Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990601AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 1,1999, 4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES (05/18/99) III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING 4:45-5:00 A. 308 North First Street, Addition to Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Amy Guthrie (continued to July 6, 1999) 5:00-5:30 B. 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, Chris Bendon (continued from May 18, 1999) 5:30-6:00 C. Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, Chris Bendon 6:00-7:00 D. Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, Mitch Haas (continued from April 13, 1999) V. ADJOURN CITY AGENDAS 6/1 City Planning and Zoning (4:3 0) City Notice 5111 Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 4/13) (MH) 3 08 N. 1st, Inventory, Public Hearing (AG) 488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (con't from 5/18) (CB) 6/8 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 5/18 Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 5/18) (CB) Minor PUD, Code Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 5/18) (CB) Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Final, Public Hearing (CB) Text Amendment, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion, Public Hearing (MH) 6/9 HPC City Notice 5/18 302 E. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Public Hearing 135 W. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing (con't from 5/12) 533 E. Hopkins, Minor 6/14 City Council (5:00) City Notice 5/25 2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (SO) Street Name Change—"Aene Park" to "Alpine Court" (SO) Vendoring Agreement for Farmer's Market, Public Hearing (MH) Ordinance 30 Revisions, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (JAW) 308 N. 1st, Inventory, 1 st Reading, (AG) 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, 1st Reading (CB) 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, 1st Reading (AG) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 1 st Reading (CB) 6/15 Growth Management Commission (4: 30) City Notice 5/25 Burlingame Season Housing, Public Hearing (CB) 6/15 City Planning and Zoning (5.30) City Notice 5/25 Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual, Lots 3 and 5, Public Hearing (MH) Hopkins and Original, Work Session (MH) Code Amendment: Modification of Conservation (C) Zone District Related to FAR, Public Hearing (JAW) 6/16 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Joint Meeting with County P&Z Adoption of Aspen Area Community Plan, Public Hearing (SM) 6/21 City Council (5:00) Special Meeting Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, 1" Reading (CB) 6/22 City Planning and Zoning (5:00) Joint Meeting with County P&Z Buttermilk Master Plan 6/23 HPC (5:00) City Notice 6/1 330 E. Main, Minor 330 Lake, Work Session Su Casa, Minor DEPP Newpaper Racks 333 W. Bleeker, Minor and Variances, Public Hearing 820 E. Cooper, Recommendation to BOA 6/28 City Council (5:00) City Notice 6/8 Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Fee Waivers and Appeal of Code Interpretation, 2" Reading Public Hearing, Prenotice, (CB) Appeal of HPC Decision-134 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (SO) 6/29 City Council (3:00) Joint Meeting with BOCC Adoption of Aspen Area Community Plan, Public Hearing (SM) 7/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 6/16 Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) SCI Conditional Use, Public Hearing (CB) 488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Renotice 7/12 City Council (5:00) City Notice 6/23 308 N. Is`, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (AG) 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (AG) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) 7/14 HPC (5:00) City Notice 6/23 2 7/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 6/3 0 7/26 City Council (5:00) City Notice 7/7 7/28 HPC (5:00) City Notice 7/7 cc: P&Z Packet City Attorney's Office City Planning Staff City Clerk's Office 5/27/99 g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup. doc/ Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) being or representing an Applicant to the City of spen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated 44 on the attached list, on the day of , 199 (which is 15 days prior to the public hearing date of i rnq 2. By posting a s' n in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it cou d be seenkom the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of , 1991-, to the r day of UVW , 199-7—. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ignature Signed b fore me this day of,�,�_ , 1991?1. by APAV __ �M�v-t X_' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission e?r_pA'?1M4V10MEDff Notary- Public CONGDON THOMAS E & NOEL 1776 LINCOLN ST STE 1100 DENVER, CO 80203 ALDERWOOD SECURITIES LTD PACOR SECOMA SAM 24BD PRINCESS CHARLOTTE MC 98000 MONACO, GRIFFITH JAMES P S 3417 MILAM AVE STE 5 HOUSTON, TX 77002 VICKERY JACK H 100 S SPRING ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Imo-. ,WIG BRUCE A 569 PONTE VEDRA BLVD P O BOX 2655 PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082 ROBINSON MARYBELLE S 2552 E ALAMEDA ST #97 DENVER, CO 80209 HENRY FREDERICK B 100 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST PHILLIP N & SUSAN J 2114 MT CALVARY RD SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 TOBIN MAURICE B 1850 K ST NW #380 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ASPEN VALENTINE LLC C/O GARFIELD & HECHT 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVY DAVID M TIMES SQUARE BLDG 45 EXCHANGE ST ROCHESTER, NY 14614 VICENZI GEORGE A PO BOX 2238 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEST END PARTNERSHIP LLC 520 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TOBIN JOAN F 1850 K ST NW STE 380 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 MANCLARK Q P RESIDENCE TRUST 313 E BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD PO BOX 32338 ASPEN, CO 81612 FABRY PAUL A 1127 BOURBON ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 NEW ROBERT & MONICA 11414'N BAYSHORE DR NORTH MIAMI, FL 33181 ERICKSON BERYL ARTHUR & MARY ELIZABETH ERWIN GREGORY D PO BOX 1207 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD ASPEN, CO 81612 0MAHA, NE 68137 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BENNINGHOFF ESTHER 233 W HALLAM AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MUNDAY TRUST NUMBER ONE PO BOX 1689 AUSTIN, TX 78767 NOLAN ELAINE L 148 GLENRIDGE PKWY EL DORADO, AR 71730 SMART PAMELA 3351 WOODHAVEN RD ATLANTA, GA 30305 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 STEVENS LESLEY 4.25% INT DAVIS WILLIAM LLOYD YENS BRUCE 95.75% INT TRUSTEE OF DAVIS LIVING TRUST GORMAN JAMES & PATRICIA T BLEEKER ST 4924 BALBOA BLVD #489 1426 ROSE GLEN RD riur'EN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91316 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 KRUMM DONALD PAUL PO BOX 874 ASPEN, CO 81612 I NOLAN AND ALDERSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 202 WEST 19TH STREET EL DORADO, ARKANSAS 71730 WILLIAM C.NOLAN,JR. EDWIN B.ALDERSON,JR. 11 May 1999 Mr. Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street, Historic Inventory Listing Dear Mr. Blaich: TELEPHONE 501 862-0202 FACSIMILE 501 862-0203 Based upon a letter sent from Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie, to my planning consultant, Stan Clauson, it is my understanding that my property located at 308 N. First Street is intended to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission for listing on the City of Aspen Historic Inventory at your meeting of 1 June 1999. This hearing would follow a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission which is to be noticed for 26 May 1999. Unfortunately, neither I nor my planning consultant will be in town and available for the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of 1 June 1999. As this is an important action affecting my property, I respectfully request that the hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission be rescheduled or, if noticed, continued until your regular meeting of 15 June 1999 at which time both my consultant and I will be available. You cooperation and understanding as to the importance of this action as it affects my property is greatly appreciated. Very tally yours, William C. Nolan, Jr. Cc: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer NOLAN AND ALDERSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 202 WEST 19TH STREET E L DORADO, ARKANSAS 71730 WILLIAM C.NOLAN,JR. EDWIN B.ALDERSON,JR. 11 May 1999 Mr. Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 308 N. First Street, Historic Inventory Listing Dear Mr. Blaich: `r999 v 1'1I'N DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE 501 862-0202 FACSIMILE 501 862-0203 Based upon a letter sent from Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie, to my planning consultant, Stan Clauson, it is my understanding that my property located at 308 N. First Street is intended to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission for listing on the City of Aspen Historic Inventory at your meeting of 1 June 1999. This hearing would follow a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission which is to be noticed for 26 May 1999. Unfortunately, neither I nor my planning consultant will be in town and available for the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of 1 June 1999. As this is an important action affecting my property, I respectfully request that the hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission be rescheduled or, if noticed, continued until your regular meeting of 15 June 1999 at which time both my consultant and I will be available. You cooperation and understanding as to the importance of this action as it affects my property is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, 1\ bqel William C. Nolan, Jr. Cc: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohison, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: 488 Castle Creek Rezoning -- Public Hearing (Continued from 5.18.99) DATE: June 1, 1999 SUMMARY: The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre parcel of land currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's PUD overlay is intended to provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep slope and reduces the allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is unique to parcels with a PUD overlay and does not apply to other single-family properties. The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split, limiting the current development opportunities to a single-family residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing. Removing the PUD designation would allow the property owner to apply for a Lot Split. In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and rezoned to the R14-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property, according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot and to ensure the . existence of an employee unit on -site if the property were redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots after a lot split. There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density zone district. However, staff believes changing the zoning to allow more development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community — such as affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's with lot split applications, have made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community. Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree of community benefit, as required by growth management review or as provided for in the AHl-PUD Zone District. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from this parcel. APPLICANT: Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.) EXHIBIT A 488 CASTLE CREEK STAFF COMMENTS: 488 Castle Creek Rezoning Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The removal of the PUD designation removes the slope reduction for density. This allows the lot to be split, if so desired. Under the Lot Split scenario, two single-family residences or one single-family and one duplex could be constructed. The development would be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to the GMQS exemption provisions. The parcel was annexed into the City in 1980 and provided with the current zoning including the PUD overlay. The minutes from the zoning hearing include discussion about the PUD overlay. This overlay was specifically included to prohibit a Lot Split while still allowing for a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing as provided for in R15-A. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with- all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The 1993 AACP does not identify this parcel in any specific way, nor does the 1998 AACP (draft). The update of the AACP, now being considered, is contemplating several urban growth area designations generalizing areas where more or less density of development is appropriate. For example: the downtown core is most appropriate for density while outlying properties with little or no infrastructure are not appropriate for this same level of development. Generally, the subject property is within the proposed growth areas being considered designating this property suitable for moderate density development. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Surrounding the site is the public hospital, high -density residential, and seasonal dormitory housing. The parcel could conceivably be appropriate for a higher density zone district than is being proposed although there are several site constraints which could complicate the site planning of a high density residential project. The level of development allowed with this zoning is consistent with the availability of services in the area and with the development patterns of the surrounding area. The removal of the PUD designation does not change the parcel's consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Comments 1 housing. The removal of the PUD overlay will remove this slope reduction and provide the ability to split the lot and construct two single-family homes. The community benefit associated with a lot split is typically an ADU for each single-family home constructed. This is similar to the community benefit associated. with demolition and reconstruction of the single-family residence — one ADU. On the other hand, the development of a duplex would result in one deed restricted affordable housing unit. This unit could be a Category unit or an RO unit. In a more aggressive development scenario, rezoning this parcel to a higher density classification, such as AH1-PUD, and proposing several units of affordable housing in association with free-market units could be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and represent a significant benefit to the community. The PUD review process is most effective for considering significant developments of several units, or mixed use types of projects. The PUD process is excessive, and hence not required, for the development of a single-family home or a duplex. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The surrounding area is much more developed than it was when the property was first annexed into the City of Aspen. There are high -density developments surrounding the parcel, a seasonal housing project, and the Hospital. There have also been changes to the land use code. The 1980 discussion surrounding the original zoning concentrated on the community benefit associated with two development scenarios: 1) The development of a duplex with one side being deed restricted to affordable housing; and, 2) the development of two detached single-family homes after a lot split. Because it would be inappropriate for the applicant to enter into an agreement to not seek a lot split (contractual zoning), the PUD overlay was applied to reduce the lot area to less than allowed for two lots prohibiting a split. Staff assumes the 1980 City Council preferred the benefits of the parcel either remaining a single family home or adding one affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots. The majority of the above conditions remain the same today. The City has amended the land use code in a few ways germane to this application: 1) the affordable side of a duplex on the site could be an RO unit — a recent program not available in 1980; and, 2) new development on lot split parcels are required to mitigate for affordable housing — typically with one ADU per free- market dwelling. The changes in the' neighborhood, one could easily argue, do support a rezoning to a higher density zone district. However, changing the zoning to allow more development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community — such as affordable housing. The changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's, have made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community. And, it would be inappropriate for the applicant to agree (contractual rezoning) to provide mandatory occupancy ADU's in association with this rezoning. Therefore, because there is no significant community benefit to lifting the PUD overlay staff does not support this rezoning request. Staff Comments 3 V 1 940M 488 CASTLE CREEK Zoning Analysis: R15-A-PUD R15-A Gross Lot Size: 35,895 3505 Slopes: 0-20% 23,200 235200 Slopes: 20-30% Lill Lill Slopes: 30 - 40% * 5,584 53584 Slopes: > 40% * 6,000 65000 Lot Area for density 255150 3505 Lot Area for FAR 26,651 26,651 * estimated by planning staff The PUD designation considers site slopes for the purpose of calculating both density and FAR