Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140506Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 1 Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Goode, Walterscheid, and Elliott present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – April 15 2014 The minutes were approved as written. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts of interest. Public Hearing – 219 E. Durant (Charter House Lodge) and 411 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear Lodge) – PUD Amendment Mr. Gibbs opened the public hearing. Ms. Quinn reviewed the affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. Hillary Seminick, planning department, told the board S unny Vann on behalf of Sunrise Company, owner of both lodges, are applying for a PUD amendment to memorialize a subgrade pedestrian tunnel to connect the two lodges below Durant Avenue. The bulk of the amenities are located in the Dancing Bear lodge and t he owners expect the majority of the Chart House guest to use these amenities. The Dancing Bear lodge currently has 9 time shares, two-two bedroom affordable housing units, underground parking, restaurant, game room, gym, spa, wine storage in addition to roof-top amenities. The Chart House is incomplete except for foundation and structural frame. It was approved in 2005 for 11 time shares and two-two bedroom affordable housing units and 27 parking spaces. Since approval in 2008, the property has been acquired by Sunrise Property and is anticipated the owner will apply for a building permit by June 30, 2014 when the vested rights for the permit expire. The two components to the amendment are impacts to the private property and the public right of way. Issues to the private property of the Chart House include a set back variance for the approved building foot print and removal of two approved parking spaces to allow for the tunnel. A minimum of 16 spaces are required for this property with 25 being provi ded to accommodate for the construction of the tunnel. At the Dancing Bear, a set back variance is requested from the building footprint to the property boundary. There are no additional PUD amendments at this time. Ms. Seminick stated the public proper ty issues include utilities. There are two water mains, sewer lines and shallow electric lines under Durant Street. The proposed tunnel will be constructed subgrade from Dancing Bear to the Chart House. The Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 2 applicant has stated there will be no impact to Durant Street or RAFTA services. Transportation is supportive of the project since it will remove some of the pedestrian traffic from the intersection. Their greatest concern is potential impacts to RAFTA and to Durant Street. The Sanitation department does not feel the project will affect its facility. Utilities does not support the project because of the potential impacts to their services. The tunnel would be required to have adequate clearance of the water lines. She stated they are concerned if either of the water lines are affected it would impact both water service and fire protection. The fire department does not support the project due to potential impacts of a worst case scenario to the water system. The Engineering department has concerns since the municipal code does not allow private use of public right of way (sec. 21.12.010). They do not agree with the numbers provided by the owners in the transportation study or the necessity of a four way stop at the intersection. Ms. Tygre asked for more detail of the code that deals with public right of way for private purposes. Ms. Quinn stated “It shall be unlawful for any person to undertake any construction or repair within or dig up, open, disturb, grade, excavate, or otherwise alter any public right-of- way or use, occupy, or stage construction materials in any public right -of-way in the City without first having obtained a permit or license for such work from the City Engineer”. She also read “New and existing structures should be able to accomplish their various needs within the confines of their property boundaries and required set backs.” Ms. Quinn said the code does not specifically say what the engineering department has interpreted it to say. Mr. Gibbs asked how the Gondola Plaza intersection compares to this intersection in terms of use. Ms. Phelan stated they are doing improvements to the right-of-way but not underground. She said traffic wise it would be comparable. Mr. Gibbs asked if there are any other private easements on public property in the City. Ms. Phelan stated there is an area at the St. Regis and the Hyatt. Ms. Quinn said the type of easement would be a City Council decision. Mr. Gibbs asked if this was discussed during the original development of the project. Ms. Phelan said the original approvals were stand-alone approvals. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, representing the applicant stated with him is Teddy Farrell, owners’ representative and Yancy Nichol from Sopris Engineering. He stated they did some public outreach even though it was not required. Mr. Vann reiterated the public use of private right-of-way examples Ms. Phelan discussed. Mr. Vann said there are three parts to this project; the land use regulations, policy component, and an engineering feasibility aspect. He stated both the Chart House and Dancing Bear were separate approvals and separately owned. If Council approves the tunnel the prior PUD approvals will need to be amended to accommodate the set backs and reduce the Chart House parking requirements. There is no visual impact of the tunnel. Mr. Vann said there are some minor architectural changes to the Chart House project but have no relation to the tunnel. If the