Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20230321Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 1 of 14 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for March 21st, 2023 to order at 4:34 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Jason Suazo, Tom Gorman, and Teraissa McGovern. Commissioners not in attendance: Christine Benedetti Staff in Attendance: Ben Anderson, Community Development Deputy Director Kevin Rayes, Community Development Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Anderson noted the city is accepting applications for open positions on this commission. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. McGovern noted interviews for board positions is scheduled for April 24th. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the minutes for the March 7th, 2023 meeting. Mr. Gorman seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development Major Public Project | Amendments to Official Zone District Map | Planned Development (Project Review and Detailed Review) | Major Subdivision | Transportation and Parking | Growth Management Quota System | Variations from Residential Design Standards Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded notice had been provided per the code, but the affidavit did not identify the date of the posting. Ms. Nicole Olmstead, Cushing Terrell Planner representing the applicant team, responded March 3, 2023 as the posting date. Ms. Johnson responded this date satisfied the code requirements. Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned to floor over to the staff for a brief introduction to the application. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Community Development Planner, provided a brief an overview of the application. He then discussed the review process for the application stating it will first be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission who makes a recommendation to Council for their final decision. He stated because Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 2 of 14 this is a city sponsored project, City Council has identified the application as a major public project which consolidates the review process. He stated the applicant would present first and then staff will present last. He added due to the size of the application, he reminded the commissioners to take the time they need to review the project before making a decision. Ms. McGovern then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Everson, City of Aspen Affordable Housing Project Manager, introduced himself and stated the applicant last met with the commission on September 20th, 2022 to provide an update on the project. The project team has since submitted an application for review and approval for the 100% affordable housing development consisting of 277 units with 476 bedrooms. He stated they will discuss how they arrived at the design and the underpinning guiding principles, the site itself, the architecture, and the implementation plan. He then introduced the team members including: Ms. Laura Dougherty, Lead Architect and Project Manager with Cushing Terrell Mr. Randy Rhoads, Director with Affordable Housing Architecture with Cushing Terrell Gyles Thornely, Landscape Architect with Connect One Design Ms. Nicole Olmstead, Planner with Cushing Terrell Mr. Everson reviewed the history of the project starting with Council directing staff in 2019 to embark on a community outreach and conceptual design process for the Lumberyard site as a response to the perceived affordable housing crisis. He stated they have spent three plus years of continued community outreach and discussions of the community responses with City Council in an incremental process. There have been five separate rounds of outreach engagement and review along with about a dozen City Council work sessions to guide the design process discussing various aspects including density, the number of units and bedrooms, parking, and the overall height. He displayed a summary of the process and then described the efforts and outcomes of the outreach and council discussion toward refining the design. Mr. Rhoads next discussed how the team reviewed the City’s and housing authority’s mission statements and visions regarding affordable housing and crafted a vision statement for this project. A stable, thriving affordable neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly; environmentally sustainable; connected and welcoming; looks, lives, and feels authentically Aspen. Mr. Everson discussed the types of due diligence completed for the project including the following. 1. An environmental site assessment which identified the site as appropriate for development, 2. Cultural inventory 3. Geotech subsoil study 4. Air quality studies including a volatile organic compound air sample testing with recommendations to install air quality monitoring equipment on the site capturing real-time data. They recently downloaded three months of data and sent it for review by an environmental scientist. Recommendations state the site is safe as it currently exists, but additional testing was also recommended. There are two sets of additional testing going on now including one for the national ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and a follow-up on the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 3 of 14 volatile organic compound air compounds. The team has determined the air quality for the site is appropriate for affordable housing. Mr. Everson next reviewed the analysis of the utilities which show the utilities on the site require an upgrade, so they have some civil engineering plans to address upgrades for the electric, water, sewer, and storm water management. Mr. Everson then discussed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) which shows by housing