HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20230404Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 1 of 7
Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for April 4th, 2023 to order
at 4:32 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Christine Benedetti, Jason Suazo, Tom Gorman, and
Teraissa McGovern.
Staff in Attendance:
Amy Simon, Community Development Planning Director
Kevin Rayes, Community Development Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. McGovern noted there will be interviews for board positions is scheduled for April 24th.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the minutes for the January 17th, 2023 and March 21st, 2023 meetings.
Ms. Benedetti seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms.
Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor –
zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Benedetti if there was any conflict of interest since this was her first time
attending a hearing for this application. Ms. Benedetti responded there were no conflicts.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development – Continued from March 21st for Consideration
of a Recommendation
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 was still appropriate. Ms. Johnson responded the notice from the
previous meeting was still satisfied the code requirements.
Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned to floor over to the staff.
Mr. Kevin Rayes, Community Development Planner, introduced himself and reviewed the commissioner
roles and responsibilities regarding this application review. He then described the process for the
review.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Rayes next described the site location, size, existing parcels, and the current zoning. He also
reviewed the proposed parcels and zoning. He stated the application proposes to develop three
buildings on the site and displayed a matrix of the proposed units for each building.
He then reviewed each of the applicant’s proposed four phases of the development. He stated the
applicant has requested a ten (10) years of vesting rights to accommodate unforeseen circumstances.
Mr. Rayes displayed a rendering of the project from Hwy 82 and pointed out the solar panels on the top
of the building and on top of the parking structures. He stated the goal is to have 75% of the power for
the project generated from the solar panels.
Mr. Rayes next discussed the reviews of the application.
He first went over the Major Public Review, noting it is not seen very often and it can help bring clarity
and continuity to the review process to help commissioners understand the entire project. This process
combines the typical conceptual and detail reviews. He discussed one of the criteria for this alternative
review process which is the application must support stated community goals. He referred to a section
within the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) discussing the West of Castle Creek Corridor which notes
development in this area should feature separate and recognizable notes of unique uses and functions.
He reviewed the history of the city acquiring the parcels and pointed out the existing projects in the
immediate area including the Annie Mitchell Affordable Housing and Burlingame Projects. He stated
staff believes the proposed project supports the stated community goals.
Next, he discussed the Rezoning Review. He displayed a site map of the current parcels and discussed
their current zoning. He noted the applicant is requesting all parcels to be rezoned to Residential Multi-
Family (R/MF) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. He stated it is important to considering if the
proposed zoning change will be compatible with the surrounding natural and building environments
since the project was light industrial and the location of the project near an airport and state highway.
He noted the applicant has completed a lot of work to ensure the site is appropriate for a housing
project. He identified the numerous assessments and studies conducted including the following.
• Mine waste/related contaminates
• Flooding
• Mudflow
• Debris flow
• Fault ruptures
• Rock / Soil creep
• Rock fall / rockslides
• Avalanche / snowslides
He stated a noise study was conducted and the noise does not reach a day-night average of 65 dB(A) as
defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He displayed a map showing the
decibel ranges near the airport. He noted the buildings are also designed to minimize noise and berms
to buffer noise as well.
Mr. Rayes stated an air quality study was conducted and the carcinogen, Benzene, was detected during
one day of the study representing a 2.2 in one million maximum cancer risk. He noted an even higher
concentration of Benzene was detected at Paepcke Park during the same time period. He added while
not required, the applicant may decide to conduct additional air monitoring. It is believed the air
concentrations related to non-cancer health effects are negligible and not of concern.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 3 of 7
He stated staff finds the criteria for this Rezoning Review to be met.
Mr. Rayes next discussed the Major Subdivision review explaining how the applicant proposes to
subdivide the existing lots into ten parcels in a layout consistent with the phased development plan.