tunnel is not approved the Chart House will move forward as approved. The second approval part is the policy piece. Should the City allow a private entity to build a private tunnel in the public right-of-way. Mr. Vann said section 21 does not prohibit the tunnel. He said the decision on whether to allow the tunnel should be based on is there significant Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 3 public benefit resulting from the construction of the tunnel, and can the construction occur without adversely affecting City infrastructure. He stated they believe there are such benefits and the tunnel can be constructed within the requirements. Mr. Vann said the primary purpose of the tunnel is to substantially reduce the increased pedestrian traffic that is expected to occur upon completion of the Chart House. The reduced pedestrian traffic will benefit the public by lessening the potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, increase public safety, enhance the functionality of the intersection, eliminating the need for improvements to the intersection, avoids delays for transit riders, reducing vehicle emissions and noise due to stopping and starting at intersection. There are also benefits to the applicant; enhances the guest experience, provides shelter from the elements to lodge guests going back and forth, provides a safe trafficking experience for children of guests. Mr. Vann said the engineering department stated they did believe the additional pedestrian trips expected to be generated by the lodge guests and staff had been artificially inflated. These figures were generated by the applicant based on the Dancing Bear and the ir traffic expert. He said there is expected to be an increase in traffic and the potential for vehicle or bus/pedestrian conflicts may also increase and the tunnel has the opportunity to reduce these impacts. Teddy Farell, Sunrise Company, said in February of 2012 they purchased both projects as a whole. He said they looked at many alternatives for the crossing with the tunnel as the best solution. Mr. Vann told the commission the third part is can the tunnel be built without adversely affecting the street and the utilities. He said it can be constructed 100 percent from within the Chart House existing structure and will be done before the building is completed. All construction will be organized on the Monarch side of the Chart House and they will be getting an encroachment for construction activities. Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering, told the commission they were brought on to investigate the existing right-of-way and utilities. The water department could not support their design at this time because their assumptions have not been verified. The fire department is fine with the project once the water department supports it. He said the risk management of the water line erupting during the construction is a valid point but they will come up with a plan for this before construction. Mr. Goode asked how wide the tunnel will be. Mr. Nichol replied it is about 10 by 10 dug and 8 ½ by 8 ½ finished. Mr. Elliott asked why they are losing two parking spots. Mr. Nichol said the parking is below ground and the parking spaces are where the ramp will go. Mr. Elliott asked if a non-member is dining at the Chart House and wants to go to the bar at the Dancing Bear can they use the tunnel. Mr. Nichol replied the rooftop is private and a member Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 4 of the public would not have a key card to access the building whi ch you would have to go through to get to the tunnel. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the spaces look like where the tunnel exits into on either side. Mr. Nichol said on the Chart House side it is the parking garage and on the Dancing Bear side it exits onto the second floor where the amenities are located. Mr. Gibbs asked if any thought was given to making the tunnel accessible to the public. Mr. Nichol said they did. The main users of the tunnel will be from people who are in one of the buildings and want to get to the other. He said if you are already outside you will not go into a building to go underground to get outside on the other side. Mr. Gibbs opened the public comment. Norma Dolle said she wanted to find out more about the project since it is close to their lodge. Mr. Vann said the project will be constructed and maintained by the applicant. He said the primary purpose of the tunnel is to reduce traffic from cars and pedestrians. Mr. Gibbs closed the public comment. Ms. Tygre said the public policy issue is something Council will decide but P&Z can weigh in on it. One of her concerns is the instability of the geology at the base of Aspen mountain and how it will affect the future. Ms. Quinn said there is a section of PUD criteria that relates to utilities and public facilities. Mr. Walterscheid said he has no issue with the tunnel or engineering . He said it does limit the reengineering of the storm water system. He said he thinks it is a policy question and he is not against it. Mr. Goode said he agrees with Mr. Walterscheid. He said he does not have a problem with the project. Mr. Gibbs said he is concerned with the cost to the City if down the road they need to improve the storm water system and they need to choose a more expensive option because of the tunnel. He said there should be some mechanism that Council will have where the private parties will be responsible for offsetting some of the cost. Mr. Goode made a motion to approve Resolution 7, Series of 2014 recommending an amendment to the Chart House Lodge and Dancing Bear PUD’s as proposed. Seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Roll Call