workers closer to where they work, CO2 emissions can be reduced 500-600 LBS each year. He stated there will be some traffic impacts created by the development and those are mitigated by the City’s implementation of a dedicated year-round free 30 minute bus service from Rubey Park to the Aspen Business Center (ABC). He noted the transportation management plan also includes a bike share program. He next described the demographic study which included income levels served and the unit mix for the project. The majority of the housing units will target the need for the largest income levels for Pitkin County job growth which for the past ten years is in the Category 3 income levels (85% - 130% of area median income). The next highest number of units will target Category 2 income levels (up to 85% of area median income). There will also be some Category 1, Category 4, and Category 5 units. Mr. Everson noted the application is in substantial compliance with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines and regulations in particular to the unit sizes. The one bedroom units are slightly below the recommended 700 SF, two bedroom units are slightly above, and the three bedroom units are slightly above as well. He stated another due diligence it recently completed was the airport obstruction evaluation. The appropriate documentation had been submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the project was deemed as no hazard by the FAA. Mr. Everson stated a glare study had been provided to the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Director which determined there is no hazard with the project. Mr. Rhoads reviewed the overall schedule of the phased construction approach for the project and stated the project team is looking to get the planned development (PD) recorded and get into construction. The hope is to start working on infrastructure in 2024 and start the first phase of construction in 2026. He reviewed the recent and near future events including: November 2022 – Final Development Application submitted. March 2023 – Meet with P&Z to obtain a recommendation for Council. May 2023 – First reading with Council. May/June 2023 – Second reading with Council. June 2023 – Council Approval. June – October 2023 – Initiate and complete the Development Agreement process. Mr. Rhoads next reviewed the key guiding principles for the project. Among them is community connection contributing to the well being and day to day quality of life on the site. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 4 of 14 He noted the environmental, economic, and social sustainability elements has been a pillar in the design of the project. He added the design is pedestrian friendly. The project team recognizes the culture, context and climate principles making this a unique development. The project team felt a strong desire from the community to have a sustainability standard. The project team investigated seven different national and internationally standards and best practices for design. The project team selected the Enterprise Green Community Sustainability standard because of its alignment with the desired components specifically for affordable housing. There is a “Plus” component of this standard which leads a development toward net zero energy. He noted focusing on the cultural resilience of the project provides mental health benefits such as an increased sense of ownership, social accountability, and sense of belonging. Mr. Rhoads noted the 75% net zero is an incredible goal and is attainable for this project. The design focuses on low energy use intensity building, enhanced insulation and infiltration approaches, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, energy efficient water heating systems, and energy recovery systems. Areas have been maximized to support solar panels on the roof. They have also identified a path forward with Aspen Electric to balance production limitation for the utility and the needs for onsite power usage. Mr. Rhoads stated the four proposed different site designs including pivot, latch, hinge and flange were compared against 32 different criteria which he displayed on the screen. The result was of the analysis was to utilize the hinge layout design which characterizes the building scale and mass, amount of open sight area and building orientations. He described the layout as based on a typical street block size in Aspen and displayed a layout of the three buildings as it compares to the typical size of an Aspen city block. He stated they also looked a precedence for other four story developments locally. He displayed pictures identifying some of these developments located within Aspen and regionally. Mr. Thornely remarked the site is oddly shaped and described how the team decided to layout the buildings as depicted in the hinge layout. He displayed a layout of the site and pointed out the location of the airport and Deer hill. He stated they did an extensive sun and shade analysis of each design option, and the hinge option came out on top. And from a wildfire perspective, the separation between the buildings is a plus. He noted the transportation is pushed to the edges of the property and pedestrian flow between the buildings. More open space is available by placing the parking underground. He added this site is also open and inviting to neighboring projects. He added they consulted with multiple entities including the Fire Department to ensure the roads will accommodate the equipment, the City Engineering Department to review many things including storm water management, the City Parks Department regarding trails, The City Parking Department regarding snow storage, the School District regarding bus stops and Mountain Rescue regarding the new three way intersection to be built near the entrance of the Mountain