Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A.1_Project Review_Staff FindingsExhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 1 Sec. 26.445.050 – Project Review Standards The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. a. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Seasonal structures – Staff findings: Seasonal structures were not contemplated when the Aspen Mountain Planned Development was originally adopted. Over the years, the resort has requested seasonal uses on a semi regular basis to accommodate one-off events such as weddings and corporate retreats during winter months. Accommodating such uses is consistent with the uses allowed by-right within the Lodge (L) zone district and are integral to the use of the resort. Amending the PD to allow these structures is consistent with the provisions set forth in the Aspen Mountain PD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Renewable energy equipment – Staff findings: In tandem with the use for seasonal structures is the request to install renewable energy equipment. Heating seasonal structures in the winter months is energy intensive as the structure do not contain thermal envelopes. By installing solar panels and backup battery storage, the energy required to heat these structures can be offset in a sustainable manner. Renewable energy equipment was previously installed on the roof of the St. Regis but no longer in use. Solar arrays are proposed to replace existing equipment. These improvements will comply with the dimensional standards prescribed pursuant to Title 26 of the Land Use Code and the provisions set forth in the PD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Fence height variance – Staff findings: The St Regis Aspen Residence Club and Hotel Condominium is located in the Lodge zone district on Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Aspen Mountain Subdivision was approved via Ordinance 14 Series 1985. When the PUD was created and approved in 1988 there was not a ‘Project Review’ step. Rather, the code at the time provided for a conceptual and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) review, which were then documented on the recorded architectural and site plans for the hotel. There are no existing design, height, or materials recorded for the existing fence along Monarch Street and Juniata Street. At the time the hotel was approved there were no limitations on fence height within the setback. Ordinance #22, Series of 1995, set height limitations for fences for the first time in the Land Use Code as Section 16 read that ‘Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade or as otherwise regulated by the Residential Design Standards…On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs Exhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 2 the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a heigh of forty-two (42) inches” It is reasonable to conclude that the fence height, materials and design were most likely too minor of a detail to rise to the level of being reviewed as part of the original PUD and subsequent amendments. Additionally, at the time the hotel was built there were no limitations on fence height on a street facing façade or within the setback. Although dimensional changes to the fence were never recorded and fence heigh within setbacks and on street facing facades were not part of the hotels approvals as these details were not part of the City’s Land Use Code, staff finds the request to increase fence heights over 6’ and to its highest point at 10’ inconsistent with underlying zoning. These fences per underlying zoning should not be greater than 42” and for building code as they protect a pool, no greater than 48”. Staff finds this criterion to be not met. b. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Seasonal structures – Staff findings: The seasonal structures will be erected on existing courtyards within an already established building envelope. No impacts to natural or man-made hazards are anticipated as part of this work. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Renewable energy equipment – Staff findings: The solar array is contemplated on the existing roof of the lodge and the batteries will be located within established building envelopes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Fence height variance – Staff findings: No new buildings are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Exhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 3 2. The project 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. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Seasonal structures & renewable energy equipment – Staff findings: All improvements related to seasonal structures and renewable energy equipment are limited to areas that are not highly visible from the surrounding neighborhoods. The prominent walls of the resort shield the structures from view from surrounding streets and rights-of-way. The renewable energy equipment will meet setback standards required per Title 26 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Fence height variance – Staff findings: No new buildings are proposed. The proposed change to the site/landscape plan is the request for fencing located within the side and rear setback along the sidewalk ROW. The proposed placement is located where it has historically been located and has a design that is identical to that of the existing fence. The fence is wrought iron and does not disturb the visual character of the existing area. The fence is existing yet the ask of the applicant is to increase the height of the fence to deter animal and human trespass. The requested height, ranging from 6’ to 10’ increase due to change of grade. There is an existing retention wall that currently ranges from grade to 5’-3” in height. The addition of a 42” – 6’ fence in height will significantly increase the visual impacts to the pedestrian experience creating nearly 290 feet of approximately 6’-10’ tall fencing along the sidewalk of Monarch Street and Juanita Street. This does not reflect the neighborhood context and detracts from the visual identify of town. The City has set many standards within the Land Use Code to deter disconnection of pedestrian experiences. These standards are evident in chapters such as the Residential Design Standards and Miscellaneous Standards which clearly intends for fences on street facing facades to only be 42”. Tall fences create visual obstructions, which can negatively impact the pedestrian experience, undermine neighborhood character, and diminish a sense of place. Staff finds this criterion to be not met. d. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 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. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Exhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 4 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Seasonal structures – Staff findings: The maximum dimensions of the seasonal structures are established as part of this review and represented in Table I of the ordinance. No variances or dimensional flexibility is anticipated for these structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Renewable energy equipment – Staff findings: Staff recommends simply memorializing the ability to install renewable energy equipment without identifying specific locations. In this way, maximum flexibility can be exercised to accommodate these improvements. Underlying zoning restrictions (i.e., setbacks) will still apply to equipment located on roofs and other areas that might be visible to the public. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Fence height variance – Staff findings: The project proposes updating fencing to deter human and wildlife. Per Section 26.445.050 – Project Review Standards, Council shall consider the following: “The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process.” PD’s give Council flexibility for dimensional allowances, in this case, staff recommends Council looks to underlying zoning and building code to set the dimensions for fence height. The applicant makes note that at the time of development for the hotel in 1988 there were not limitations on fence height. The PD did not memorialize fence height nor materials at the time of approval and, since then, the PD has remained silent on fencing around the St. Regis. Fence height maximum for the site, per underlying zoning, shall be 42” in height maximum. Because the walkway leads to a pool, staff finds that Building Code’s maximum height for a Barrier of 48” is appropriate (2015ISPSC). Staff finds this criterion to be not met. e. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Exhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 5 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff findings: Commercial design standards are addressed in Exhibit A.2. As for materials- the fence is made of rod iron which staff believes to be appropriate. The seasonal structures are made from temporary materials such as canvas and plastic. While these are generally not appropriate in the cold climate of Aspen, the prominent walls of the resort shield these structures from view in the surrounding area so visual impacts will be minimized. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff findings: None of the proposed improvements will impact existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Staff finds this standard to be not applicable. g. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff findings: None of the proposed improvements are anticipated to impact engineering design standards or the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. h. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff findings: The City Park’s Department provided referral comments for this review and has agreed to remove one apple tree within the right-of-way adjacent to the property and to plant two new trees for which the city will install an irrigation system to maintain watering. These are incorporated as conditions of approval in the ordinance. Exhibit A.1 Planned Development – Project Review Staff Findings Page | 6 The application is to re-install an existing fence at a greater height. Staff finds this standard to be met. i. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff findings: The application is to re-install an existing fence at a greater height. Driveway or parking is not disrupted through this fencing location. Staff finds these standards to be not applicable.