Staff believes the proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development to optimize the use
of the limit amount of available land for the project. He explained the location and proposed use of the
ten parcels. Parcel 4 will be set aside for future allowable uses such as childcare, which has yet to be
determined and will require a new application. He stated the neighborhood currently has problems with
flooding and the application exceeds the stormwater requirements. He noted a public comment letter
was received with concerns about the stormwater management of the new project, but staff believes
the project has sufficient management designed. He then stated staff finds the criteria for the Major
Subdivision Review to be met.
He then discussed the necessary engineering design and mitigation techniques for the development of a
subdivision as identified in the Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) have been identified. The City Engineer may require
more specific design and techniques to be defined for implementation of the project.
He displayed a map showing the locations of communal spaces including open green spaces, rain
gardens and a plaza. He stated the proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature
vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town. He stated Deer Hill which is located adjacent to the
project is significant and the application allows for a buffer in the change of topography. He added staff
finds the criteria met.
Mr. Rayes noted the applicant continues to work with Mountain Rescue Aspen to ensure their access to
the highway is available as needed.
He then discussed the Planned Development Project review and Detailed review as they provide some
flexibility while memorializing the design areas including height, size, materials, bulk, mass, density,
parking, landscaping, lighting, and street layouts. He added adopting a Planned Development overlay
clarifies these details upfront.
Mr. Rayes stated an applicant may request variations from any dimensional requirement as long as two
criteria are met. The two criteria are as follows.
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses
of the project.
He then explained how increasing density allows for more Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and described a sliding
scale and noted the public benefit of maximizing unit size by reducing the parcel density far outweighs
the cost of exceeding the allowable FAR.
He discussed the proposed variation on the height of the structures. The applicant is requesting 7FT for
the top of the roof and 15 FT for renewable energy. He noted the proposed R/MF zoning is typically
found in the Aspen infill area but also acknowledged an application of this type has not been
contemplated outside of the infill area. He stated there is a community benefit in that the taller
buildings provide more open space for the residents and the community.
He stated staff believes there are community benefits, and the project provides appropriate character
and feels the criteria has been met.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Rayes next reviewed the Detailed Review Standards for site lighting and added staff finds the criteria
to be met.
Mr. Rayes discussed the Detailed Review Standards regarding the exterior materials and noted the
request for some flexibility due to the length of the project. He added staff finds the criteria to be met.
Mr. Rayes displayed the proposed transportation site plan and discussed the Transportation and Parking
criteria. He reviewed the different modals of transportation provided by the project. He pointed out the
proposed location of the pedestrian underpass, two bike share stations, and the bus stop. He noted the
site is located less than .5 mile to a down valley bus stop.
He stated the transportation impacts were modeled for the project under the worse case scenario of no
bus or bikes and found it would add about 50 trips per hour and would increase travel time on Hwy 82
by two to four minutes during peak periods of travel. He noted traffic times would be impacted for the
upper valley, but it may also reduce regional traffic by having more people living closer to work. Carbon
dioxide is expected to be reduced by 500,000 – 600,000 LBS per year.
Mr. Rayes stated the application exceeds the required number of parking units, noting a unit does not
necessarily translate to a physical parking space. He displayed tables explaining how the units are
calculated and stated the application proposes an additional 11 parking spaces beyond what is required
by code.
Mr. Rayes then displayed a map depicting the existing street connections to Hwy 82 where the project
will be built. He stated the application proposes a new intersection based on the Colorado Department
of Transportation’s (CDOT) Control Plan as of 2012 to improve traffic flow and safety. The plan
eliminates the Sage Way intersection with the highway. He also discussed the trail realignment with a
new underpass under the intersection.
He then displayed a map of the existing alignment of the Annie Mitchell trail and the proposed realigned
trail to be straightened out to accommodated building 3.