Rescue facility. The new stoplight was approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2012. He displayed a layout depicting a raised surface to notify drivers they are in a pedestrian area and to slow down. He added the access to the Comcast Building will be closed off as part of CDOT’s plan. Mr. Thornely reiterated it will be a pedestrian centric site and there will be access to bicycles and buses as well on the site. He then discussed an upgrade to the AABC Trail which will be located between the site and HWY 82 including an underpass under the entrance. He also pointed out the areas for pedestrians to move between the buildings and connecting trails to the main trails around the property. He stated they do not want to promote cars, but noted the design slightly exceeds the City’s standard for the number of parking spaces per unit. He pointed out the underground parking will be directly below the buildings and every unit will have a covered parking space and a storage area. Parking areas Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 5 of 14 for deliveries has been accommodated for each building. He pointed out an area for a potential childcare facility to be built in the future. Mr. Thornely stated they haven’t finalized the design of these communal landscapes at this time but want to encourage the residents to use the outdoor spaces. He stated the green spaces will be in full sun and available year round. Mr. Everson stated the buildings will also protect the green spaces from the highway noise. Mr. Thornely next discussed the infrastructure needs for the project stating all utilities will be provided by the City of Aspen. He added they have been working with various City departments to identify and design the necessary utilities. He also added they are looking at using berms and carports to also help reduce highway noise. Mr. Thornely stated they will be making changes which will help neighboring properties with stormwater flow. Mr. Everson stated the proposed stormwater system will reduce the stormwater on the properties to the north by some 60%. Mr. Thornely stated they have been working with the Engineering department to identify methods such as rain gardens, porous pavers, and green roofs to address the quantity and quality of stormwater. Ms. Dougherty next discuss the buildings and the materials being considered to ensure durability. She stated they are also looking at what it takes to live well at this location including storage areas, communal spaces, private outdoor spaces and circulating spaces. They are trying to celebrate the views available from the site. Ms. Dougherty stated accessibility is also important to this development. She stated 100 % of the units are connected to an accessible route including elevator access. She stated they are implementing Universal Deign concepts to support aging in place. She reviewed the grading of the property to address the accessible units as well as parking. Parking options includes underground, parallel street parking and some head in parking. She stated the units are designed with modular construction so units can be reconfigured with the number of bedrooms with a limited number of unique modules. This allows for each unit to have an outdoor balcony. The modular design will include an 11 FT floor to floor height to allow the modules to be delivered with a floor and ceiling and 9 FT height of usable space in the primary areas. The 9 FT height will help bring in more light deeper into the units. She stated the rooms are a sized a bit larger to allow for more flexibility in furniture layout and allow for dedicated storage in the unit. Mr. Everson noted Council made a choice to convert many of the studio units into one bedroom units. Ms. Dougherty discussed the windows are designed and sized to maximize views but reduce energy heat loss and gain. At this time, the material selections are still being discussed to meet sustainability requirements. There have been discussions about the type of materials considering embodied carbon, recycled content, and long term maintainability. She then discussed how Council challenged them to also blend in the development with the surroundings. This has driven a natural palette to help mix the tones, so the structures blend in with surrounding context. They are striving for the mountain modern aesthetic, but also the natural and authentic use of materiality. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 6 of 14 She stated it was important to address the vertical articulation to emphasize the middle plane, dematerialize and set back the upper floor, soften the ground floor and connect the ground floor to the streetscape. Ms. Dougherty next discussed the layout plans for the three buildings. Each has an underground garage which has the same footprint as the building above. Each building will have elevators in the corners of each building. In Building 1, the resident amenities include a leasing office and community space lounges which will be available to the other buildings as well. Mr. Rhoads stated because of the large number of units to be built, the expectation will be for the project to be professionally managed and maintained. The development will have common spaces such as fitness rooms. Mr. Everson stated each floor will have a waste room as well. Ms. Dougherty stated there will be waste rooms to accommodate landfill, recycling and composting. Ms. Dougherty stated Building 2 will be similar but with a different geometry. There will be fewer resident amenity spaces. Ms. Dougherty stated Building 3 will also be similar to the other buildings but will be an ownership building. She added this building will have its own management space and common space as well. Mr. Everson stated each building will have a mail facility. Ms. Dougherty