Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960702PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Roger Hunt, Robert Blaich, Timothy Mooney, Steve Buettow, Dave Johnston and Marta Chaikovska present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich asked about the abandoned snowmobiles on Midnight Mine Road, he said there are more every year Dave Michaelson, Staff asked how far up Blaich was. Blaich responded they are before the mine itself, there is also a big trailer that has been left up there, it is a mess. Post Office alteration in the traffic configuration Nick Adeh, City Engineer stated that he has contacted the Engineer who is managing the Post Office project, they have stopped and are returning the parking lot to its original configuration. Adeh said they will put in the one way stop sign at the second driveway, the two stop signs that face the street at the rear exit was intended to be an exit only, he also asked that if they make any changes to come up with a plan because they are impacting public access on public right-of-ways. Roger stated that they have realigned the striping to perpendicular assuming they would have two way traffic. Roger said that Adeh had requested a resolution from the Commission to reinforce his position, he asked the Commission if it would be all right for Adeh to write a resolution citing the problems interfacing with the community. MOTION: Hunt moved to request that the City Engineer write a resolution for the Planning & Zoning Commission citing community concerns and the necessary reinforcements needed to talk with the Post Office. Discussion: Chaikovska asked how we got to this point. Hunt responded that the Post Office is a quasi federal entity that can act in and of themselves, he has heard that they may have been acting on a directive from the US Postal Service that there is not to be public PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 access to the rear of a Post Office, if that is the case they have a problem, it looks like they may need to purchase more land. Chaikovska asked if they are entitled to do whatever they want to do. Michaelson responded that his understanding is the only avenue we have is public health, safety and welfare, he said when they are coming out on a public right-of-way and affecting the circulation system to endanger people or affect other roads it is proper for us to see what we can do. Hunt said their entrance is a private right-of-way but even that is quasi public because they do not have a right to impinge upon a neighbor with their immunity and that is what they are trying to do. Bob Grueter, public stated that someone is going to get hit with the traffic moving two ways, it is scary to walk across. Vicki McKenzie, representing Alpine Ace Hardware said that as it is now everyone uses their parking lot as a circle, with traffic going both ways their customers are endangered nobody is stopping, they are flying through there. John Walla, public has a business in the shopping center adjoining Clark's Market he agrees that this needs to be restored he has people merging out of his parking lot, Clark's and the Post Office, even the normal way can be pretty impossible at times. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. Mooney asked about a house that is being built on the long narrow lot on the corner of Park Avenue & Cooper Street, they have laid the foundation and have some doorways cut but he can not tell where the grade is going to be or what the mass and scale of the next two floors of this house will be, it seems as though it is a test to see how much mass and scale can be put on that corner. Buettow responded that the applicant had to meet with the Community Development Director, Stan Clausen and the Building Inspector, Stephen Kanipe who set the historic grades at the four corners. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Mooney stated that as long as someone has scrutinized this project that was his concern, he said it usually doesn't make an appearance in black and white until it is already up and we can not do anything about it. Garton asked if the four points are averaged or can the points have different heights. Michaelson said they can each have different heights, he said it avoid cutting into a hillside or using the lowest or highest portion of the property, it deals with differences in grade, on site. Michaelson stated the problem with ordinance 30 is we do not have a maximum height at ridge, it depends on the roof pitch, for example at a 28' height limit the home is actually bigger than that. Michaelson said the highest he has seen, at a 28' height limit, the ridge was almost 34'. Buettow stated that he would like to see a maximum on the 8:12 roofs, he feels we were taken advantage of on the Grand Aspen project because there was no maximum, to his recollection a maximum on the 8:12 was asked for but did not appear in writing. Michaelson responded that Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer is drafting provisions to ordinance 30 and in the draft she has completed, she returned the height calculation to an absolute at ridge line as opposed to relative to roof pitch. Hunt stated that with an absolute ridge line you will get the cookie cutter approach, everything will end up looking the same. Michaelson responded that you can still alter a roof pitch, he said that design review, in the method of ordinance 30 will not fix every problem, the biggest issue now is buildings that are both physically and visually, extremely vertical because they are using the roof pitch to get there. Michaelson stated that the concept is that as the roof pitch gets higher and higher the perception of the buildings height helps to temper that, he said he did not agree with that. Hunt said that he is worried that the standard maximum height will have the North of Nell approach to problem solving. Michaelson stated that Rachel Richard's was very concerned about two homes that went up, she asked how they could be 32' with a 28' limitation, she asked that Staff revisit the roof pitch calculation. Buettow said he has heard that someone has been leaving trees on the bike paths on Smuggler. Mooney responded that the property owner has a right to log and he does this every year, he is continuously improving his property. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Minutes MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of June 18, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC HEARING: Colas Investments Conditional Use for ADU & Stream Margin Review Proof of notice provided Bob Nevins, Staff said the applicant is proposing to build two detached single- family residences on a vacant 13,155 s.f. lot in the R-6 zone district off of Park Avenue and Regent Street, adjacent to Garrish Park. Nevins stated that Garrish Park is to the West of the property and the Roaring Fork river is to the South, this project has been reviewed by the Design Review Appeals Commission, they dealt with the building orientation, the massing and scale within the public viewplane, the set back on Garrish Park, and the ~no window" zone which is part of ordinance 30, at that time the ADU entered the living room in the primary residence. Nevins stated that there is some concern with standard C relating to vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery and emergency access, this is a technical issue that can be resolved at a staff level, standard F relates to survey, plat, construction of retaining