Next Mr. Rayes discussed the Growth Management review. He displayed a table showing the proposed
unit size, minimum unit size required by APCHA and the difference for each of three unit types by
number of bedrooms. He stated the 1 BR units are slightly below the minimum required and the 2 & 3
BR units exceed the minimum required size. He added APCHA has provisions to allow for a reduction in
unit size up to 20% if other amenities are provided such as outdoor space, storage, and common rooms.
Because the applicant proposes these additional amenities, staff finds this criteria met.
He then discussed the requested variation from the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for flexibility in
the principal window size. He read the intent of the standard and noted some units have slightly below
the standard because the applicant is trying to achieve a project that relies on 75% of its energy use
from the solar panels. The applicant is still working the fenestration design in an attempt to meet this
goal. He then reviewed the two criteria and noted only one needs to be met for a variation. Staff
believes with the goal to reduce traffic, use solar for energy use and the connection of the housing with
the sidewalks provides plenty of opportunities to connect with the outdoor spaces meets the criteria.
Mr. Rayes concluded his presentation summarizing staff’s recommendation to approve the reviews and
requests for variations from the RDS.
Ms. McGovern asked the commissioners for any questions for staff.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 5 of 7
Ms. Rockhill asked how the buses will enter the development and how they will keep people from
crossing the highway.
Mr. Rayes responded the applicant is still working with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
(RFTA). He added the current design shows the bus turning right at the Roxy intersection and then
driving back up to the bus stop at the project. The bus can then turn left at the new intersection.
Mr. Charlie Alexander, Fehr & Peers, is with the applicant team and responded it is not necessary for
pedestrians to cross Hwy 82.
Ms. Benedetti asked staff to confirm the height of the building is 71 FT.
Mr. Rayes responded that was accurate. He pointed out the solar panels will be tilted so the highest
point is 15 FT.
Mr. Gorman asked about the size of the windows.
Mr. Rayes responded the actual size is still being defined and currently the smallest windows is 3 FT 7 IN
x 4 FT. He added they can go with larger windows without coming back to P&Z.
Mr. Gorman asked if a private developer could make the same argument regarding the trade-off
between density and open space.
Mr. Rayes responded the project seeks a balance between density and open space. He added a private
developer may provide private residential units, short term rentals, but these are designated as
affordable housing so there is a public benefit.
Mr. Suazo noted section 8 talks about adequate assurance through an agreement for the care and
maintenance of the open spaces and shared facilities.
Mr. Rayes stated an operational maintenance agreement must be recorded before a Certificate of
Occupancy will be provided. He stated this is identified in section 6.2 of the resolution draft and the
commission may add something more if they want.
Mr. Suazo asked about the how the city will prepare the condo declaration and if a capital reserve study
to ensure the association is aware of how much they need.
Mr. Rayes responded P&Z is not tasked with financing and encouraged him to reach out to Council with
this question.
Mr. Gorman asked why it only states rental in Section 6 the resolution.
Mr. Rayes responded Section 7 covers Building 3.
Mr. Gorman asked about using the AACP since previously the board was told it is not a review
document.
Ms. Johnson responded the board is not bound by it, but it could be uses as a supportive basis for a
decision.
Mr. Gorman asked why a wildlife study was not conducted.
Mr. Everson responded the Parks department had stated not to take on a separate study because Parks
will complete a management use plan for Deer Hill.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Gorman then asked multiple questions about the transportation impact study.
Mr. Everson confirmed the new 50 net vehicle trips per hour. He also confirmed the total peak hour in
the table on page 19 is 99 trips per hour. He assumes approximately half of the residents will move up
from down valley and they assumed the down valley housing would eventually be backfilled, so the
increase was determined at 99 trips.
Mr. Gorman asked about the projected RFTA service and questioned if the proposed RFTA service will
handle the capacity.
Mr. Everson stated the current estimate level of service for a RFTA bus just for the new project will be a
bus every 30 minutes and estimated it will be able to hold 40 people. He added the estimates were
based on the service currently provided for Burlingame.
Mr. Gorman asked several questions about the cycle of the lights.