displayed slide depicting the proposed building height. She then displayed a map of the property indicating the difference in grade of slope for each side of the three buildings. The largest difference of 6 FT to 12 FT 6 IN is only 13% of the building perimeters and located on the backs of the buildings. The access levels of the building (53%) generally have a minimal difference to the adjacent grade of less than 3 FT. Next, she displayed some perspectives from the following locations. They were only massing models and do not reflect materiality details. • Southwest view from Annie Mitchell Housing Project • Southeast view from Building 2 Open Space including the connect trail to the Annie Mitchell Project • Southern view from upper floor of Building 1 private balcony looking south • Building 2 from the entrance to the project (one reflecting potential materiality details) • Building 1 amenity space, plaza, and courtyard Mr. Rhoads stated the solar panels displayed in the perspectives are part of the architectural expression of the buildings. Ms. Dougherty stated the panels not only provide power, but they also provide shading for the buildings and shelter for the mechanical on the roofs. Mr. Everson then reviewed the proposed subdivision parcels. He noted some parcels are defined by the roadways. He stated parcels 5 and 6 will be for stormwater maintenance and parcel 4 dedicated to a future childcare facility. Mr. Everson then reviewed the proposed phases of development. Phase 0: Demo, Recycling, and Infrastructure (2024 – 2025) Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 7 of 14 They are aiming to recycle to a higher level than what is typically done as part of the Enterprise Green Communities Plus Program. The infrastructure would include all the necessary utilities and roadways and maintaining access to the Mountain Rescue Facility. A CDOT project will be initiated to implement the new intersection or at least the infrastructure for it. He stated the city does plan to be the developer for this phase. Phase 1: Building 1 (2026 – 2027) He stated the city will seek public / private partnerships for the implementation of Phase 1. Phase 2: Building 2 (2028 – 2029) The city would like to implement Phases 1 and 2 at the same time if possible, with grant funds and potentially some debt financing. Phase 3: Building 3 (2030 – 2031) He noted the city will have ownership units available at Burlingame Phase 3 Ownership units coming online relatively soon will provide an opportunity to implement rental housing followed by more ownership housing. Mr. Everson then displayed a budget proposal over the phases of the project for a total of $395.2 million total investment with 277 housing units. The slide provided the following breakdown of the budget. 2019 – 2023 Outreach / Design – $4.4 million Phase 0: $14.2 million Phase 1: $125 million for 104 units Phase 2: $115.8 million for 91 units Phase 3: $135.2 million for 82 units Ms. Olmstead then closed the presentation stating there has been a great deal of outreach over the years for this project. She stated this project directly aligns with the review criteria including a major public project, an amendment to the zone map, planned development, major subdivision, growth management quota and residential design standards. She stated the team is confident this application aligns with the criteria. She stated the CDOT plan adopted by the city directly influenced how the site will be accessed. Other references such as the Climate Action Plan, the Community Plan, APCHA guidelines and Council priorities were considered throughout the design. Ms. McGovern asked the commissioners for any questions of the applicant and explained to the typical proceedings format to the commissioners and recommended asking questions at this time. Ms. Johnson remined the commission the questions to the applicant must be addressed before the public hearing portion of the hearing is closed. Mr. Gorman stated he is not sure if the design team or if staff can answer the questions he has identified at this time. Ms. McGovern asked the commission to decide how to proceed with the remainder of today’s meeting. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Anderson noted April 4th is a date certain for a possible continuation date. Mr. Rayes stated he has a 30-40 minute presentation to provide. Mr. Anderson stated it may be appropriate to allow for public comment at today’s meeting with the number of members of the public attending. Ms. McGovern stated she would like to hear staff’s presentation. Ms. Rockhill stated she has a few questions to ask the applicant and suggested then taking public comment and push staff’s presentation to the next meeting. Ms. McGovern stated she does not want to open public comment until after staff’s presentation. It was decided to direct questions to the applicant at this time. Ms. Rockhill asked if the city has executed in the role as developer for other projects. Mr. Everson responded the city evaluates its role in developments on a case by case basis. In the case of Burlingame Ranch, which is an ownership project, the city has acted as the developer. In more recent years, the city did not act as the developer for the 517 Park Circle, 802 W Main St, and 488 Castle Creek development projects. For these projects, the city engaged in a public private partnership for a long term city land lease. These projects are also managed by the agreement as well. Mr. Everson stated in this project, the city has decided to act as the developer for the infrastructure phase with available funds because of the internal knowledge of working with all the utilities involved. After this phase, the city may pursue a public private partnership for the vertical development that could bring the financing, design, build and long term