Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840501 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1. 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting (a continuation of the special meeting of April 24, 1984) to order at 5: 06 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David white, and Roger Hunt present. Discussion continues on revisions of the 700 South Galena and Top of Mill resolution, and employee housing solutions. Sunny Vann, planning office , said formal consideration on the employee housing issue of the Aspen Mountain Lodge will begin on May 8th. The issue is scheduled for the May 14th City Council meeting. 700 SOUTH GALENA John Doremus, representative for the applicants , presented the revised plans of the 700 South Galena project . The objective is to reduce as much height as possible without destroying the entire design. The resulting new configuration is a reduction in height of 2 ' -6" at one end, and 8 feet at the other end . He points out the natural grade profile on the elevation. The design is 6 inches to one foot below natural grade at one end of the project , and near natural grade at another end. It is dangerous to build too low into the ground, there are potential water and drainage problems. The natural grade on site is lower than the curb cut and the finished grade matches the curb cut or the street grade. He quotes heights from natural grade of the new configuration: for the north end, top of the eave, 34-35 feet; top of the ridge, 39 . 5 feet ; midpoint, 37 feet; and for the south end, top of the eave, 28 feet; top of the ridge, 36 . 5 feet; the midpoint , 33 feet. The retaining wall is substantially lowered around the ground level walkway at the back of the building ; the new height is 1 . 5 to 2 feet . The other major change is the relocation of the curb cut and garage entrance. The building has been lowered so much that the top of the garage is the only visible element as one drives up Galena Street. The grade is now 12% not 6% , another compromise by the applicants. The 12% grade will require snow melting. Doremus said the underground parking is the greatest constraint to the height. Also there is not the desire to have flat roofs . 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1. 1984 Harvey noted that there are 28 parking spaces for the hotel which are in the hotel parking count. Doremus said the parking count is evolving since the hotel size has been reduced . On- site designated employee parking is being provided and this parking may be located under the 700 South Galena project. Vann observed that one corner of the building height is 6 feet lower than the height of an adjacent duplex . Harvey said the north end of the building is 8 feet over the 28 foot height allowed by the zone district. Joe Wells , representative for the applicants, presented his interpretation of the height requirements in the code . The code says if one is designing a building under underlying zoning, then one takes the measurement to the midpoint of the roof , the ridge cannot exceed that height by more than five feet. The comparison is 33 feet to the ridge versus the new height, a maximum 39 .5 feet . Vann supported this interpretation. The maximum five feet above the midpoint of the roof yields a total height of 33 feet for the zone district. If the revised ridge height is compared to 33 feet a 6 foot height variance is required on one end of the building. Doremus said the parking lot is located near a piece of ground between the Tipple and 700 South Galena which is owned by Luke Anthony. Harvey asked if the engineering department has commented about the new access point. Vann said there has been no comment from engineering regarding the change in the access. Doremus said the south end ' s natural grade is 6 . 5 feet from finished grade. The south corner elevation is 7978. He provided spot elevations : for example, the building southeast of the southern end is 8111, the Blitt's building is 7982. Hunt asked if the parking requirement is one space per bedroom. Vann said yes . Hunt noted only 12 parking spaces exist for 12 units. Why are there not 24 parking spaces? Doremus said the applicants provided a detailed, specific, in-town parking survey to Council and the commission. The study concluded that there is an actual requirement of . 6 spaces per condominium unit, which is under what was considered necessary. Since the project is a PUD this is a flexible area . The applicants have requested that the parking requirement be more in line with actual need, one space per unit. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1. 1984 Hunt is concerned because part of the parking below 700 South Galena is for commercial hotel parking. Has engineering or anyone considered the commercial use may generate a higher utili- zation of the garage as compared to residential use? Vann said the garage has always been designed for the overflow parking for the hotel during peak periods. The garage is also designed to handle an overflow from the residential project. High use will not occur except in certain peak circumstances. When this project is operational, with the exception of Top of Mill, parking around the PUD site will be utilized as the circumstances dictate at any given occupancy level or given period of time. Hunt favors the present parking access over the original access . The present solution improves visibility. There is no landscaping blocking the visibility from the access to the garage. Jack Crawford, member of the audience, said the height has not been reduced enough. He objects to the fact that the height is going over the underlying code. He understands the mitigating reason for allowing excess height on the hotel is size. The 700 South Galena project is not related to the hotel . This project should conform to the neighborhood. The buildings most affected by the project are the Tipple Inn, the Tipple Lodge, and the Blitt ' s duplex. The Blitt ' s duplex is built to code at 28 feet . The Tipple Inn is built to 26 feet . The Tipple Lodge is built to 25 feet. The proposed project is nearly 40 feet high. That height is not in character with the neighborhood. Greater reduction should be made perhaps in the internal ceiling height of the units . He reported that he was contacted by Bob Blitt's, owner of the duplex, and Wally Burke. They requested that Crawford register their objections to the height. They are concerned about the possibility of a box canyon effect with a large building on one side and the Durant on the other side. Doremus responded to Crawford's comments. First, the architects took into account that the Tipple Inn and the Tipple Lodge are downhill. The architects used almost 100 feet of setback , or equivalent to a 100 feet of separation between the 700 South Galena and the Tipple complex. This was done on purpose . At one time a piece of property was offered to his clients for purchase with the intent was to build further down the slope. However , it was concluded that would be a problem, building a yard away would impact the Tipple. The setback requirement is five feet, but 50 feet setback is used. Blitt' s used a five foot setback. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Spgcial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1. 1984 Measurements taken by Cooper Aerial Surveys show that the Blitt' s duplexes are 30 feet and 33 feet high, respectively. The unit is not conforming . The measurement is taken to the ridge line of a flat roof. He noted a series of buildings located south of the project which are higher than the proposed project. He reads off elevations for a variety of buildings surrounding the project. The buildings located north of the project are lower in height. The height of the proposed project on the north end is 7980 . 5 which is a 100 feet away from the Tipple complex, at 7963. The project is very compatible with the neigh- borhood. Muller asked if the internal measurements of the project have been discussed: the height of the rooms and the height of the parking garage. Doremus does not know the internal measurements. Muller asked if the parking garage is two stories the question is significant because it tells what the applicants have to play with. Wells said the parking garage is at the minimum, perhaps 8 feet. There is no room to go lower. Muller is concerned about his client' s ability to pick up feet and the applicants ' ability to evaluate what the interior will look like. He also asked if a parking assignment or commitment to the condominium as opposed to the hotel is required. He is concerned that there is no constraint on the final decision about how many parking spaces go to the hotel and how many go to the condominium. Harvey explained the parking requirement will be stated on the plat. It is the applicants ' discretion to allocate the number of spaces to an individual unit. Vann said the project will be condominiumized. Crawford said if the interior heights are not known, how is the maximum height deduction made. How did the architects deduce a reduction of 2 . 5 feet on one end and 8 feet on the other end without knowing interior measurements? Doremus replied that the challenge to the architect was to lower the height as much as possible without destroying the design. Pat Fallin arrives in the council chambers. Harvey asked for the commissioners ' response to the new height. White approved the reduction. The applicants ' appear to be within the height requirements . The height on the north side is over minimally. He supports the new garage entrance. Hunt said this proposal is much more acceptable . Anderson supports 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 1984 the new solution. Harvey suggested the resolution reflect the changes made in the height on the original proposal to the present solution. Fallin said the reduction does not appear to be that great. Harvey noted the reduction on the north end is 8 feet; the south end lowered by 2 .5 feet is near code. Crawford said this plan is still higher than the North of Nell . The North of Nell building ranges in height from 32.3 feet above grade to 37 .6, elevations were retrieved from the plans on the facade fronting Galena Street . Anderson said North of Nell is a four story building, if the height of the building is 34 feet, the average height per story is too low. Cohen said those heights are from the lower side of NOrth of Nell, the view and the impression to the community of North of Nell is not from the rear of the building but from the side fronting Durant Street. The argument is not equitable . One is not talking about the same thing. Crawford disagreed. He his talking about the elevations along Galena Street for both projects . Anderson said the the North of Nell is at least 40 feet high. Wells said the North of Nell is at least three residential floors plus a commercial floor. Harvey said it is the perception of height that is being addressed. The proposed project sits into the backdrop of a hill which is 40 feet high. The proposed project sensitively addresses the setbacks and the pedestrians standing next to the project. The building dramatically steps up as one looks up the hill . The pedestrian is not impacted. There is not a view point which will be blocked by the project. The concern is the Tipple . The proposed setback treatment and reduction of the height handles that problem as best as can be considering the parking garage . Vann said there are several comments from the public, primarily presented- through letters submitted to the commission, regarding other issues besides height variation. Muller ' s letter sums up most of those concerns and encompasses the other comments raised in the other letters. There are excerpts from the subdivision agreement that was entered into with Cantrup. Muller lists a variety of very specific conditions which are designed to address the problems of this site. Vann asked the engineering department to review the subdivision agreement and extract what additional information this commission should get as part of the preliminary PUD submission in order to make a decision about site related problems under the proposed development. The conditions as phrased by Muller are pretty specific. The engineering department 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1. 