walls and fire access, the closest point to the irrigation ditch is 5'. Nevins said the ADU's are studio units located above the garage with separate private cover, exterior entry and have approximately 390 s.f. of net livable area, there is an interior linkage to the primary residence, we are not asking that the interior access be eliminated, in terms of the Stream Margin Review the site is within 100 horizontal feet of the Roaring Fork River however vertically it is considerably higher and does not impact the river. Staff recommends approval of the two ADU's and Stream Margin Review with conditions. Garton asked if the applicant is requesting an FAR bonus. Nevins responded that above units get 250 s.f. or half that area, whichever is less so out of 390 s.f. they would be assessed 195 s.f. per ADU, in terms of FAR. Garton stated that they have an additional 390 s.f. on this building because of the ADU's. Garton said that she looked at this site and it is tight, she said she would hate to see this bonus. Mr. Jan Derrington, representing the applicant said the bonus is for utilizing the fact that the ADU's are above grade. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Garton stated that the Commission could request cash-in-lieu instead of approving the ADU' s. Derrington responded that they are not taking the maximum bonus of 500 s.f., they are taking less than 400 s.f. Garton asked if the Panna Boats site plane is affected. Derrington responded that they are 5' higher so they will see the ends of the accessory dwelling units, they will, in effect appear to be a one story house, he said that they had no problem with this, in fact they are talking with the developer to allow an easement on their property so they can build the stacked stone wall and relandscape. Buettow asked if the applicant would be coming back before the Design Review Commission for the 9' to 12' "no window" zone. Derrington responded they are not putting those in, they will go through with the building permit and see what happens with ordinance 30 revisions. Nevins stated the windows are allowed however, they will double the FAR, the intent was an increase in volume, decrease the mass. Derrington stated that using the windows is the wrong vehicle to control volume. Hunt said that he was concerned about the appearance of this from Garrish Park and the Parks Department concerns did not show up in any conditions. Nevins responded that Parks concerns were how will planting and landscaping along Garrish Park minimize the impact of the proposed residences. Garton asked if this development would preclude future trail connections across the easements there. Nevins said it would not. Hunt asked if they plan to have the trail along the North side of the river bank. Nevins responded that it is very steep and there are residences to the East and Southeast that cut off any potential trail connection on that side of the river. Nevins said he thinks a bridge crossing will be the key link through Garrish Park. Johnston stated that there is a large emphasis on vehicular access, widths, driveway, emergency access, this could change the architecture. Nevins responded that if they can address it on a technical level, it would be sufficiently worthy within a condition of approval, if it dramatically changes the site solution the applicant will need to come back and review a new project. Mooney asked the width of the driveway to the corner of Bibbig's house. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Derrington said there is a 20' easement however, Bibbig's garage encroaches approximately 2' so there is about 18' from the edge of the property line to the corner of the garage, he said they are proposing a 12' wide, paved area in the middle of the 18' Adeh stated that an easement is not a fully dedicated access to multiple housing units. Garton asked the applicant if the rock wall condition will be a problem, it encroaches into the neighbors property. Derrington said the adjacent landowners have indicated a willingness to work with the applicant to allow him to excavate further into their side of the property line to construct the stacked boulder wall and relandscape. Garton asked if the houses can be so close together, for fire, ect... Nevins responded it is within the code in the R-6 zone district, permitted uses on lots over 9000 s.f., he said the important thing is that we are reviewing conditional use for two ADU's and Stream Margin Review, whether these units are there or not, we will still have to meet the review standards for the single family residences: 1) fire access; 2) construction easement from adjoining property owners; 3) mitigation of the building along Garrish Park, in terms of landscaping and; 4) off street parking. Nevins said this neighborhood has no on street parking. There were no public comments, Garton closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton said this is such a marginal site and we are compromising so many things that are important to the safety of the community, she said that she knows we are only here to look at ADU's and Stream Margin Review but she would like to vote against the application because it is the only way she can get at the application to say there is too much going on this parcel that is not appropriate for this site. Mooney stated that he would make a motion to deny the application because it does not comply with criteria "C", the impact of the traffic, the design and operating characteristics have adverse affects, he lives in that neighborhood and he knows what a circus Bibbig's house is, the house on Park Avenue to the South of Bibbig's house has an apartment, it just makes the intersection at Park Avenue PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 inoperable, to have two single family dwelling units and two ADU' s. Mooney said it is the kind of neighborhood we want that density in, but this is extreme density. Derrington asked the Commission if they are voting to approve or deny ADU's and if they comply with Stream Margin Review criteria, he said the Commissions personal views on whether this fits the criteria of neighborhood compatibility or not is not an issue. Garton responded that for an ADU it is. Michaelson said that an ADU has criteria that deals with compatibility of the neighborhood. Derrington stated that it was his understanding that was the reviewed with the Design Review Appeals Commission. Nevins stated that Design Review is more of an aesthetic review, it is not really meant to address technical aspects, in terms of parking and so forth, it reviews the impact of the garage on the street but does not address the operational characteristics of getting in and out of the garage and how people park. Derrington said that he would like to recommend that if there are issues such as standards "C" that some members of this Commission feel have been insufficiently addressed that the applicant be allowed to have additional time to get input from the Engineering Department and the Fire Marshall and come back at a later date, rather than being denied at this time. Chaikovska asked Garton if the two ADU's were removed would she still object to this project. Garton responded that it helps alleviate the parcel for her, she finds that it does not meet condition "B" or "C" for conditional uses, she feels the parcel can not support four residential dwellings. Hunt stated that he is uneasy about this application for some of the reasons stated, he said at this point he would not be against