management and operation of the facilities in one agreement. He added they have not decided if they will develop the Phase 3 ownership project. He stated there are some unique insurance circumstances in which may be more appropriate for the city to act as the developer. He noted there is a request for some flexibility in the application along those lines. Ms. Rockhill asked the applicant to confirm the units in building 3 will not be for a sale until they have been rented for 10 years. Mr. Everson stated there have been some interesting characteristics related to for sale condominium projects in Colorado and the insurance for developing them. To allow for options in regards Colorado’s defect laws and the associated insurance rates, the city is looking for some flexibility, if necessary, to be able to rent them for a time and then convert them to for sale. Ms. Rockhill asked if this project is aimed at seasonal workers with the uptick in rental available vs ownership. If the units are for seasonal, she asked if the parking and storage are overdesigned. Mr. Everson stated the units are designed more for the long term but also can handle the lifecycle with the local workforce coming at a young age and growing within the facility. He feels the design lends itself to more year-round residents. Ms. Rockhill asked if APCHA will qualify the applicants. Mr. Everson stated APCHA and Council have recommended for the initial lease-up, the applicants would need to meet the APCHA regulations, but work history would not be prioritized giving all applicants an equal opportunity to win a unit. When leases turn over, then APCHA would handle it as they do other projects. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Suazo asked why the project is not 100% net zero. Mr. Rhoads stated at this time based on their projections and identified constraints, they are confident they can attain 75% net zero. Ms. Dougherty noted the factor was based on the of solar SF that can be fit onsite. Utilizing the roofs determined how they identified the goal. Mr. Suazo asked if solar could be added to the carports. Mr. Rhoads replied he was correct. Mr. Suazo asked if they have looked at the profit and loss for the project. He stated the maintenance alone will add up and asked if it will operate in the hole every month. Mr. Everson stated they have completed an operational analysis with a specialist to help identify the staffing for the buildings, rental income, monthly expenses, and the mortgage the buildings would likely be able to support. Because there are approximately 100 units in each building, the ongoing operations and mortgages can be supported. Mr. Suazo asked if this information was in the packet and Mr. Everson stated it was not because it is not part of the application. Ms. McGovern stated she does not believe it is not part of the board’s purview. Mr. Suazo asked about the employees being generated by the project. Ms. McGovern responded that is part of a different analysis and not part of a profit and loss statement. Mr. Everson responded he could provide the information. Mr. Suazo stated he personally would like to see it. Ms. Johnson cautioned that as a board they can agree to request additional information. She did not know if it would be appropriate if only one board member is requesting the information. She also reminded the board that any request for information should relate to the review criteria. She added if one person receives this information, then all members need to receive it as part of their decision making. She requested the board make these requests as a board and not individually. She asked the board to discuss what review criteria the information pertains to as part of the request. Ms. McGovern does not see how it is tied to the board’s review criteria. Mr. Suazo stated he can’t pull which criteria it pertains to off the top of his head. Ms. Rockhill agreed with Ms. McGovern. Mr. Gorman does not know if the information is relevant to P&Z or not. Mr. Gorman referred to figure 18 on page 14 (agenda packet) of the cross section of the building. He noted the combined height of the parapet and building is 49 FT. Mr. Everson responded this was correct. Mr. Gorman then referred to the area labeled as a roof of an additional 7 FT. He believes the total building height will be 56 FT. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Ms. Dougherty displayed the figure on the screen and explained the height of building is as per the code. The 7 FT height above the parapet or 12 FT above the top of building is for the roof projections including the roof access stairs, mechanical. Ms. Olmstead reiterated the city code breaks down renewable energy projection systems is separate from the building height calculation. Ms. McGovern motioned for a 5 minute recess at 6:20 PM to allow staff to respond to an alarm. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. McGovern called the meeting back to order after the recess. Ms. Olmstead reiterated her previous statement. She stated the city recognizes the energy renewable production systems separately from the calculation. Mr. Gorman asked if they are supposed to be invisible. Ms. Olmstead reiterated that placing them on top of buildings is encouraged by the code. Mr. Rhoads stated the figure shows the most extreme condition regarding height. He added the typical condition will be 49 FT. Ms. Olmstead noted a rendering showed earlier shows the solar components on top of the building. Mr. Everson added the solar panels are pitched and will be 15 FT above the 49 FT height or 64 FT at the highest point. He stated they are also required to measure how far below the grade the building will go. He stated the buildings will primarily appear as four story buildings with the solar panels on top. Mr. Gorman referred to the window