vote; Gibbs, no; Elliott, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Goode, yes; Tygre, no. Motion passed. Other Business – Code Amendments Referral – Mixed Use Zone District and Transferable Development Rights Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 5 Sara Adams, planning department, said these items are referrals to Council. One of Council’s goals is to help insure the livability of Aspen for future generations by identifying strategies to expand business diversity and to enhance business sustainability. Staff wanted to look at the mixed use zone district which currently allows retail and restaurant uses but only in historic landmarks. Staff is proposing to amend that to allow retail/restaurant in any building. She stated the reason it is only allowed in landmarks is an incentive for landmarks. Ms. Adams told the commission only 3 of the 40 historic landmarks in the Main Street historic district are retail/restaurant. Staff took this to HPC and they are supportive of opening it up for any building. She stated they wanted P&Z’s feedback and outlined some questions; Does P&Z think there would be a negative impact on the historic district and landmarks by amending the zone district. Does P&Z think that allowing retail and restaurant uses in the mixed use zone district will erode the commercial core and c1. Ms. Adams said they reached out to commercial brokers and private planners and for the most part everyone was supportive. There were some concerns about the potential erosion of downtown. Mr. Goode said it is a great idea because more spaces will be available for businesses. Ms. Tygre said it would encourage restaurants to move out of the downtown core and onto Main Street because rent will be cheaper. She said restaurants get driven out by high end retail as it is and will only worsen if this is change. Mr. Walterscheid said there is nothing bad about having restaurants on Main Street. Mr. Elliott said he is in favor of opening it up. Mr. Gibbs said he agrees with Ms. Tygre’s concern that the restaurants will be pushed out by retail. He asked if they could change it to only retail instead of retail and restaurant. Ms. Adams said the intention is not to remove restaurants from downtown. Ms. Adams told the commission the TDR amendment was submitted by Neil Karbank and Alan Richman is representing Mr. Karbank. The proposal is to expand where TDR’s can land. Currently TDR’s are created only on landmark properties as an incentive to move development pressure away from the landmark. This is in increments of 250 square feet of floor area. The certificate can be sold on the free market and a non-landmark can land it. Currently you can land one per residence in the RMF and Mixed Use zones. Council prohibited this in commercial and C1 last year. Ms. Adams stated Mr. Richman is proposing two ways to use TDR’s. The first would be to increase the number of TDR’s that can land per residence. Right now a single family home can land one and a duplex two. Suggestions would be to have a minimum lot size to land one. Another idea would be to restrict landing more than one to outside the infill area. Staff suggested up to four TDR’s can land on a parcel. In the R6 zone if there is a 9,000 square foot lot it would allow a single family home and a duplex. The single family residen ce allows Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2014 6 3,660 square feet of floor area. A duplex allows 4,080 square feet of floor area. Currently a duplex can land two TDR’s equaling 500 square feet. The square foot difference between the duplex with the TDR’s and the single family would be 920 square feet or equal to three TDR’s. She stated this is the mentality behind proposing up to four TDR’s. Ms. Adams stated it would only be for single family homes. A single family home could be the same size of a duplex if TDR’s were retired. She said the lot size varies with the zone district. Mr. Walterscheid said he is curious if Council will contemplate what the restriction on the downtown core has done to push growth outward as opposed to keeping it in town. Ms. Tygre said it is a policy question as to if we want to encourage duplexes. The proposal by Mr. Richman would be across the board allowing two per residence. Staff felt that would be too much for a duplex. Mr. Richman said there is a rational behind Staff’s proposal and he likes what they have done. Mr. Gibbs said he is unsure if two or three TDR’s for a single family home make sense. He said there is not as much space between homes anymore. He said he does not want to encourage variances for lot coverage. Mr. Richman said there is also a proposal where there are provisions in growth management where small additions are exempt from the mitigation requirements. For commercial and lodge a 250 square foot net leasable additional or up to two hotel lodge units, in a non-historic building, is allowed without mitigation. He suggests those numbers double with using a TDR. He said 500 feet becomes meaningful. Ms. Adams said Staff was not supportive since it was just trading a TDR for affordable housing mitigation. Mr. Richman said he also proposed the idea that penthouses in the commercial core be allowed only by using one TDR for every 500 square foot of penthouse. He said they pulled the idea knowing Council would not approve. Mr. Walterscheid said he would be for it. Ms. Tygre said she would like to see duplexes in R30 having more bulk. She said it will be more appropriate in some sites than other but is unsure how to make than happen. She said in general the approach is fine. Ms. Adams said there could be some sort of review process over a certain number. Ms. Tygre made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, meeting adjourned.