tabling this application. Nevins asked if the applicant can adequately address the issues of fire, off street parking and the construction easement and come back to the Commission would that be reason enough to change the consideration of the conditional use. Buettow said that we have given a 190 s.f. bonus to each building, making them larger and the fact that the two buildings are squeezing on to a small site leads him to feel more at ease with each of them being a single family house rather than each being multiple families that will impact the vehicular traffic, driveways, ect... PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Mooney stated that it not just the fire access, it is the location, the size, the design and the operating characteristics, this is a 13,000 s.f. lot, but 1/3 of that is below a steep bank in the Stream Margin Review area and partially unusable so he thinks the density that the size of this site allows and the way the density is pushed back, deteriorates from the design and operating characteristics of not only these two houses but three of the four other houses in this area. Blaich said that when the fire evaluation is done, he feels the Fire Marshall should determine how many people are living in the other house and how many cars will be there, it could be that they may not be able to get in, he would like to see a condition that no one park there under any circumstances because of public safety. Blaich stated that if this goes to vote as it stands, he will vote against because he does not feel comfortable with the project, the Design Review minutes dealt with aesthetics and windows. Garton said the Commission should determine whether the applicant should bring back the ADU's with this new information or does the majority of the Commission feel the four residential units are too much. Nevins stated that in the applicants calculations for FAR they have done a reduction of 25%, regardless of whether these ADU's are there or not, the ADU s.f. will go into the allowable FAR. Garton said the 195 will be figured into it with or without the ADU. Nevins stated that it will be part of the allowable FAR for that site. Garton asked Nevins to include, in future memos whether the applicant is asking for a bonus and the calculations. Nevins stated that he did not consider this a bonus because the ADU comes out of the private residential s.f. that they can not use for their own use. Nevins said they could technically put the unit under the garage and not have any of it count against them. Hunt stated that he would be more comfortable with this without the ADU's and the impact of the additional two family units. In a straw vote for the appropriateness of two ADU's on this site, the Commission voted 6-1 against. Derrington said that they are sufficiently below the allowable FAR, we could go in and build the project, pretty much as is without the ADU so the bulk and mass will not go away. Blaich stated that he recognizes that but there will not be two extra family units there. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Derrington stated that whether or not Bibbig has 10 people more, living in his house than allowed by the code is out of our control and we can not deal with that, we can try to get the right-of-way dedicated for access and we would be building the driveway and intersection to the street to city standards, he said they would be glad to do landscape enhancement at the street intersection and or along the driveway and regrade part of his top parcel that was necessary to make his parking area and lawn accessible. Derrington said that we do not know, definitely that the people who rent this place will have a car, they may walk everywhere and their car might just sit there, he said it is hard to second guess the use of the ADU's. Derrington stated that he would prefer to have this tabled to discuss the ramifications with the owner. MOTION: Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing for the Colas Investments for Conditional Use Review for two Accessory Dwelling Units and Stream Margin Review to 8/6/96, at the request of the applicant. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. Mooney asked if this was split off of Bibbig's PUD, maybe there are some references in this PUD that will help determine what kind of dedicated right-of-way we can expect. PUBLIC HEARING: Waterplace Affordable Housing Final SPA Review Steve Buettow stepped down. Proof of notice provided Michaelson stated that this is a request for Final SPA approval for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Affordable Housing project, it calls for development of 22 deed restricted affordable housing units and the renovation of one unit which will make 23 deed restricted units as well as significant improvements to the water treatment facilities, the City Council approved the conceptual SPA on May 22, 1996, ordinance 15, series 1996, the conditions of approval were identical to the ones from the Planning Commission hearings. Michaelson said in addition to Final SPA approval the applicants are requesting Subdivision to create the 4.39 parcel that will be developed for housing as well as a subdivision of the residential parcels, in addition the applicants are required to obtain conditional use approval for affordable housing in a public zone district, a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing (will be approved by Council), Special Review for parking, open space, and dimensional requirements for affordable housing projects as well as 8040 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Greenline Review, the Housing Office has approved the mix and a request to reduce the net livable in some of the single family units to approximately 1400 s.f. Michaelson stated that there have been three changes since conceptual approval; 1) Doolittle Road, we have always struggled with Doolittle Road, up until this point they could not get a design that met city standards in terms of grade and turning radius, those issues have been addressed; 2) when the topo's were completed the designs were slightly changed, the units on the East side of Doolittle became a little more constrained into the open space, to stay away from the slope, Staff supports that, we would rather them get tighter and closer together than into the oak scrub on the edge of the slope or the slopes behind that and; 3) the single family units on the West side of Doolittle, Council was concern that the design was somewhat traditional it proposed a single cul-de-sac, it was more vehicular friendly than pedestrian friendly, now there are two road cuts accessing the six units, the circulation is narrower and less dominate than a cul-de-sac, there is also a series of hammerheads to provide access and turn around, it is a little more consistent with Council's direction to Staff to look at some new urbanism concepts to limit the impact of the automobile and make these units function more as a neighborhood, he thinks this design does that. Michaelson stated that several members of the public said the bus stop on Castle Creek and Doolittle had some problems, busses are in a travel lane when they pull over and there is very little dwell space for people waiting to board the bus, he has proposed to move the bus stop back 10', bring out a bus pocket to get the bus out of the travel lane and a slight realignment of the trail, one justification for this site and density proposed is, it is close to transit, there is a proposed trail down the slope that will access the RFTA bus stop and he thinks that it is a reasonable expectation on the city to improve the bus stop. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Hunt asked if a plan for major grading or contour changes has been submitted. Michaelson responded that there is a map that shows existing and proposed grading, one thing that helped is that the topo lines got a little more extreme pushing in the envelopes as you get closer to the loop, he said for the most part they have done a pretty good job keeping those envelopes off the slopes particularly on the single family side. Hunt stated that one of his major concerns is the buildings along the hill, he does not want to see a scar hanging out in front of our faces. Michaelson stated that they reviewed the grading plan but he is not sure they can say what the cut will be, up there. Tom Stevens, representing applicant said that once they received the accurate topo information it required a change of virtually everything on this project, he said that they will have about 3' of grade change and on those particular units they are proposing basements that will sink the side of the building and the siding will 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 follow existing grade. Stevens stated that they can not represent that construction will not scar the site. Hunt asked if the buildings are visible from Castle Creek Road. Stevens said they would. Hunt asked if it would give the appearance of a tall building on that side. Scott Smith, Gibson-Reno architects responded that there will be a vegetative buffer, at an angle you may see the top of the roof. David Hauter, Asset Manager stated that he supports the improvement and re- building of the bus stop, he said he received a letter from Castle Ridge about some large boulders on the steep hillside, they would like those to be removed and it will be looked into. Hauter said this is not a conventional, drive to your front door suburban type site plan, the transportation components have been emphasized, the architecture is responsive to the new urbanism influences and if this project is approved they would like to start the construction on the traffic corridor this fall, the project will probably be built out over two years and the final phase of Doolittle Drive improvements, the curb and gutter will probably not come until after the housing is built which may not start, in earnest until next Spring. Mooney stated that he felt comfortable with the design and development work of the affordable housing project, but was not aware of the expansion of the water treatment facility in conjunction with the work that is going to be done, there will be an additional 10,000 s.f. of facility at the water treatment plant. Mooney said that when square footage is expanded mitigation is required, will we be told, after the expansion of 10,000 s.f. that these houses will be needed to mitigate the what the water treatment expansion. Michaelson stated that essential public facilities are exempt from GMQS however, Council has to find that waiving that mitigation is warranted and appropriate. Hauter said they are consolidating things at the plant, they are tearing down an existing building and moving 5 people up to the plant, the plant has approximately 15 people and that is not going to change. Hauter stated that the new chlorine response building will not add additional personnel, it is an incident command center, it is new square footage but not new people. Jay Hammond, Consultant stated that one of the consistent concerns raised by the neighbors is the access up into the site, as Doolittle passes the Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge entries it runs through a fairly sharp curve and climbs steeply into the lower site, the existing road has a radius, in the lower curve of about 65', it is 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 upwards of 11 and 12% in some of the steeper areas, there is a tendency to rush this road to get up it due to its steep conditions and short curve radius. Hammond said the grade maximum, they would like to stick to is about 10%, the radius called for in the regulations is a minimum of 100', he said they have drawn the road to meet city standards, the effort has been to stay as closely as possible to the existing platform to minimize disturbance in both directions above and below the road cut. Hammond said their assumption on the lower slope has been that they would bring it back to 2:1 to catch existing grade, it might go a little bit steeper, this will tend to minimize the cut requirements by not pushing the curve up into the slope, on the flip side with the curve radius at 100' there will be more of a cut condition, there will be a boulder retaining wall of around 4' in height, this will also help minimize the slope disturbance. Hammond noted that there is a little bit of reverse curve as it ties into the upper alignment, it looks a little funny but there is a fixed structure at the Meadow Wood Pump Station and a couple of water line crossings in the area that are also fixed, the road can not swing across or we will get into the pump station and a lot more complexity with respect to utility disturbance on the main transmission line. Stevens stated that he met with the Parks Department and have reviewed a revegetation plan, the county has a seed mix they would like used, with that they will use a combination of top soil and sand mixture and a temporary irrigation system for at least the first growing season, he said he anticipated the first two. Hammond said there have been discussions on trying to establish traffic calming efforts on the road alignment to keep speed down, they are posting 20 m.p.h, at the top and at the entry as the road passes the Twin Ridge intersection, they will include signs restricting cyclists from using the lower portion of the road, at the intersection of the housing and Doolittle drive they show a two-way stop, the concern of a four-way stop is that it will generate a noise problem for the housing, there will be a grade descending sign at the top of the grade so that truck traffic will know to use the low gear. Stevens stated that they can not make this project disappear it is two-story residential structures, if driving by on 82 or flying you are going to see this project, what can be done is to incorporate as many measures as possible to reduce the impact of it so we will not see blank facades lined up across the hill. Stevens said the East side of the project is concept driven, it is fairly flat and what has come through all of the meetings is the desire for an auto disincentive, pedestrian oriented, socially interactive design and he feels this designs speaks well to that, all of the homes are oriented on to a central open space, the architecture has oriented the kitchens to the open space, spaces have been designed for outdoor living areas 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 and Rocky Mountain Institute has suggested that individual areas be identified for garden space, the parking is clustered on the project, they have pitched the parking lot in grade down so it will be buried 2' at the edge, they will bring the earth along the road up 2', it is a fairly gentle mound so it won't look like an earth fence but in combination there will be 4' of hard buffer between the road and the end units, in addition scrub oak has been added to help minimize the impact. Stevens stated that the West side is single-family