design shown on a figure 29 on page 20 of the agenda packet. Ms. Dougherty stated there are 12 SF based on their understanding of the code. They took the flexible standard to be a 12 SF minimum. They have 2 FT x 6 FT windows linked next to a full light exterior door leading out to balcony or patio. They feel they are meeting the intent to have fenestration along the long elevations so there were not long uninterrupted expanses without windows. They did a lot of energy modeling to balance the daylight and views coming into the unit but also provide a highly efficient exterior envelope to deal with heat gain in the summer and energy loss in the winter. Mr. Everson stated in affordable housing projects in years past, you did not see cooling. In looking at the resiliency study conducted, they saw the likelihood of wildfires and air quality conditions resulting in wildfires requiring air filtration in the units. The units will have whole house ventilation systems and individual heat pumps which also come with cooling. The design of the windows helps manage the heating and cooling of the units, particularly on the west side of the buildings. Mr. Gorman believes more of the windows depicted on the figure are slits than allowed by code. Ms. Dougherty stated the figure does not show the doors and the intent is to have a rhythm of windows. Ms. McGovern noted the windows shown on page 120 of the Planned Development Plan Set (Exhibit B.3) do no depict the windows next to the doors and asked for clarification. Ms. Dougherty stated they are still playing with the fenestration and updating them based on their modeling. Their approach is to meet the 12 SF minimum. They would like to continue to study. Mr. Gorman asked if this is not a final plan submitted with the application. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 11 of 14 Ms. Dougherty responded they are planning on 2 FT x 6 FT windows as of today. They were approaching it as a flexible piece they could continue to work on as they continue with the design because they are still building engineering design. The want the ability to tweak the windows to ensure good articulation, good energy, and good views. Mr. Rhoads feels solar orientation will have an impact on the final design solutions. These materials are to show intent and they welcome feedback. Mr. Gorman referred to the transportation component and he questioned some information from the Traffic Impact Study (Exhibit C.5). He referenced part of the report showing about 19,000 vehicles passing the Lumberyard intersection each day. The report stated the vehicle reports 2, 400 vehicles during the peak hour. He thinks the city engineering department could provide better data since the report only reflects a snapshot. He asked Mr. Anderson how long does the city’s traffic engineering department estimate an average daily rush hour would last. Mr. Anderson responded with a question of that detail would need to be answered by the engineering or traffic department. Mr. Rhoads commented the report had been reviewed multiple times by the engineering department. Mr. Gorman said he has identified some additional questions about the report. Mr. Everson stated the engineering and transportation departments helped to coordinate the way the trips were counted with firm developing the report. He stated they counted cars at this location, a location down valley and up by the roundabout. They also used existing data from work performed for Pitkin County. Mr. Gorman stated he disregarded the Snowmass Canyon dataset because those numbers do not reflect the reality of this intersection. Mr. Gorman calculated some rough vehicle counts based on the rush hours being one hour, 90 minutes and two hours long. He believes the rush hour totals might overstate the actual throughput at the location, but he is not sure about the drop off from the peak hour. He feels the engineering department may have better data, but he referred to a table in the exhibit containing a table of several existing traffic lights including Harmony, Owl Creek, Truscott and Maroon Creek. He noted most of those are currently rated D or F for the length of delays and this is before the new intersection is built. He noted on page 5 of the exhibit a data table estimating the new intersection will add about between 50-99 vehicles per hour. He feels there needs to be some clarity to the estimated number of cars during the peak periods. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Gorman to clarify his question to the applicant. Mr. Gorman stated this relates to the time lost to commuters on Hwy 82 as a result of the new intersection. He added there is some information in the traffic study, but he is not sure it is accurate. Mr. Everson stated the conclusion they arrived at for the peak hour, one minute of commute time on Hwy 82 would be added in the fully built out condition. He wanted to clarify if Mr. Gorman wants to know how they calculated the time. Mr. Gorman responded the one minute is defined in the summary, but the data table has it at 1.6 minutes based on a projection of 2025 traffic. He feels this will be a significant number if calculated over Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 12 of 14 the number of cars commuting through the intersection. He wants to know if they calculated a cascading model. He noted table 11 on page 38 shows the delay at about 2 minutes. Ms. McGovern asked to clarify one thing. She stated the presentation that it is noted in the 2012 CDOT study to add the light and remove the access to Sage Way from HWY 82. She asked Mr. Anderson if the intersection will be installed if the project happens or not. Mr. Anderson deferred to Mr. Everson. Mr. Everson stated they can bring back more information regarding the cycle times and number of requests. Ms. McGovern