1984 believes that that level of specificity is inappropriate at conceptual . First, this is a different project and the same type of techniques may or may not be required. Second, it is premature to require the applicants to provide this level of detail at conceptual level and prior to the final construction documents. Engineering department distilled the concerns into two general areas which are appropriate conditions for conceptual approval: soils and water table studies on the site, and potential slope instability on the rear portion of the site. Engineering recommended these issues be combined into a condition which reads : "the applicants ' submission of a preliminary soils and water table investigation of 700 South Galena site to include an evaluation of slope stability both during and following con- struction. " That identifies potential problems. Vann suspects there are problems . This condition identifies the problems and proposes there are several alternative solutions. The engi- neering department based on the reports will determine the extent the mitigation techniques have to be undertaken. Those recommen- will be incorporated in the PUD subdivision agreement. The engineering department feels that some of the language used in the Cantrup agreement may or may not be applicable to this project given the nature of this submission. The Cantrup proposal involved the acquisition of construction easements on other people's property in order to make the proposal work . There was substantial concern as to the disruption of the adjacent property owners. It appears , given the setbacks on the current project, construction easements will not be needed. The engineering department has requested further clarification as to the nature and extent of construction utility easements required in conjunction with the project. If in fact those type of easements are required, as were in Cantrup's application, it will be appropriate at the preliminary PUD stage to provide a more detailed condition as in Cantrup ' s agreement as to the mitigation techniques that will have to accompany preliminary approval . Not knowing whether this will be required, it is premature to spell the condition out in a great level of specificity at this time. This proposed condition at conceptual puts the applicants on notice that there are potential subsurface soils and drainage related problems , slope instability problems, and construction details which will have to be addressed with more specificity at preliminary level in order for the engineering department to draft appropriate conditions for preliminary PUD approval . To the extent the Cantrup application was able to mitigate the problems , it is reasonable to assume that this 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRec ai Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 1, 1984 project with its reduced scale and with its reduced coverage of the site also be able to resolve those problems at some cost. It is also appropriate to draft a revision that deals with the height changes in the conceptual approval : either a maximum height statement and or a statement which notes the height has been addressed and revised. Harvey remembered a performance bond with Cantrup. Vann said final PUD requires a completion of a PUD agreement that spells out completion schedules and bonding. It is premature at conceptual to spell out the specifics. Muller commented that it might be useful to have specificity in the resolution on this project for future reference during final approval . The items the letter are not all that specific. Basically he suggested the commission state the obvious which is that as a condition of approval of the project the applicants will address these items. The other issue is what kind of completion schedule the applicants have in mind. Do the applicants plan to take a year on the project? Can the applicants provide some kind of construction schedule? He does not want another Aspen Inn. Within the context of the entire PUD project, he wants some idea of how the applicants plan to build the components. Harvey said since the application is part of an overall PUD there are common FAR and land use determinations . The parking is tied in with the hotel and the residential project . Doremus replied that the applicants plan to build the hotel first, completion is staged for Christmas , 1986 . The residential units are not to begin until the hotel is completed, operational, and landscaped; with 700 South Galena at the top of the list with a projected completion date of spring, 1987 . Harvey asked how the opening of the hotel affects the parking at 700 South Galena. Vann replied the applicants are going to request to bifurcate the issues. The applicants will submit a preliminary application, a right under the code, for the hotel portion of the project. It will be the commission's responsibility, based on planning ' s recommendation, to determine the extent to which the applicants can do that. Obviously, if there are related issues between the hotel and other aspects of the PUD then the commission may require the criteria be met for all components. The commission will determine at preliminary PUD whether or not "x " number of parking spaces at 700 South Galena 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Max 1. 1984 are essential for allowing the construction of the hotel site to proceed. Water, sewer, and other improvements which affect the entire site will have to be addressed at the time of the hotel construction. Harvey said if the applicants bifurcate the two projects on one hand, and combine the two projects to supply some of the hotel parking at the 700 South Galena project then the commission will have to tie the approvals back and forth. If the applicants split the projects, at the time the commission reviews the parking for the the hotel it may require a proviso that the applicants provide more parking in the future. Vann said a reasonable argument can be made to offset conditional parking associated with 700 South Galena. The occupancy figures for the hotel are not projected to occur until a subsequent level of operation and therefore occupancy will not be a problem. However , in the event occupancy is a problem the applicants will guarantee parking as a conditional use. Harvey said the overall occupancy during peak seasons may be 40%, but the occupancy during Christmas and spring will