Mr. Everson and Mr. Alexander responded about the timing of the light cycles.
Mr. Gorman stated a number of intersections on this stretch of Hwy 82 are rated D, E and F based on
the turns. He asked if the new intersection would operate a rating of D, E or F.
Mr. Everson responded there are conditions in future scenarios where it could operate below and could
be based on the queueing effects and where it is located.
Mr. Gorman believes some additional delays will occur due to the loss of time which may exceed the
gain of less commute time and asked if this was accurate.
Mr. Everson responded there will be impacts without mitigation but the proposed mitigation plan
outlines support.
Mr. Gorman asked if the stated summary would reduce emissions by the estimated LBS per year if the
extra delays are accounted for.
Mr. Everson responded more detail about the delays would be needed and this would require a more
detailed model than what is required to submit with the application.
Mr. Gorman asked for confirmation of the building height is 71 FT.
Mr. Rayes confirmed that was accurate.
Ms. McGovern opened for public comment.
Mr. Dylan Johns, Aspen Mountain Rescue (AMR), provided a history of the C B Cameron Rescue Center
and its current uses. He thanked the applicant and staff for their time and effort to work with the
organization during the design of the project to ensure their operation is not impacted by the project
and the phases of development. Mr. Johns noted a letter provided in Exhibit C.12 and feels the applicant
has incorporated their concerns into the design of the project to allow them to maintain operational
readiness, provide alternate vehicle access if the intersection is not working, and identified hardened
security measures for the facility. He added AMR supports providing adequate parking for the residents
of the project and the proposed trail modifications. He closed by stating AMR looks forward to
continuing to work with the applicant on the project.
Ms. Lorraine O’Hara, resident of Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC), stated there are approximately
150 condominiums in the AABC and she has concerns about the increased traffic from the new project.
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2023
Page 7 of 7
She stated the infrastructure in the AABC has poor lighting and has few or no sidewalks forcing many to
walk in the streets including students walking to the community college. She stated there was no traffic
or safety study conducted for the AABC during its construction. She requested the board think about
these issues as well.
Ms. Jill Porcaro, resident of the AABC, stated as of two weeks ago, she had not received any notice. She
wanted to clarify this is not just an industrial area and there are lots of residents with children. She
stated traffic gets backed up to the airport and feels there will be gridlock at the new intersection. She
wondered if the new project provides for visitor parking. She is concerned with pedestrian safety with
no lighting and sidewalks. She added there is a lot of wildlife in the neighborhood. She asked if the
County was aware of the traffic study and the new frontage road. She concluded stating she is not
against the project, but is concerned about its impacts to the neighborhood, residents, and wildlife.
Ms. Kelly McNicholas-Kury, Aspen Burlingame resident, stated she was commenting as an individual and
not a County Commissioner. She recognizes this is a challenging location for a project and acknowledged
the AABC has been designed in a piecemeal fashion. She believes there is a challenge to solve the
mobility issues, but the neighborhood should be forward looking hub for the entire community including
the airport and other areas. She encouraged support for the project and thanked everyone for the effort
toward it.
Ms. McGovern asked for staff rebuttal.
Mr. Rayes feels the comments are relevant and asked the board to consider if they want to add any
language for council to review traffic concerns.
Ms. McGovern asked for applicant rebuttal.
Mr. Everson reiterated they conducted five rounds of community outreach and collected concerns
during this time to considered in the application.
Ms. McGovern then closed public comment.
Ms. McGovern asked the commissioner if they wanted to continue tonight’s hearing or continue to
another date.
After discussion, Ms. Benedetti motioned to continue the hearing until April 18th, 2023 at 4:30pm and
was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes;
Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in
favor. The motion passed.
Ms. McGovern thanked everyone.
ADJOURN
Mr. Gorman motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Benedetti. Ms. McGovern requested a roll
call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for
a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned.
Cindy Klob, Records Manager