asked for clarification regarding the definition of peak time and has cascading been modeled or not. Ms. McGovern stated their response needs to be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Gorman stated he needs to assess if his reading of the traffic data is correct. Mr. Everson believes they are defining a peak hour as an hour. Mr. Gorman feels the study could be more granular as to its definition of a rush hour. Ms. McGovern requested a motion to extend the meeting to 7:30 PM. Mr. Gorman motioned and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Ms. Rockhill, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Anderson stated for this topic, it will be better to wait until the next meeting when the applicant can bring along someone to answer questions about the traffic study. Mr. Gorman referred to the slide showing other four story buildings developed regionally and asked when the last one building of that height approved or built. Mr. Anderson responded there are various means of approval for projects. In regards to underlying zoning, the maximum height is 28 FT established in 2017. And for a Planned Development such as this application, there is lots of flexibility around height. He noted Gorsuch Haus (north of 40 FT), and Lift One Lodge (53 FT) were approved as a Planned Development. The downtown buildings shown on the slide were from a different era. Mr. Gorman asked if the proposed Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) pick up and drop off points are located on HWY 82. Mr. Everson stated it is located on the frontage road right across from Building 1. He pointed this out on a picture of location on a site map. Mr. Gorman asked if they have modeled times for riding a bus vs other methods. Mr. Everson stated it was modeled similar to the Burlingame model. He added one of the models considered was to expand the existing Burlingame bus route. The Transportation department suggested a separate dedicated route with a 30 minute route. City Council and survey responses agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Gorman asked for the average daily ridership for the Burlingame bus route. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Thornely stated he doesn’t have a number, but it has become more popular in the last 8 years. He estimated there are full buses during peak times for about a 30 passenger bus. Mr. Gorman asked if the city has received any interest from private parties in regard to a possible public private partnership. Mr. Everson stated they have received calls and they’ve been informed there will be a solicitation process at some point in the future if that is the direction the city wants to pursue regarding funding, grant funding, mortgage packaging. Mr. Gorman said he saw a total of $395 million for the project. Mr. Everson stated this includes the estimate to develop the project today as well as an annual escalation amount at 5%. He guarantees it will change and they will do another project estimate when the design is completed, and the planned development has been recorded. Ms. McGovern clarified she prefers questions that go to our review criteria. She stated if it doesn’t impact how your review complies or doesn’t comply with one the design regulations, she hesitates to allow questions. She stated the board’s purview is limited by the code and one of those purviews is not to discuss the funding and budget. Ms. Johnson cautioned the commission that to base their decision on something that may not have any relation to the review criteria. She noted they are making a recommendation to Council and if those recommendations are based on how a project is being funded, that may not be a defensible position. Ms. McGovern does not have any questions beyond what has already been asked but noted the presentation was very difficult to read on the screens because the text was way too small. She requested they change their presentation to make it more readable for the next meeting. Mr. Rhoads asked if would be helpful to provide a printed version of the presentation. Mr. Gorman asked Ms. Johnson if it would be out of order to speak directly with city staff regarding the contents of the traffic study. He asked if he could do this as a citizen to meet with them. Ms. Johnson replied while the hearings are going on, she cautioned against doing that because information you obtain in those meetings could affect how you decide something as a commissioner. She added the other commissioners the public and the applicant would not have access to the same information so it’s a question of fairness and its important our record reflects the information you relied upon, and that information be presented during the hearings and not from outside sources. She encouraged all the commissioners as citizens to make oral and written comments to the City Council as your role as a citizen once this process has been completed. Mr. Rhoads asked again if providing the presentation electronically or printed format would be helpful. Ms. McGovern asked for them to submit the presentation as an exhibit in the next packet. It was submitted after the meeting as Exhibit X. Mr. Kevin Rayes replied staff can include the presentation as an exhibit. The commissioners then discussed how to proceed with the time remaining. Ms. Rockhill motioned to continue the meeting to April 4th at 4:30 PM. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Mr. Gorman, no; Mr. Suazo, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 21, 2023 Page 14 of 14 Ms. McGovern thanked everyone. Mr. Anderson asked to clarify the location of the next meeting. Ms. Klob responded the next meeting should be in the Pearl Pass meeting room at the new City Hall. ADJOURN Ms. Rockhill motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Cindy Klob, Records Manager