still be high. Vann continued. Final PUD approval on the lodge, assuming the applicants are successful in bifurcating the issues with Council, is not contingent upon the resolution of the problems at 700 South Galena. The issues are discreet. The condition at conceptual is to identify the extent of the problems associated with 700 South Galena project not with the Cantrup project. To the extent there is a problem identified, any preliminary approval of 700 South Galena will require a full mitigation of the problem with a specific condition attached to it. Perhaps it can be stated in the resolution that conceptual approval is contingent upon subsequent mitigation of the problems, but neither the problems or the extent of the mitigations have been identified. Conceptual approval grants the applicants nothing. The approval does not effect the hotel . He suggested that preliminary PUD is the appropriate place to attach the conditions assuming the problems are identified. Muller wants a document that Council can refer back to. Vann asked why does Council need to refer to subsurface soil problems at 700 South Galena in considering final PUD approval of the lodge ; the two projects are not tied to each other . Muller disagreed, the approval of 700 South Galena is in fact tied to the approval of the lodge . Vann said approval can be granted to the hotel without ever building 700 South Galena . Final approval of the hotel is contingent on the provision for parking at 700 South Galena, but final hotel approval is not contingent on the other issues (soils, drainage problems, slope instability) . 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 1984 Muller said that is the concern, only aspects of the projects are being discussed. It is unfortunate the way the GMP and PUD process work together . For example, with respect to the height issue, the code says one does not have to go through conceptual PUD if one has gone through GMP. The same questions are not asked in both processes. Many times there are assumptions made about projects which are not really addressed by saying one is contingent upon the other, only a single issue is addressed. He asked the commission to make the conceptual PUD more specific than usual so that Council later on, if they should chose to put forth conditions beyond the parking condition, will have a document that they can refer to detailing the different issues for each component of the entire PUD project. He noted Doremus just reported a completion date of Christmas, 1986 , the GMP process provided another construction date. Vann understood the concern but why is this a problem at conceptual , this is not the last time the commission deals with the problems. Muller said there is a major concern over the completion date, six months is preferred over a year and a half. Will the project be started and worked on straight through until finished? Will there be the leeway to do all the excavation at one time, but to build the hotel first? Harvey said the scheduling can be called at preliminary . Vann agreed. Wells said this condition already exists at conceptual . The commission made a condition at the GMP allocation that the applicants proceed with a building permit six months in advance of the normal deadline. To the extent that the applicants want to modify that schedule, the applicants have to come back to the commission and seek the commission ' s approval . It is in the resolution, it is called out in black and white. Pielstick requested asked what is the time schedule for preliminary and final approval on this project. Vann replied that according to the code once conceptual is approved at Council it is at the applicants discretion. The code provision states that within six months of conceptual approval by Council the applicants have to submit an application for preliminary PUD submission. Assuming this project goes forward with Council, the applicants have within six months of the end of May or beginning of June to submit a preliminary application before the conceptual approval is waived. Doremus said the applicants ' energy is directed to getting the hotel approved. Once the hotel project is cleared and under way, then the other components will be addressed . 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDIN-S Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 1984 Vann said the applicants will have to meet that six month deadline in order to meet the two year deadline on the GMP allocation. The applicants probably do not want to risk a lapse on the GMP allocation. Because of the relocation of the driveway entrance to the middle of the s-curve on Galena Street, Hunt suggested the adjustment of the right of way and property line be looked into at this time. The sharpness of the northwest corner on Galena needs to be reduced. Doremus replied that there have been many talks with the engineering department about improving the right of ways. He identified three specific areas which will be addressed. Vann listed items on 700 South Galena: submission of additional information with respect to soils, water table and slope stabilities; the identification of utility construction easements to the extent required as a result of this project; and height revision. Harvey in response to a query by Fallin did not know how much the height reduction and parking reduction would affect each other. Doremus said he can prove without any doubt that there is a need for no more than one space per unit. Harvey instinctively agrees with that, the question is the difference between the code and what is actually needed. Doremus said the code allows for variation in the parking requirements within a PUD. Hunt agreed with an average of . 