, then there should be uniformity in the code . Vann said the code requirements need further study. Tygre ' s objection to the reduced parking is that the space is up a steep hill , and more cars will be used. Vann said the use will be similar as the experience at the Aspen Club. People will probably leave a vehicle in permanent storage for use when they are in town. The 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission April 10. 1984 nature of the occupancy and the type of units do not favor multiple couples arriving from multiple locations for shared week vacations. Harvey said if the lodge was timeshared, he would have a different concern; those statistics support in that case one car per bedroom. Vann said he can draft a proposed resolution, but he does not know what to say about the visual impact considerations . He asked for other issues the commission would like to address. Pardee replied viewplanes. On a numerical basis, all is fine. fie wants to see sectional views from Wagner Park . Vann noted a quarter inch section of the real viewplane and affected viewplane from the Wheeler Opera House are provided in the Tarch 20th packet. Pardee clarified he wants visuals on what one sees of the Aspen Mountain Lodge from Durant to Wagner Park looking toward the mountain. Doremus suggested drawing an imaginary line between the top of Fifth Avenue and Mountain Queen. This project will be below that line. Harvey said the project will be below the highest point , but there will be areas which this project will impact. Pardee requested perhaps a photograph with the heights drawn in. What does the city actually see? He believes since 90% of the project is sited in the bowl , the visual -impact will be minimal . - The units fronting- the east- west street which intersect Mill Street, the two units sited at the southern most portion of Mill Street, the units fronting Mill Street at Summit Place, these are sensitive areas . He wants to see what the project looks like there. Vann suggested overlays on the photographs of the views from Wagner Park, up Mill Street, etc. Glaister addressed again the two buildings sited at the top of Mill Street. Moving the building back only opens up the view for the facade of that building. He is trying to hold that enclosure. Doremus said the intent is to begin construction this summer. There is a two year construction period. He has been advised by the principal contractor that ground must be broken in June. He does not know if that can be done. So far, no has said other- wise. The applicants are trying to meet the challenge. Preliminary and final approval for the hotel is necessary for a building permit for excavation. He requests every consideration be given to the time framework. He encourages acting swiftly to meet the summer construction deadline. Tygre is uncomfortable still with number of units. She does not understand how thirty-three units are obtained v. s. twenty- five units. Vann reminded her that is one parcel out of four , 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Plannir�and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984. and that the carrying capacity of the site is the aggregate of all four parcels, not just one. Ralph member of the audience, also questioned the figures. He remembered Vann presented twenty-five units , at 3 , 000 square feet per unit as an example, he then said the developers decided to opt for thirty- three units at a reduced square footage per unit . Then , on the plans presented here, it is 3,000 square feet per unit again. It appears eight units at 3 , 000 square feet has been picked up somewhere. Vann said he misunderstood. If one only looks at lot three, what would would be allowed under existing zoning . The rules are extremely vague in the code, the code does not address the problem of multiple zone districts on lot three . At a minimum Vann can demonstrate that twenty-five units can be sited on that lot based on one assumption that the units are 3 , 000 square feet each. However , more units can be built on this property because of the ability to reduce the square footage of the two units being built in the L2 zone district from 3 ,000 square feet to a lower square footage. The actual number of units which can be built on this parcel could be anything from ten to fifty units, depending on how large the units are. Harvey noted the same amount of square footage could be maintained because the units in the conservation zone can be any size because there is no restriction. Vann noted Council said from an overall FAR, a certain number of units appears to be appropriate. Using that number, one can justify thirty-three units on this particular property. There is the ability to build thirty-three units on the PUD site, and the ability to cluster the units on the Top of Mill site. Keep in mind that the number of units being built is the function of the overall FAR for the entire PUD site itself. The units are being clustered in one portion of the entire PUD site as opposed to being scattered throughout the entire PUD site. He can demonstrate that the applicants are not being allowed to build more units or more square footage than the composite zoning of the PUD will allow. Harvey closed the public hearing on the rezoning. The commission and the applicants agreed to a site visit on Friday , April 13 , 9 : 00 a. m. , at the bowl at the top of Mill Street by the ski club. The commission directed Vann to draft a resolution for the regularly scheduled meeting of April 17th. Vann recommended a work session on April 24th to address the employee housing solutions. 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special _Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1984 Tygre will be gone the month of May . 1hite will be gone May 9th to May 21st. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 36 p.m. gaaa't' Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 25