detached, Council did not want to see the conventional cul-de-sac design that was presented at the conceptual submission, they wanted the road to play a lessor important role in the layout of those units, to maintain fire access they have basically designed a driveway, the slope on this site became an asset as it dictated stepping these units into the hillside creating garage or unfinished basement space. Smith stated that two of the most important architectural features on this project were the overall building massing and materials, with the massing they were hoping to use simple building shapes and volumes, the roofs are simple gables, cross gables, a few gable dormers to add interest to the facades. Smith said they added simple shed porches at the entries, all the units have a 6' deep entry porch breaking up the vertical massing as well as creating a nice interaction space, the units were staggered slightly so it will not be a long row of uninterrupted facades and a tall row a buildings, the end units were stepped down from two-story units to one-story also reducing the visual mass and softening the edges. Smith said the out buildings were kept very low and simple and will use the same materials as the units, the materials selected are primarily traditional natural materials, the siding combination of horizontal lap wood siding, cedar shingle siding, rough sawn cedar plywood and batten siding and an untreated corrugated metal siding in some locations will break up the massing, the roofing materials anticipated would be asphalt shingles, untreated corrugated metal roofing that will weather to a dark rust brown color and some type of treated corrugated metal roof that will have a darker gray color to it, by mixing the colors and materials throughout, the project will maintain visual interest, break up the massing and scale of the buildings and add a personalized touch for the individual units. Stevens stated that P&Z provides a final vote on the Conditional Use to allow affordable housing in the public zone district, Special Review for parking, open space and the dimensional requirements and 8040 Greenline. Stevens said the parking has been divided into two different types, there is a total of 35 spaces on the East side, two spaces per each one, two and three bedroom unit, one space for each studio and four spaces for guests, on the West side, the single-family each unit has a two car garage with the exception of the existing home which has a two 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 car surface in addition to that there is an additional two car apron behind the garage. Garton asked what the handkerchief parking lot on the other side of the chlorine response area is. Stevens responded that the Water department wanted additional parking spaces for the chlorine response building, he does not know that they will ever be used, except in the case of an emergency. Stevens stated that the dimensional requirements need to be set by the design of this project, the setbacks are probably the most substantial of the requirements, with the triplex building we can not have a side yard setback because there is a unit in the middle, all of the other units have a 5' total or zero because it is a duplex and has zero on one side which means it has to have at least 5' on the other side, the minimum lot size is taken directly off the lot plan, they are 2000 s.f. for the townhouse unit, 5850 s.f. for the single-family detached units, the FAR is set for · 5:1 for single-family detached and .75:1 for attached, that is a little higher than the square footage right now but the building envelopes provide limited space for expansion room on these homes, so we have asked for an FAR that will accommodate that expansion, the U.B.C code requires a legal egress window in any basement space and that now adds to s.f., if the basement is finished out it will get into light and ventilation that may require another window that will count towards FAR, they want to provide for the potential expansion. Stevens said the building height has been set at 28', 25' works for this if needed, the project fits in this site and he does not see any weak links in the design, taking into account the existing vegetation, grading, and physical restraints and we have still maintained the design integrity of what they started out to do. Blaich asked what the surface of the parking lot and driveways will be. Stevens responded they will be asphalt. Blaich asked what the promenade will be. Stevens said it may be concrete and along side that a grass paving system will have to be used. Blaich said if it is concrete it could be stained to look more natural. Blaich suggested that the emergency parking behind the small building also be the grass paving. Garton said she has trouble with the traffic studies that say the applicant only has to pay $5000 for the impacts generated by this project for the intersection at Maroon Creek and Castle Creek road. Hammond responded that with respect to the intersection at Castle/Maroon and Highway 82 is effectively funded through the Highlands and Moore projects, in process through Pitkin County, there is 1.3 million dollars, between the two 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 projects available for the improvements of that intersection and other elements of their road plan in that area. Hammond said they are not contributing more toward that intersection condition what they are contributing toward is the lower portion of Castle Creek road from the hospital entry down to the intersection with Maroon Creed road. Garton said that at the worksession this Commission said that because we are asking Hines and the Moore property to contribute to this intersection that the city contribute to what is going on at that intersection, she feels the city has to pay into that, it is adding a community to the Castle Creek valley and $5000 is too low. Hunt asked if anyone had walked from the bus stop up to this site, is there any idea what sort of grade it is, he would like to know how practical that is going to be and how far is the farthest unit from the parking. Smith responded that it is approximately 220'. Hunt said that is approximately one city block, that can be a long walk if your carrying a full bag of groceries, he asked how they are dealing with the ADA regulations on handicapped access. Stevens said they would set up the two closest spaces and two closest units as ADA accessible units. PUBLIC COMMENTS Maxine Jacobs, public, Manager of Castle Ridge stated that she turned in a letter concerning the "precarious" boulders behind the 700 building, she said if they do come down they will hit the building. Stevens responded that from a practical standpoint they can probably move a boulder that size, he is worried about accessing it, they can not access it from below and if we come in from the top we will have to take out a swab of scrub oak and even then he does not know if the arm of the machinery will reach the boulder, he did say they will explore the area and respond to the letter. Bill Brumworth, public, manages Mountain Oaks across the street from Castle Ridge said that his concerns are the bus stop and he appreciates how the cooperative the city has been about that, he would like to stress that he thinks it should be a separate one way bus lane to get the bus off the road, school buses use the same turn and the radii is not sufficient for the bus to get off the road leaving the tail of the bus sticking out