Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A_Planned Development Review CriteriaExhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 1 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. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The proposed development is not subject to a regulatory city document. Staff finds this criterion is 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. Staff Findings: The lot currently contains development. The property currently contains Lift 1A and a ski operations building. The Engineering Department outlined specific information needed to comply with the Engineering Design Standards and provide adequate mitigation for natural hazards such as mudflow. With appropriate conditions of approval, staff finds this criterion conditionally met. 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. Staff Findings: The proposed development mimics the natural changes in topography by stepping the design in modules. However, the proposed building is very large and although the modules assist in breaking up the mass, additional consideration needs to be given to reducing the mass, as it does not blend in or enhance the ski mountain. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 2 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. Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing the removal of mature trees along the property’s east service road. The Parks Department has reviewed this application and would like to see these trees preserved. Parks has instructed the applicant to provide a more detailed grading plan showing why these trees require removal, and the amount of fill or cut required up against the trunk of the trees. Parks is also requiring an alternative to preserve the spruce trees adjacent to the Caribou Condominiums. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 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. Staff Findings: The proposed development is oriented with its front entrance towards South Aspen St., which is the only public street that accesses the site. The site is constructed with one large building that contains no access ways through the site, rather, there is just one walkway that starts at the front of the property and wraps the building to the east. The front of this walkway could be particularly problematic for emergency service as this area also serves pedestrians, skiers and ski co when needed. Staff recommends the applicant study the design and provide additional access ways through the site to allow for more effective pedestrian, skier, emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to not be 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. Staff Findings: As part of this proposal the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property to Ski Base Area (SKI). The dimensions of this zone district are set by the adoption of a final development plan, as there are not underlying dimensional standards for this zone district. Therefore the applicant is not requesting any variations from underlying zoning with this PD request. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: The project proposes approximately 70,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The site’s current zoning is Conservation (C) which permits the development of a single-family home on the site. With the requested rezoning to Ski Area Base (SKI) the applicant is requesting a much larger development that includes lodge, commercial space, underground parking, and residential housing. Staff finds the overall size to be too large for the neighborhood in which it is being proposed, Staff finds this criterion to not be met. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 3 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. Staff Findings: The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a small lodge and multi- family residential units. In this sense the proposed uses are compatible with the identity of the neighborhood. However, the scale of the development, proposed as a single building, does not complement the development pattern of the neighborhood. Staff recommends the building be divided into separate structures to support less massing and scale, as well as to provide additional access points through the site. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 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. Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing 61 off-street parking spaces in a sub-grade garage accessed from South Aspen St. As a note: the Lift One Lodge has requirements to maintain four parking spaces at the end of South Aspen St. that may not be removed by Gorsuch Haus. The applicant is proposing to add a public transit stop that has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Dept. The bus stop is part of the MMLOS improvements required for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Findings: The applicant is not requesting any allowances for dimensional flexibility at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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. Staff Findings: The proposed development is subject to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards. The design does not provide a human scale for the project and provides building massing above the Wheeler View Plane and views through the property are not provided. Staff does not find the applicant to effectively meet the design standards related to public amenity or utility location, and find that the trash/recycling area proposed will Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 4 require a Special Review approval by the Environmental Health Dept. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 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: The applicant is proposing to construct the building from stone, wood, and metal with zinc and green roofs. These materials are compatible with those seen in the immediate vicinity, which include wood, metal and stone. 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: In response to the required Traffic Impact Analysis the applicant is proposing a new bus stop with lighting and bench seating at the northern edge of the pedestrian walkway at the front of the site; however, there is no actual vehicle proposed for this stop that is city run, rather a shuttle van is proposed. The applicant is also proposing the addition of bicycle parking across from the bus stop. Additional information is needed to evaluate the shuttle option to verify it is a legitimate option. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 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). 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: Staff Findings: Currently, the engineering department has noted that the proposal does not meet certain standards such as the required width of the cul-de-sac and other design features of the cul-de-sac including the transit stop and the need for sidewalks. The drainage proposed does not currently work with other drainage plans along the S. Aspen Street corridor. Staff does not find this criterion met. 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 applicant has been working with the Engineering Dept. to provide improvements to the site that will upgrade the public infrastructure and facilities in this area. The Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 5 Engineering Dept. has required the applicant to work with adjacent One Aspen project to provide a joint drainage plan that will serve both properties. Further requirements from Engineering are listed as part of Exhibit H – Referral Agency Comments. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally 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 only access way to this site is via S. Aspen St, which is a public roadway. The applicant is proposing to terminate S. Aspen St. in a cul-de-sac, which will also be used as a turn- around for dropping people off to the site, as well as the bus drop-off/loading area. With these uses the cul-de-sac will not remain unobstructed. The applicant is also proposing a perpetual vehicular easement across Lot 3 to provide access to Lot 4. However, this corridor will also serve as ski return to Lift One Park. This may prove to be a conflict of different uses. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.