6 per unit, but the problem is when an owner of a three bedroom unit brings to town two cars, where will the second car be parked. Theoretically there is room in the system for the additional car . But on this specific site with fee simple deeds to designated spaces, there is a problem immediately with an additional vehicle. Doremus said 15 spaces for 12 units are being set aside . That is what the parking consultant recommended. Hunt supports the 15 spaces. Anderson noted there are four more spaces in this revised plan than in the original . Vann commented that the average takes into account that there may be more than one space designated for a unit and zero for another unit. There may be a situation where the average does not work. Hunt said the problem is what is done with the extra car in a designated parking garage . Vann said as part of final condominiumization the parking allocation will be specified and held in common with condominium association. It is reasonable to assume there will be guest parking in addition to the basic one parking space per unit. How the spaces are designated at this time is immaterial. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Syecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 1, 1984 Crawford said because this project is part of an overall PUD the excavation may be done all at one time to save money, excavation for 700 South Galena may be done concurrently with the hotel. However, construction of 700 South Galena may not be done simul- taneously with the hotel . The consequence is a large hole at the Galena site. This is a possibility. He requests a condition in the conceptual resolution which prohibits that from happening. Hunt said once the applicants receive a building permit they are working on a time schedule. Anderson noted the UBC requires a certain percentage of construction every 120 days. Vann said this issue will have to be addressed as part of the preliminary PUD. The applicants will have to specify a specific construction schedule which does not exist at this time. Harvey agree with Crawford. Vann is not arguing the point . The applicants are not required at conceptual to detail the construction schedule , they are required to detail the schedule at preliminary during a public hearing for submission of approval. If the construction schedule is an issue for the commission at that time a specific condition. Harvey suggested a condition at conceptual that the applicants not abandon an excavated site. Hunt said identify the fact that this is a construction site which will be considered a separate entity from the whole for a construction schedule under the code. Wells reiterated by next spring an application has to be filed for a building permit . Once that permit is issued, the applicants have to comply with building permit requirements . Any variation from that schedule requires the applicants to come before the commission. The time frame associated with the GMP approval establishes how the applicants proceed. Hunt said a hole cannot be dug without a permit, a permit obligates one to a schedule. Vann agreed the applicants will come in within the next six months for preliminary PUD. The commission is not going to grant an excavation permit for 700 South Galena within the next six months. There is no excavation permit for this site. It cannot be started until after preliminary PUD approval at which time a specific condition with respect to any phase of the construction will be attached. Hunt does not see this as a problem. Harvey directed Vann to draft a condition at conceptual that calls for a provision of a construction schedule at preliminary for 700 South Galena as a site specific in the PUD. Vann said it is a mandatory requirement in the code but he will insert a condition in the conceptual resolution. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 1. 1984 Hunt asked if a condition on the adjustment of the property line should be attached. Harvey suggested phrasing : "that the applicants explore with the engineering department the adjustment of the property line to reduce the radius of the curve . " He also encouraged langauge on the discussion of the height. Vann suggested a "whereas" clause that the height has been modified as a result of the conceptual review. Vann outlined the changes in the resolution. The change in the "whereas ' s" is the deletion of exemption from conceptual PUD approval as a result of the GMP application. Old Section 1 , which granted conceptual approval as a result of the GMP exemption in the code, is deleted. It is replaced with the conceptual PUD recommendation for 700 South Galena, Top of Mill, and Summit Place. The initial conditions remain basically the same with the exception of adding "acceptable detailed type of conditions. " There is a restriction on the height, 33 feet is made the lowest floor elevation to the mid point of the roof. Number 7 indicates the plan has been revised to increase the distance between the two entrance buildings at the southern terminus of Mill Street to open up and expand the views from Mill Street to the mountain. The condition for the retention of mature vegetation and the installation of adequate landscaping as to minimize the visual impact of the proiect in particular from Mill Street, Lift 1A, and adjacent ski terrain is strengthened with the underlined. The commission will review the landscaping plan at preliminary PUD. Number 9 is the engineering request for a provision of an easement on behalf of the applicants for the extension of Summit Street in event that is appropriate ; this is based on an acceptable trail easement . The applicants will be given between now and preliminary PUD to identify alternative trail easements across their property . They will be given this time to explore the feasibility of linking the trails to Little Nell and the base of Lift 1A. Vann will also add the conditions relating to 700 South Galena. The "whereas" clause on the meeting dates changes . The amended resolution will be presented to the commission for the May 8th meeting. Vann is not prepared to discuss the specifics of employee housing issue until May 8th. He explained how this issue was left at the last meeting : Anderson and Harvey do not have a problem conceptually with the two additional aspects of the employee housing proposal ; White requests some employee housing be located on-site and a percentage at ABC represented too much of a conversion 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nnyl, 1984 of existing inventory; Fallin is emphatic about no employee housing at ABC; and Tygre prefers some housing on the PUD site but is supportive of ABC. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6: 26 p.m. 9-?r4x'f A7r^ Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 13