into the road and if the school bus comes behind it is in the road, he thinks there should be some type of cross walk coming across from the health and human services building to get people safely to the bus stop, he said 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 speeding traffic is the biggest issue, we now have posted speed limit signs of 25 m.p.h, and they are useless, they do nothing to slow people down. Brumworth stated that he thinks eventually the road will need a dip or speed bump, the current speed limit of 25 m.p.h, is still too fast and he questions whether 20 is still 5 m.p.h. too fast. Brumworth said that this area is a Wildlife zone and dogs are not allowed, he is in the position of having to keep dogs out of the complex and not allow tenants to bring dogs on the property, at some point, when Twin Ridge was built dogs were allowed in the single-family homes in a fenced yard or on a leash at all times, that has not worked at all, he is leery of the idea of having dogs up the street, he also asked that dogs of construction workers be addressed. Brumworth also stated that he would like to encourage the city to line up the construction projects to have the least amount of impact on the neighbors, wouldn't it be better to get the road finished instead of coming back after the houses are built, he is concerned because he has a lot of emergency room nurses and others that sleep during the day. Hauter stated that the bus stop is in the county and he will ask that the City Engineer work with the county on every concern that Mr. Brumworth mentioned. Brumworth added that he has been trying to get that bus stop cleaned up for a long time, he has controlled the thistle on that property and maintained the dead trees, it always has trash around and he asked that the city support cleaning it up. Georgia Hansen, public asked that the people who live in the townhomes at Twin Ridge be considered or involved in the placement of lighting, because they are eye level on the second floor of their units, all of those lights will be shining directly in the bedroom windows. Hauter responded that they have agreed to have subdued lighting. Hansen is also concerned about the construction, she said she knew they would be impacted but if they could be impacted for as little time as possible it would be nice, she is a realist and knows they have to be built, she asked that they all be built at the same time. Hauter responded that they will be phased over approximately two years. Hansen agreed with Garton that the intersection is untenable, this project will come on-line before Hines or Moore, the intersection needs improvements and Highlands group has offered to go ahead and do them but the political process is going to disallow that the money be spent on improvements at the intersection, depending on what happens, that 1.3 million could sit there for 10 years while they decide whether they want to spend it on trains or intersection improvements. Garton asked how practical it will be to go back in and do curb and gutter on such a narrow road when a community is living there. Hauter responded that the 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 concept is to pave the road and it has only been a suggestion to come back and do the curb and gutter. Adeh said that he is trying to phase this because winter will be here soon and construction costs will double and even triple in cost. Hunt said that he likes the idea of a double overlay, (paving the road, building the houses and coming back with a new layer of road and curb and gutter) because running that much construction traffic for a year it will ruin the mat that is down. MOTION: Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Final SPA Development Plan, Amendment of the Aspen Water Treatment Plant SPA, Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing and Essential Public Facilities, Subdivision, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use and Special Review for Parking, Open Space and Dimensional Requirements in the Public Zone District for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project, subject to the following conditions: 1) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2) The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a period of 180 days following approval by the City Council shall render the PUD approval invalid and reconsideration and approval by the Commission and City Council will be required before the acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by the City Council for a showing of good cause. 3) A final stormwater drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any development permits. 4) The applicant shall sign Doolittle Road as 20 miles per hour, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 5) The proposed pedestrian loop on the east side of Doolittle Road shall be approved by the Fire Marshall for emergency access purposes. 6) The final plat shall have signature blocks for all utilities. 7) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for construction of right-of- way improvements in adjacent and neighborhood public rights-of-way. 8) The final SPA Plan must show, dimension, and number all parking for the development. 9) The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way from City Streets Department. 10) Native vegetation to be retained shall be protected to the maximum extent practical, including the establishment of building envelopes outside of the existing oak scrub. Construction fencing shall be erected at the dripline around all protected vegetation adjacent to structures, trails or roads prior to the issuance of any excavation, grading, or building permits. Any exposed roots must be protected during construction per Parks Department direction. 11) Street light fixtures and locations shall be approved by the Community and shown on the Final SPA Plan. 12) Mud shall not be tracked onto City Streets during construction. 13) Prior to acceptance of financial assurances for the project, the cost estimates of improvements must be approved by the City Engineer. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 14) A line extension agreement and appropriate fees will be required per Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Regulations. 15) Homeowners covenants must provide for snow removal on any sidewalks and trails approved through this development review. 16) Street names shall meet the approval of the City Engineering Department. 17) The single family home size variance is allowed for net livable area less that the 1,400 square feet. 18) The deed restrictions shall be 12 Resident Occupied units and 11 Category 4 units. 19) The eventual trail alignment shall be staked for review by the Community Development Department, and shall avoid as much existing vegetation as practical. Snow removal on the trail shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 20) Residents from adjacent residential neighborhoods should be included in the planning and design of the proposed park. The park should be adequately fenced or screened with vegetation to keep children from straying onto Doolittle Drive. The applicant shall submit a park design to the Parks Department for approval prior to the recording of a final SPA Plan. 21) A park development impact fee will be granted in exchange for the applicant's commitment to design and construct park development activities (grading, drainage, top soil, seeding and vegetation). 22) No fireplaces are approved for the development. 23) A fugitive dust plan shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of any grading, excavation, utility, demolition, or building permits. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 24) Financial guarantees for landscaping, revegetation, and public facilities improvements must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the issuance of any development permits for the project. 25) The applicant shall submit pavement treatments for the crossing of Doolittle Drive for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to the recording of a Final SPA Plan. 26) All construction shall be consistent with the Geotech report recommendations conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 27) the applicant shall be required to present evidence to Council that the GMQS exemption and the associated mitigation waivers are appropriate and warranted. 28) the concrete paths shall be colored to reflect a more natural appearance. 29) the applicant shall confirm that the proposed road impact mitigation is consistent with the relative impact of the project on the Castle Creek, Maroon Creek and Highway 82 intersection. 30) the applicant shall address the rocks located above Castle Ridge apartments and; 31) the applicant will continue working with RFTA and the County to make improvements to the bus stop at Doolittle and Castle Creek Road. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. Buettow stepped down. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Mountain PUD 20 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Michaelson said this is a continued public hearing, on June 24th we went up and did some field work at that point geotechnical issues were paramount to P&Z tabling the project, the geotech report has been received and sent to the State Geologist for their comments, Staff suggests that the application be tabled to a special meeting on July 23, 1996. Michaelson noted that the application is in compliance with the PUD standards, in terms of FAR, Open Space, Height, a zone text amendment is being proposed as part of this application, a trail easement is an issue because; 1) building envelopes have been proposed on it and; 2) it does not go anywhere, Parks has indicated that they would like a portion of the easement to be retained, we looked at working with the Ski Company to locate the easement on a secondary catwalk that is right above the property line it runs on top of the cribbing that is below the water tower, it continues along the ridge and ideally dropping as close to the Gondola as possible, or at least on the other side of town, Parks was willing to entertain this because they have some links along Shadow Mountain. Michaelson said the $250,000 that was put up to avoid having to put in a detention basin is in escrow, the City Engineer's perspective is that we should do a Master Drainage plan for Aspen Mountain, one issue was did that $250,000 remove the applicant from any responsibility to negotiate easements that may be the outcome of that drainage plan. Michaelson stated that the States review of the geotechnical report will drive alot, in terms of building envelopes, he overlaid three of the building envelopes that have significant impacts, he thinks the envelopes can be shifted to avoid having to retain the back of those structures. Hunt said the trail easement was hoped to connect to the trail that ran between the Hemmeter house and the Durant Condominiums. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant stated that the trail was platted as part of the overall PUD, when the conceptual approval was granted by City Council for the prior proposal it became apparent that that trail alignment would not work and a P&Z reso recommended that the trail be vacated, there is a trail depicted on City trail documents, running in an East West direction, the attempt was to connect Shadow Mountain to Ute Avenue. Vann stated that the other trail remains as platted, he said in the old days, there is a cut that comes straight down the hillside where the water line comes from the tank down, it used to be the old rope tow from the Ski Club that went up to the second catwalk, they would use that to the top, come over and ski down to 1A and at the end of the day they would ski down the water line easement, many people still do. Mooney said that maybe the Parks Department could meet with the Ski CO because it is in everybody's best interest to straighten this out so it flows. 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Garton stated that she would like to see the Ski CO's response to the runoff through Lot 3. Vann stated that as part of the prior conceptual approval they identified a retention structure on the site, in exchange for getting rid of that retention structure Savanah kicked in $250,000 which the city holds in escrow, that money was earmarked for a very specific purposes, to study the drainage issue on Aspen Mountain, to use for mitigation on construction improvements or to obtain easements that may be necessary to accommodate the resulting drainage solution. Vann stated that what they have represented in this application and the City Attorney did not disagree was they have no on-site retention obligation at this point, they have cashed out of that, they have expressed to the city a willingness to work with them to try and come up with a solution to the off-site drainage issues. Vann said they need to find out from Council if they have a conceptual project, in terms of; 1) the interpretation of the 47 units and whether or not Council will adhere to that concept; 2) the proposed development for Lot 5 is an acceptable design concept and; 3) that the development of Lot 3, as proposed is an acceptable design concept, if there is a project at Council then they are willing to step forward and do the additional work from an Engineering nature to prepare a final application and come back, if those final recommendation and mitigation requirements imply significant changes to either Lot 3 or Lot 5 then he suspects that Staff will take the position that they will have to come back at the conceptual level and revise the plan, they are comfortable, at this point in taking that risk, they believe they will be able to mitigate, from the information provided to date the problems associated with off-site drainage without having to significantly redesign this project. Garton said the geotech report is based on a 10 year old study and that concerns her, is the state going to come back and ask for updated information. Michaelson said he could see a scenario where the state asks for the monitoring that the Ski CO has done, he said they may do what they did last time, that was we can do one of two things, we can stop and think about it or deal with it from a project specific mitigation perspective. Michaelson stated that they did not say this is unbuildable. Garton stated that there are so many caveats in this report, for example, "However most of the remedial actions recommended in the 1985 for Strawpile have not been implemented. The skiing company should be approached to determine if they are willing to cooperate by making available the information they have developed over the years to the redevelopment project." John Sarpa, representing the applicant stated that the Engineering Department is now selecting a consultant to put together a master hydrological plan for the whole area, a lot of people will be involved in the process. 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Vann stated that they do not expect that the results of this process will be that they can not develop this site, he expects it will be flood proofing, structural mitigation on some of the homes, perhaps channeling water through certain areas on the site, they believe those can be accommodated in the concept they have put forward. Garton asked if the Commission approves conceptual, will the applicant have leverage later on. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that they would not if the approval is properly conditioned. Vann responded that they have no vested rights, they have told the City Attorney and will go on record that they are willing to take the condition that this is contingent upon the solution of some of these issues. Mooney stated that he thinks there are other concepts that might work, if the road came around behind the houses and then move the houses on the 8040 taking them out of the 8060, the road cut would have a wall and underground drainage systems, water could come out of the wall into underground drains that could drain down to Mill Street, the road would then be behind the houses and the viewplanes of the houses would be protected. Vann responded that the one concept the team has been charged with is how to put something up there that will have the least amount of impact, when the fill is removed and it is back to natural grade, even though the three homes are above the 8040 they are not higher up the hill, to cut the hillside and build a much bigger road, he believes will ultimately have a higher visual impact than trying to tuck these homes into the tull of the slope. Sarpa said one of the strongest objectives they had was to minimize any visual impacts, what drove the road where it is now is the quite significant slope and if landscaped, as shown you will be looking at the trees, the shrubs and the landscaping, if the road is moved around back and the homes are pushed forward they will be exposed and they won't have the ability to shield, from the town what has been pushed forward. Mooney stated that the idea of not knowing how much water will drain through there, it may be none but if there is and you have this buffer around the outside and you have a storm drain that brings it logically around you have a different plan that mitigates a different problem. 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Sarpa responded that if they came back assuming something of this nature was approved and the drain studies show that this plan will not work, they are willing to take that risk, they believe, from what they know from their engineers is that the likelihood of a major impact to this design is very minimal, the state may disagree but they are willing to assume that risk because if they do not, it may be a year and a half before they get a conceptual approval done. Vann stated that they would rather have good site planning drive this design and solve an engineering problem, with respect to drainage as opposed to coming up with the simplest solution to the drainage and having it drive the site design. Vann said that the town benefits from a better project. Adeh stated that flood control is an issue for the community overall, the 1973 Master Plan called for a massive retention pond, there is a difference between retention and detention, retention is holding the water until it evaporates, seeps or whatever, detention is holding the water and releasing it. Adeh said detention may be required to ease the flow of the water through the parcels because today one of the most important things being promoted in this community is the multiple use of land, flood driving is a very important concept through the landscape buffers. Adeh stated that because the funds are being given by an applicant that does not mean it must be an application driven Master Plan so many interest groups will be invited to put together a design task force together to develop this planning tool. Sarpa clarified that Staff, the City Engineer and City Attorney did not have any objections with them proceeding with conceptual, with conditions based on the engineering and the applicant would take the risk that they may have to come back with conceptual or they may be able to address them in final. Hoefer stated that has been the position from day one and we do not want to misrepresent that to anyone. Vann asked what P&Z would like to see, in the way of visual tools to review the impact of this proposal from Aspen Mountain and Lift 1A. Vann said that the Fifth Avenue Condominiums, is concerned for the lower unit as to its view, Bill Poss will try to put together some information and address that concern and get back with the studies of the impacts and what can be done to help alleviate the problem. 24 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Garton asked that the landslide consideration be addressed. Sarpa stated that they would be addressing everything raised in their report, in one way or another before the Commission has to decide anything on final. Michaelson stated that he thinks the view from Aspen Mountain, on skis is every bit as important as the viewplanes that are identified in the code for town. Michaelson said that he would like the applicant to identify areas where the development will not be seen and where it will be seen. Bill Poss, architect asked that Staff identify some viewplanes because it is a big, open area. Blaich said that computer generated design to look at different sitelines would be helpful. Vann stated that they can go up on the Mountain and attempt to photograph Lot 3 from a variety of vantage points, they can take photos up the middle of Little Nell, from Kleenex Corner, Slalom Hill, Strawpile, or the base of the restaurant. PUBLIC COMMENTS Doug Nehaus, public thanked the applicants for working with everyone, he would like to be included in any severe trail access inclusion, he has been skiing down the area for 16 years and knows the area well, he said that the biggest problem with water is the water tower and the snow making building, since 1992 they have had 4 floods that were contributed to those two things. Nehaus stated that they have asked to see computer generated views from the Durant Condominiums to see what the viewplane was across town to Shadow and Red Mountain, he suggested four places that the photos for Lot 3 could be taken from; 1) the back of Fifth Avenue, so they can see the effect of the duplexes; 2) Wagner park; 3) top of lift lA, Silver rush and; 4) the top of Nell. Ann Merkasen, public asked to see storypoles for the proposed townhomes. Michaelson stated that these units, as proposed are within the height limitation. Michaelson said it would be nice to see some poles in the ground. Vann said that the city requires the height to be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is most restrictive. Michaelson asked that the applicant use the bore holes drilled to represent the approximate grade. Merkasen said that she is most concerned about the units beside the "Black house". 25 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to table and continue the public hearing for the Aspen Mountain PUD to July 23, 1996. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk 26 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2~ 1996 Post Office alteration in the traffic configuration 1 Minutes 4 Colas Investments Conditional Use for ADU & Stream Margin Review 4 Waterplace Affordable Housing Final SPA Review 9 Aspen Mountain PUD 20 27