while slopes on non-PUD parcels only reduce FAR. The density reduction of the PUD provisions prohibits this parcel from being subdivided into two parcels without rezoning to a higher density zone district or removing the PUD designation. Development of a single family home or a duplex does not require adoption of a PUD plan. Development Scenarios: R15-A-PUD: The lot can not be split into two parcels. The single-family house can be redeveloped with approximately 5,200 square feet of FAR or with a duplex of approximately 5,620 square feet of FAR provided that one unit of the duplex is deed restricted to affordable housing. This second unit can be an RO unit. R15-A: The developer retains the above development options with the same FAR (FAR is reduced for slope regardless of the PUD overlay.) In addition, the developer can split the lot and develop two houses (each with an ADU) of approximately 4,675 square feet of FAR, or develop one house with an ADU of 4,150 and one duplex of 5,220 square feet of FAR. The duplex is required to contain one affordable housing unit deed restricted to the Housing Authority's Guidelines. A duplex with one side deed restricted to RO provides an exemption from GMQS. EXHIBIT D 488 CASTLE CREEK 26.28.060 Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district are similarly situated to those in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district and are lands annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts in which duplexes are a prohibited use. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; provided fifty (50) percent of the duplex units are restricted to affordable housing; 3. Farm buildings and use, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least 100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. For properties which contain a historic landmark: two detached residential dwellings on a lot within a minimum lot size of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R-15A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60. 1. Open use recreation site; 2. Public and private academic school; 3. Church; 4. Group home; 5. Day care center; 6. Museum; and 7. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. For lots created by section 28.66.030(A)(5) of this Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling: 15,000 Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot of 15,000 square feet that was subdivided as of April 28, 1975.Otherwise the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless the property contains a historic landmark, in which case two detached residential dwellings may be developed with a minimum of 6,500 square feet per unit. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. For lots created by section 26.88.030(A)(5) of this Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 50,000+ 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. 11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-1 5A) zone district, subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.32. 1. For single-family and duplex residential use and multi -family use: two (2) spaces/dwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Chapter 25.64 for historic landmarks only, and fewer spaces may be provided pursuant to Chapter 26.60 for accessory dwelling units only. One (1) space/dwelling unit is required if the unit is either a studio or one -bedroom unit. 2. Lodge uses: N/A 3. All other uses: Requires special review pursuant to Chapter 26.64. co MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Direct FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planne RE: Burlingame Ranch Rezoning -- ublic Hearing DATE: June 1, 1999 SUMMARY: Burlingame Ranch is a City owned parcel of land recently annexed into the City limits. This 178 acre parcel of land lies on both sides of State Highway 82 at the intersection with Owl Creek Road. State Statute requires the City to assign the property to the appropriate zone district(s) within 90 days of the final annexation. A 37 acre parcel of land originally part of the Burlingame Ranch was not annexed into the City and remains in Pitkin County. This county parcel is expected to be sold as a single-family development site after a building envelope is designated and approved by Pitkin County. The 37 acre parcel is no longer part of Burlingame Ranch, is not within the City's jurisdiction, and is not part of this zoning recommendation. Burlingame Ranch has been the topic of several potential affordable housing developments. "Burlingame Village;' is a significant development concept for approximately 200 — 250 affordable housing units to be located either in the "bowl" area, or "parcel A," or land north and east of the bowl in coordination with the Zoline Family parcel. This concept is just that — a concept. No plans have been submitted for this project and this memorandum does not contain any findings or recommendation concerning Burlingame Village. Due to the lack of information available at this time on the potential project, staff is recommending this bowl area be zoned Rural Residential (RR) — a two -acre zoning consistent with the previous Pitkin County zoning. The second area discussed for possible affordable housing is the "Seasonal Housing" site. This land was referred to as "parcel B" during initial discussion about the ranch. This Seasonal Housing project has received preliminary land use approval and is currently being considered for final land use approval. The land use application requests a rezoning of the land to the Residential Multi -Family (RMF-A) Zone District. Staff is recommending this land be assigned to the Rural Residential Zone District with the expressed acknowledgement of, and deference to if approved, the pending land use application. In other words, if the seasonal project is approved the zoning will defer to the more specific Ordinance. If for any reason the seasonal project is not approved, the recommendation for Rural Residential will prevail and will not have to be reconsidered by the Commission. The last area for possible future affordable housing is the land adjacent to the southern portion of the Aspen Airport Business Center. This area was referred to as areas "C" and "D" during initial discussion about the Ranch. Again, while this area can support the development of affordable housing, no plans have been submitted and this memorandum doesnot contain any findings or opinions about development on this portion of Burlingame Ranch. Staff recommends this area be assigned to the Rural Residential Zone District. The remaining areas of Burlingame Ranch are "Deer Hill" and the entire portion of the property west of State Highway 82. These lands, for the most part, are inappropriate for significant development due to steep slopes or the airport. These areas, approximately 143 acres, are proposed for the Conservation Zone District — a ten -acre zoning consistent with the previous Pitkin County zoning. Lastly, the annexation included approximately 9 acres of land within the State Highway 82 right-of-way. There are no development rights associated with rights -of - way and no significant reasons to apply zoning to these lands. Both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have traditionally applied zoning to these lands for less significant reasons: 1) the maps look better; 2) most jurisdictions apply zoning to rights -of -way; and, 3) an appropriate zone district is effective if the area is ever vacated. Staff has included language in the proposed Resolution assigning land within the annexed rights -of -way to the zone district of the adjacent parcel. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for this property to be included in the Conservation and Rural Residential Zone Districts, as described in Resolution 99 - APPLICANT: Community Development Department, City of Aspen. LOCATION: Corner of State Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road (See attached location map.) ZONING: Former Pitkin County Zoning: Approximately 107 acres was zoned AFR-10, and approximately 71 acres was zoned AFR-2 Proposed: Approximately 143 acres in Conservation (C). Approximately 35 acres in Rural Residential (RR). A more specific zoning analysis is provided as Exhibit B. 0) LOT SIZE: 187 acres. A 37 acre parcel previously part of the Burlingame Ranch was not annexed and remains in Pitkin County. Approximately 9 acres is within the State Highway 82 corridor leaving approximately 178 acres of developable land. CURRENT LAND USE: Undeveloped lands. PROPOSED LAND USE: The portion of Burlingame Ranch closest to the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing complex is currently being considered for a 101 unit affordable housing development. There have been discussions for significant affordable housing projects on both the "bowl" area on the far east of the parcel and the area south and east of the BMC West parcel. Both of these projects are merely conceptual and no formal application has been submitted. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. BACKGROUND: The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen on May 10, 1999. The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within 90 days of the final annexation. A land use application for a 101 unit Seasonal housing complex is currently under review for that area of Burlingame Ranch just north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing complex. This recommendation proposes Rural Residential (RR) for this area while the Seasonal Housing land use application is requesting a rezoning to the Residential Multi -Family Zone District. Staff has approached this rezoning in this manner to maintain zoning similar to that provided in the county in the event the Seasonal Housing application is not approved. The proposed P&Z resolution proposes RR for this area with the specific deference to any final decision on the Seasonal Housing project. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. An analysis of the previous and proposed zoning is provided as Exhibit B. Previous and proposed zoning maps are provided as Exhibit C. Legal descriptions defining the zoning boundaries are attached by exhibit to the proposed Resolution. 3 The Pitkin County Community Development Department has reviewed this proposed zoning and concurs with the proposed zoning. The City of Aspen Transportation Department has reviewed this recommendation and is in concurrence with planning staff s findings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation of approval to rezone this property to the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council rezone this property, Burlingame Ranch, to the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts as described in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 99 - " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Zoning Analysis Exhibit C -- Previous and Proposed Zoning Maps Ell RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL REZONE BURLINGAME RANCH TO THE CONSERVATION (C) AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE DISTRICTS. PARCEL NO.2735-031-00-805 . J Resolution #99 - DRAFT WHEREAS, a parcel of land located on either side of State Highway 82 at the Owl Creek Road intersection, commonly referred to as `Burlingame Ranch" was annexed into the City of Aspen on May 10, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1999; and, WHEREAS, the property is approximately 186.8 ± acres, legally described herein; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen must designate a zone district for the property within 90 days of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Amendments to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) after taking and considering recommendations from the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, and taking and considering public testimony at a duly noticed public hearing in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.92; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of land and recommended the property be included in the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts; and, WHEREAS, the boundaries for said zone district designations are described below; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, recognizing the pending land use application to rezone a portion of this parcel located just north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing complex for the purpose of a Seasonal Affordable Housing development, recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission include language associated with the area of the proposed project to allow the more specific land use approvals to prevail; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission took and considered public testimony and recommended, by a to vote (_-�, City Council include this property in the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts, as described. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the City Council should include the land commonly referred to as Burlingame Ranch in the Conservation (C) .and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts, as described below, and direct the Community Development Director to amend the Official Zone District Map accordingly. Burlingame Ranch legal description: The Burlingame Ranch parcel is legally described as: Legal from Jim * * * Land Proposed for the Rural Residential (RR) Zone District: Land to be included in the Rural Residential Zone District should include: 1. The portion of Burlingame Ranch residing east of State Highway 82 and south of the Aspen Airport Business Center, legally described as follows: [Legal from Jim * * *] 2. The portion of Burlingame Ranch residing east of State Highway 82 and commonly referred to the "bowl," legally described as follows: [Legal from Jim * * *] 3. The portion of Burlingame Ranch residing east of State Highway 82 and currently being considered for a 101 unit seasonal affordable housing development, legally described as follows: [Legal from Jim * * *] Land Proposed for the Conservation (C) Zone District: Land to be included in the Conservation Zone should include: 1. The entire portion of Burlingame Ranch, within the City of Aspen, residing west of State Highway 82, and the portion of Burlingame Ranch residing east of State Highway 82, known as "Deer Hill," legally described as follows: [Legal from Jim * * * (Whole Ranch minus RR areas)] Land Within Road Rights -of -Way: All land within State Highway 82 and other public street rights -of -way shall be zoned consistent with the City Zone District designation of the adjacent parcel. In the event the right-of-way is bordered by two different City zone districts, the center line shall become the zoning boundary. In the event the right-of-way is bordered entirely by parcels in Pitkin County jurisdiction, the zoning for that area of the right-of-way shall be consistent with the City Zone District designation of the parcel in closest proximity. AND, BE IT FURHER RESOLVED by the Commission: That in the event the pending land use application for the Seasonal Affordable Housing development is approved, the zoning for that land should coincide with the recommendations and approvals granted in the final Ordinance for said project, otherwise the zoning for that land should be Rural Residential. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 1, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 11 NEAR MA City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:home/chrisb/casesBig_Burly/PZ Reso.doc STAFF COMMENTS: Burlingame Ranch Rezoning Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most congruent land use regulations with those previously provided in Pitkin County and provides the most appropriate zoning given the location, topography, access, and considering there is no formal application describing the uses and densities proposed in the proposed Burlingame Village. This zoning recommendation proposes Rural Residential (RR) for that area being considered for the Seasonal Housing project. Pending approval, that land will be rezoned to the RMF-A Zone District. Staff has incorporated language in the proposed P&Z Resolution designating the 3.9 acre area to be zoned RR or as otherwise approved with the pending land use application for the Seasonal Housing project. This allows the zoning for the entire ranch to move forward independent of the pending application and allows the Commission's recommendation to remain valid regardless of the Seasonal Housing project's outcome. In fact, the proposed Seasonal Housing project may be considered by Council prior to the zoning for the entire Burlingame Ranch, in which case the Ordinance rezoning the entire ranch will reflect the approved zoning classification for the Seasonal Housing project. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding. Contrary to many statements that have been made about this parcel, the 1993 AACP did not identify Burlingame Ranch as a site for affordable housing. Of course this 1993 plan identified specific parcels based on a then current understanding of their ownership and immediate future. Staff underscores a commonly used statement about comprehensive plans: They are broad in scope and general in nature. While the 1993 plan considered specific parcels, the more general parcel characteristics are not limited by arbitrary ownership boundaries. In other words, what was said about one parcel can often times be said about the neighboring parcel. In close proximity to Burlingame Ranch and providing some guidance for this parcel, two sites were identified in the 1993 AACP with the following recommendations: Staff Comments 1 The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for development this would be an appropriate location for deed restricted lots. Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner. The Zoline parcel could still be developed and sold as deed restricted lots. However, there has been presented the opportunity for a partnership with the City to develop an affordable housing project on a portion of the Zoline parcel. The Pfister parcel (Maroon Creek Club) was developed in the original development pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable housing units were a mitigation requirement by the County and the property is now within the City of Aspen. The draft update of the community plan (the 1998 AACP) identifies the Burlingame Ranch parcel as a secondary site for the development of affordable housing. This is a draft plan and has not been adopted. Following are statements relevant to the Burlingame parcel from the draft AACP: "... we again call for a critical mass of permanent residents and employees to be housed within the urban area. Our goal is to reverse the tide and bring back the ebbing balance of our community/resort." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy. ■ "We should endeavor to bring back the middle class back into the community. We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open spaces, and our rural resources." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy. "To conserve our rural resources, we recommend that an Aspen Community Boundary be identified... A Community Growth Boundary will focus and reduce infrastructure expenditures, reduce the spread of development into the countryside and maintain a rural character between communities, while at the same time promoting concentrations of development supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy. ■ "Local and regional land use and development patterns should enable and support travel by alternative modes of transportation. New development should take place only in areas well served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." Excerpt from Transportation Philosophy. ■ "We still believe that a `critical mass' of local working residents is needed to sustain our economy." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy. ■ ". . . we believe it is important for Aspen to maintain a sense of opportunity and hope (not a guarantee) for our workforce to become vested members of the community." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy. Staff Comments 2 "Housing sites should be rated with emphasis placed on living within walking distance of transit, employment areas and social connections." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy. ■ "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy. "Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or redeveloped to include or be replaced by affordable housing. The public holds properties that could be redeveloped with affordable housing without impeding the existing use. These parcels should be evaluated for their qualities as affordable housing sites and their ability to contribute to our town's affordable housing dilemma without consuming our valuable rural lands or open space." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Action Plan. Staff believes the proposed zoning is consistent with the AACP. It is important to note that this land continues to be considered for a significant affordable housing development. The concept of this potential development, Burlingame Village, is included in the draft 1998 AACP and represents many of the goals and objectives of the Community Plan. Staff, however, believes that individual land use applications should be able to "stand on their own" with respect to the finally adopted AACP and does not wish to prejudge the project and up -zone the Burlingame Ranch parcel without the opportunity to fully evaluate the proposed project, its impacts, and its consistency with the AACP in its adopted form. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Western Portion. Surrounding the western half of the parcel is a low -density residential development, the base of Buttermilk Ski Area, and Sardy Field — the only private and commercial airport in the county. The portion of the Burlingame Ranch parcel remaining in the county, and not part of this rezoning, is proposed for one single-family residence which staff believes is consistent with the residential neighborhood. The area affected by the airport is proposed for the Conservation Zone District restricting the land appropriately while still allowing for passive and active recreational and farming uses. The majority of the flat portion of this land is encumbered by the "Runway Protection Zone" (RPZ) prohibiting permanent structures, including residences. The majority of the steep terrain to the west is too steep to accommodate a significant amount of development. The Conservation zone is the most appropriate for this area as the 10 acre zoning is the least -dense classification in the City. None of this parcel is contiguous with the Buttermilk Ski Area parcel and no coordinated development is being considered at this time. However, the land closest to the ski area base could accommodate a limited amount of development to the extent that compliance with the RPZ could be maintained. In the event this area is considered for development, an application to rezone may need to be submitted if the uses being considered are not allowed in the Conservation Zone. The Conservation (C) zoning for the western portion of this parcel is appropriate given the surrounding land uses and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Comments 3 Eastern Portion. The eastern half of the parcel is surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club (MCC) facilities and affordable housing. To the south exists the MCC facilities including short-term lodge accommodations, golf course and associated uses including the primary maintenance facility for the course, a complete athletic club with a restaurant, a retail pro -shop, and a multi- unit affordable housing complex. To the east are active agricultural and cattle lands. To the north there is a multi -use development (the ABC) containing commercial, residential, and light industrial land uses and an approved single-family residential neighborhood. The eastern parcel includes Deer Hill. This area is steeply sloped and inappropriate for a significant amount of development. Surrounding Deer Hill are several flat areas which can accommodate development. The area just north of the MCC affordable housing is appropriate for a high -density residential development due to its proximity to existing infrastructure and transit service. The MAA Seasonal housing project is currently being considered for land use approval. If the Seasonal Housing project is approved, the zoning for that parcel will coincide with the final Ordinance granting land use approval. The other developable portions of the eastern half of the parcel are the "bowl" area just north of the Soldner parcel and the area south and east of the BMC West parcel. The bowl is relatively flat and can accommodate a significant development. Regardless of the ongoing discussions with the Zoline Family, this bowl area can accommodate a significant amount of development and could be justifiably zoned for Affordable Housing. However, in absence of a conceptual plan describing the proposed uses and densities of such a project, it is inappropriate to judge the merits of a land use application before it is submitted. The Rural Residential designation, while it may represent an under -utilization of the property, is appropriate given the current status of the potential Burlingame Village project and the nature of the previous county zoning. The portion of the eastern parcel located closest to the Aspen Airport Business Center (the ABC) represents the remaining developable area on this parcel. In combination with one of the ABC parcels, a significant amount of development could be accommodated. Again, in absence of a plan describing the uses and concentrations, it is difficult to pre judge the merits of a potential development application. Staff recommends this area be zone Rural Residential. The steep portions of Deer Hill are proposed for the Conservation Zone District. The Conservation Zone allows for passive and active recreational uses and provides a sufficient amount of protection for the natural landscape. Staff believes these two zoning classifications for the eastern portion of the parcel are compatible with the surrounding land uses and neighborhood. D. * The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The difference in build -out potential and trip generation between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning is insignificant. Exhibit B describes the provisions of the previous Pitkin County zoning and the proposed City of Aspen zoning. The density and build -out projections of this analysis are based on pure zoning and do not account for growth management. The existing road network has sufficient capacity to serve the allowable density of the land with this proposed zoning. Staff Comments 4 E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The proposed zoning does not represent the development potential to overwhelm existing infrastructure capacities. The potential developments on this property for Seasonal Housing and the Burlingame Village project will be required to mitigate the increased impacts on the infrastructure including parks, schools, drainage, etc. to the extent those facilities are negatively affected. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The zoning classifications proposed resemble the zoning which was provided in the county as close as the City's zoning code allows. The Conservation district is appropriate for preserving the steep slopes, undisturbed natural sage, and indigenous wildlife associated with Deer Hill and the steep portions of the western portion of the property. Staff believes this Conservation zoning to be appropriate with respect to adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Again, staff believes it is more appropriate for the potential affordable housing developments to "stand on their own" with respect to this criteria and does not wish to postulate on the impacts associated with these projects until a full application is submitted. For example: the Seasonal Housing project is requesting a rezoning along with the land use review which allows staff and elected and appointed official to consider the proposed development along with the up -zoning. Staff believes the Rural Residential zoning to be appropriate for area that can support development. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The update of the AACP is considering a multi -layered approach in defining the appropriate concentrations of development in Aspen and its environs. The Burlingame Ranch parcel has been identified by the update of the AACP which is currently under review and revision. The general understanding of the uses and concentrations being discussed for this parcel are for approximately 101 units (200 beds) of seasonal housing units to be located near the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing. (This project is currently under land use review.) The second project being considered is for approximately 200 to 250 affordable housing units to be located on either the bowl just east of Deer Hill or further to the east in combination with the Zoline Family. The actual configuration and density associated with this larger project may vary greatly from the current concept as this project is in the abstract phase and may be significantly changed as the planning process unfolds and as the community desires the project to go forward. Staff Comments 5 Staff believes the Conservation and Rural Residential Zone Districts to be appropriate for the land. It should be noted, however, that significant affordable housing developments are being considered for this parcel in the Community Plan and future up -zonings may occur as land use applications are submitted. Staff believes these projects, at a conceptual level, represent consistency with the character of the community but does not wish to prematurely up -zone the property without the benefit of reviewing more concrete plans and their bearing on the community's character. In this respect, these zoning designations may represent "place -holders" until such time as complete development applications are presented and reviewed in their entirety. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within 90 days of the final -annexation. The property was annexed into the City on May 10, 1999. This property has been the recent topic of affordable housing discussions and may be appropriate for a substantial development. In fact, the update of the Aspen Area Community Plan has identified this parcel as a potential development site for affordable housing.. In this sense, there have been significant changes in the community and in the general surroundings which could justify zoning this property to the Affordable Housing Zone District. However, without a development application defining the location and density of development it is difficult to ascertain the level of impact with respect to the surrounding land uses, traffic generation, impacts upon infrastructure, the natural environment, and the community character. Until the community arrives at a decision as to whether or not to develop the Burlingame Ranch as affordable housing, staff believes these zone districts to be appropriate for both the interim and long-term (if housing is not developed). In the event the community decides against an affordable housing development, these zone districts provide a range of land uses and densities consistent with the historical land use for the parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Assigning zoning to this parcel must be accomplished within 90 days of the final annexation. These two zone districts represent the closest approximation to the previous Pitkin County zoning, and do not pose any conflicts with the public interest. Staff believes the proposed zoning district promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest. Staff Comments 6 EXHIBIT B BURLINGAME RANCH Zoning Analysis: Previous Pitkin County Zoning Proposed City of Aspen Zoning Land Area Build -Out Land Area Build -Out (acres) (res. units) (acres) (res. units) AFR-10 107 10 Conservation 143 14 (C) AFR-2 71 35 Rural, 35 17 Residential Total 178 45 Total 178 31 Notes: 1. The density figures do not consider growth management and do not reflect actual development rights. 2. The proposed 101 unit Seasonal Housing Project is not included in this tabulation. This 3.9 acre parcel lies within a portion of the area proposed for the Rural Residential Zone District. Pending approval, this area will be rezoned to Residential Multi -Family (R1NIF-A). Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) being or representing an Applicant t he City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the L�_ day of , 199q_ (which is days prior to the public hearing date of 2. By postiq a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen fro ^ the nearest public way) and that the said sign as posted and visible continuously from the day of0", 1991 to the � day of , 199CA . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A otograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) Sig tore Si d before me thisday of , 199A. by WITH Y HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL o My o fission e i s: Notary cn CyR snc Y .. 3� � ''''• •........••••'POD �'� COLON I' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BURLINGAM[E RANCH REZONINGTO TO THE CONSERVATIO C) AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE DISTRICTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 1, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to rezone the property to the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts. Burlingame Ranch is located on both sides of State Highway 82 at the Owl Creek Road intersection. The property is legally described as Lots 6 and 18, Section 2, and Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 1811% 20 and 21, Section 3, TS105, R85 W of the 6th PM, with exceptions. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 15, 1999 City of Aspen Account I mpr Ilk I_ '� i eCIE 1' i �1 " N 1 .t PLACE � G� W l' PURPOSE-b Zoning,_ �I iran�ne �anr,/� Conheruat i�ulal (1e�,d� KK) 2oi y 1 rya , MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department Sarah Oates , Community Development Department FROM: Jim Curtis , Project Manager DATE: May 17, 1999 RE: Burlingame Ranch Zoning Application Property Owners Within 300' of Burlingame Ranch Submitted herein are the "Property Owners Within 300' of Burlingame Ranch" for the Burlingame Ranch Zoning Application. This list is true and correct to the best knowledge of the applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the Pitkin County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have been used for property owners where the applicant is aware that the property owner has a local representative or attorney. Please use this list for all public notices, mailings, etc. for the Burlingame Ranch zoning application. Please feel free to call on any questions (920-1395.) Thank you. BURLINGAME RANCH ZOINING APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' OF BURLINGAME RANCH 1. Parcel No. 2735-03-400040 Craig R. Stapleton Stapleton Associates P.O. Box 1576 Greenwich, CT 06836 2. Parcel No. 2735-02-309052 Maroon Creek Apt. LP Pearce Equities 10 Club Circle Aspen, CO 81611 3. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051 Maroon Creek LLC Maroon Creek Club House Pearce Equities 10 Club Circle Aspen, CO 81611 5/17/99 Craig R. Stapleton C/O Stapleton Property Dave Myler Freilich, Myler, et. al, Attorneys 106 South Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek Apt. LP Pearce Equities C/O Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek LLC Maroon Creek Club House Pearce Equities C/O Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 4. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051 Maroon Creek Club Lot 51 Arthur O. Pfister P.O. Box EE Aspen, CO 81612 5. Parcel No. 2735-112-209053 Maroon Creek LLC Golf Course Pearce Equities 10 Club Circle Aspen, CO 81611 6. Parcel NO. 273 5-112-20905 5 Maroon Creek LLC Common Area Pearce Equities 10 Club Circle Aspen, CO 81611 7. Parcel No. 2735-02-300005 Soldner Family Partnership Paul Soldner P.O. Box 90 Aspen, CO 81612 8. Parcel No. 2735-02-300006 Joseph T. Zoline Zoline Family Ranch 624 N. Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 2 Maroon Creek Club Lot 51 Arthur O. Pfister C/O Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek LLC Golf Course Pearce Equities C/O Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek LLC Common Area Pearce Equities C/O Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Soldner Family Partnership C/O Stephanie Sullivan P.O. Box 2238 Frisco, CO 80443 Joseph T. Zoline Zoline Family Ranch C/O John Lifton and Pamela Zoline Lifton P.O. Box 997 Telluride, CO 81435 9. Parcel No. 2735-02-409851 City of Aspen City Manager 130 S . Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 10. Parcel No. 2735-02-200802 Park Trust Ltd. P.O. Box 940 Aspen, CO 81612 11. Parcel No. 2735-02-400004 Connie Harvey 42 D AABC Aspen, CO 81611 12. Parcel No. 2735-02-400005 Joy Caudill P.O. Box FF Aspen, CO 81612 13. Parcel No. 2735-03-100045 Dale Eubank 0498 Rose Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 14. Parcel No. 273 5-03-101001 &2 BMC Holdings, Inc. P.O. Box 7006 720 Park Blvd, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83707 3 Park Trust Ltd. C/O Reid Haughey 1228 Kings Row Ave. Carbondale, CO 81623 Connie Harvey 1100 Stage Road Aspen, CO 81611 15. Parcel No. 2735-03-101003 U.S. West Communications 6300 S. Syracuse Way Suite 700 N Englewood, CO 80111 16. Parcel No. 2735-02-200001 Robert Lorton Tulsa World P.O. Box 2008 Tulsa, OK 74101 17. Parcel No. 2735-03-400039 Norwest Bank Des Moines, Trustee Friedl Pfeifer Trust P.O. Box 837 Des Moines, IA 50309 18. Parcel No. 2735-03-100004 Otto Studhalter & Patricia K. Jt. 3 Seven Oaks Road #L4 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 19. Parcel No. 2735-03-100851 Pitkin County Property Pitkin County Manager 530 E. Main Street, Ste 302 Aspen, CO 81611 20. Parcel No. 2643-343-20085 Pitkin County Airport Airport Manager 233 E. Airport Road, Ste A Aspen, CO 81611 21 Pitkin County Airport C/O Pitkin County Manager 530 E. Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, CO 81611 21. Parcel No. 2735-03-400948 Buttermilk Mountain Skiing Company C/O Chris Kiley ASC, Planning Department P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 Footnote: This Updated Exhibit #8 is true and correct to the best knowledge of the applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the Pitkin County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have been used for property owners where the applicant is aware that the property owner has a local representative or attorney. E Saturday -Sunday, May 15-16, 1999 • The Aspen Times 7-C PUBLIC NOTICE andRE: BURLINGAME RANCH REZONING TO THE CONSERVATION (C) AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE DISTRICTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 1, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to rezone the property to the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone Districts. Burlingame Ranch is located on both sides of State Highway 82 at the Owl Creek Road intersection. The property is legally described as Lots 6 and 18, Section 2, and Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Section 3, TS105, R85 W of the 6th PM, with exceptions. For further information, contact o se Chris Bendon at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on May 15, 1999. (40545) iankles: >. Semi -private in a hos ns you can have a cur - id your bed when the d other bed is doing one tf several things: snoring hollering for more mor- I watching a re -run of the lwl. The curtain of not soundproof. _ the Weight Watchers €urse, then asked me for ring ring and watch and know if my teeth are Ise. She then handed me rlock 0-it I am required put -.kwards. It is le to straps ly bacx and the mini - about an inch longer ini-skirt on a Hollywood d hooker. I had played a few F golf before my hospital 3w in the Nere two i drums of 09 81 pounds ®af, and five F three -day -old tan end where my_ ,w Iles begin. My lik we on white -,-length socks. Once in - s given enough shots 2 cted to enough indigni- ke me pray that this is iy I will ever spend in a feet sought to be made absolute here. Use: Municipal, domestic, commercial, irrigation, someone gave me a stock watering, fire protection, recreation, and g fish and wildlife propagation, including storage. jr- a1Viv%%3 wair.KKilirii. inlsciaim,con- Mrll ucua, uicu 0W_%_CDDVIJ, aiiu uicu sisting of paragraphs 9 through 17, is deleted in assigns, for the purpose of paying the indebted - its entirety, and the subsequent claims and para- ness provided in said Note and Deed. of Trust, graphs are renumbered accordingly. FOURTH attorney's fee, and the expense of sale, and will CIATM. APPT.ICATTnN FOR IWDERGROUND a r.. �f o , ,,. },��„rc a rArtifiratt of APPLICANT: Community Development LOCATION: Burlingame Ranch ACTION: Rezoning Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning and.Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director , Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner DATE: April 13, 1999 RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development. Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-08004. SUMIN ARY: The Community Development Department has received from Savanah Limited Partnership a request to redevelop the site of the Bavarian Inn with deed. restricted housing consisting of thirteen (13) dormitory rooms and eighteen (18) affordable housing units. More specifically, the Parcel 1 (area north of the alley, see Site Development Plan, Sheet A 1.0 in Attachment 1) portion of the proposal involves renovating the existing Bavarian Inn structure to include thirteen (13) Category Two dormitory rooms with associated common facilities (kitchen, living area, laundry, storage, etc.), one (1) two - bedroom, lower -priced Category Three apartment, and one (1) three -bedroom Category Two apartment. To the west of :he Bavarian Inn structure but still on Parcel 1, the existing out- buildings would be demolished and replaced with a seven -unit townhouse structure along West Bleeker Street that would consist of two (2) one -bedroom Category Two units, two (2) two -bedroom Category Two units, and three (3) three -bedroom Category Three units. (See Exhibit B, Development Program Summary Table.) On Parcel 2 (the portion of the property south of the alley, see Site Development Plan, Sheet A1.0 in Attachment 1), a townhouse structure of five (5) three -bedroom Category Four units would be built to front on Eighth Street (at the intersection of Eighth and Main in place of the existing single-family residence). The other proposed building would consist of two (2) one -bedroom, lower -priced Category Three units and two (2) two -bedroom, lower -priced Category Three units, and would front on West Main Street (appears on plans as, two duplexes joined by a shared storage room).' Between the two structures on Parcel 2, the proposal suggests locating a twenty-two vehicle parking area with access from both West Main Street and the alley. All other parking would be accessed via the alley with the exception of the six existing spaces to be maintained in front of the Bavarian Inn, on Seventh Street. (See Exhibit B, Development Program Summary Table.) Currently, Parcel 1 is zoned Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-MF/PUD) while Parcel 2 is zoned Moderate -Density Residential (R-15). If Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval is granted, the applicant's Final PUD application will include a request to rezone Parcel 2 in a manner that- would be consistent with the R-MF/TUD zoning of Parcel 1 and that would accommodate multi -family residential development. Similarly, the Final PUD application will include requests for Subdivision, Special Review of off-street parking requirements, and GMQS Exemption approvals. The proposed PUI) includes variance requests regarding the R-MF zone district's maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and minimum front and rear yard setbacks. Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application with conditions, including but not limited to a requirement to revise the proposed layout (site plan) of the development as elaborated upon herein (below). APPLICANT: Savahah Limited Partnership, represented by Vann Associates, LLC. LOCATION: (See attached Vicinity Map, Exhibit C.) Parcel 1 of the subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Seventh Street and West Bleeker Street, and is legally described as Lots D through I, Block 11, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel 2 is located at the northeast corner of Eighth Street and West Main Street, and is legally described as Lots K through P, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen. Surrounding developments include the Klein duplex on the southeast corner of 8th and Bleeker (adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 1), the Villas at Aspen across 8th Street to the west and northwest, Bleeker Place condominiums across Bleeker Street to the north, single- family residences across 7th and Bleeker Streets to the northeast and east, the Christian Science Reading Room then the Hickory House restaurant across 7th Street to the east, the West Hopkins Affordable Housing to the southeast, and single-family residences across Main Street to the south. There is also an existing single-family residence on the northwest corner of 7th and Main, adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 2. EXISTING ZONING: • Parcel 1: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay. • Parcel 2: Moderate -Density Residential (R-15). PROPOSED ZONING: • Parcel 1: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (no change). • Parcel ?: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay. LOT SIZE: The combined property contains a gross area of 36,100 square feet (0.829 acres), where Parcels 1 and 2 each contain 18,050 square feet. The property does not include any access easements, areas below high water line, or slopes in excess of twenty percent; therefore, there are no applicable lot area or density reductions. Nevertheless, these figures will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer during review of building permit applications. FLOOR AREA: In the R-MF zone district, the maximum allowable external floor area ratio (FAR) for multi -family structures is 1:1, which may be increased to 1.1:1 by Special Review (but no such request has been made). Since Parcel 1 is zoned R-MF/PUD and the proposed development consist only of multi -family structures,. its maximum allowable external floor area is 18,050 square feet by right (1:1 FAR). Under the proposed development of Parcel 1, the remodeled Bavarian Inn would contain 9,400 square feet and 2 the Bleeker Street structure would contain 7,630 square feet. Thus, a total of 17,030 square feet of floor area is proposed on Parcel 1 (1,020 square feet less than that permitted by right). Parcel 2 is currently zoned R-15. The R-15 zone district does not list multi -family dwellings as either a permitted or conditional use and, consequently, does not set a maximum external FAR for multi -family structures. For purposes of comparison, the maximum allowable floor area for a duplex (the highest density permitted on a single parcel) on an R-15 lot of 18,050 square feet would be 5,103 square feet. To carry this one step further, since a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet is required for the development of a duplex in the R-15 zone, only one duplex lot, and thus one duplex of up to 5,103 square feet, could be developed under Parcel 2's current zoning. Although not requested with the rezoning application but for informational purposes, it should be noted that the AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same 1:1 FAR for multi -family structures as allowed under the R-MF zone district. With the proposal to rezone Parcel 2 to R-MF/PUD, its maximum allowable floor area would be the same as that of Parcel 1, 18,050 square feet. Under the proposed development of Parcel 2, the Eighth Street townhouse structure would contain 8,200 square feet and the Main Street structure would contain 5,050 square feet. Thus, a total of 13,250 square feet of floor area is proposed on Parcel 2 (4,800 square feet less than that which would be permitted by right). BACKGROUND: In the February of 1990 elections, the City of Aspen voters approved Savanah's construction of thr Ritz -Carlton Hotel with the understanding (based on ballot language and campaign literature) that Savanah would submit a development application for the construction of an amount of affordable housing "suitable" to the Bavarian Inn property. Submission of an application "suitable to the sit: was also a condition of Savanah's May, 1998, Section M. Amendment to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. PROCEDURE: As a Conceptual Planned Unit Development application, a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission maintains final review authority over the Special Review, which does not require a public hearing. In contrast, the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in an advisory nature to the City Council with regard to the Subdivision, Rezoning, and PUD applications, including its requests for variances. The requested GMQS Exemption will be reviewed for recommendation by the Growth Management Commission prior to City Council's final decision on the matter. MAIN ISSUES: Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and deserve special attention. While other issues exist, besides those addressed below, the core issues are outlined below and referred to elsewhere throughout this memorandum and associated exhibits. Other, less central issues are explained in the PUD review (Exhibit A). 3 Proposed Site Plan and Layout Staff feels strongly that the structure proposed along the alley should be relocated to front on Main Street between the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street and the Eighth Street Townhomes. The displaced parking should be accommodated off the alley, where the building is now proposed to reside. If a reduction in parking would result, staff is prepared to support such a reduction through the Special Review process (also see Parking, below). There are many reasons for staff recommending this change, but perhaps the most significant of these is the desire to maintain an urban form where streets are lined by buildings, not parking lots. This is particularly important at the subject site due to its location as an integral part of the Entrance to Aspen, and since it is .located across the street from the start of an Historic District (Main Street Historic District) that epitomizes the type of streetscape desired. The Main Street Historic District maintains a traditional rhythm of building -to -open area -to -building often referred to as a streetscape's "solid -to -void ratio." This traditional pattern does not include mid -block parking lots accessed directly off of Main Street. Relocating the structure as recommended by staff would help to maintain a close approximation of Main Street's solid -to -void ratio at the entrance to town: Besides the concerns regarding streetscape form and design, staff also feels the mid -block curb cut for the parking area would be inappropriate due to safety concerns involving vehicular turning movements into and out of the parking lot. Although the applicant proposes this curb cut on a "temporary" basis with its removal upon construction of the Entrance to Aspen, staff knows from experience how difficult it becomes to remove such conveniences after they have been in place for an extended period of time. In addition, the TDA study included herewith as Attachment 2 recommends (on page 22) that the east end connection of the alley to 7th Street be restricted to right turn -in and right turn -out only. The study explains that "left turns into the site from northbound 7th Street would be difficult due to' the large volumes of southbound traffic. Left turns out of the alley could be problematic due to the heavy southbound traffic volumes and due to the short distance to the intersection at 7th Street/Main Street where large volumes of tall c are just completing their turn to the north and are approaching the alley exit," (page 22). The study goes on to explain on page 22 that "After Highway 82 has been realigned to Allain Street and traffic volumes on 7th Street have decreased, it could be possible to allow left turns between the alley and 7th Street." These TDA recommendations are included in staffs recommended conditions of approval. For the reasons explained above, staff believes vehicular access to parking for the proposed development should be from the alley only, with the possible exception of the existing spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. With the recommended change, the proposed temporary curb cut would have to be eliminated, making all access to/from the alley, where Eighth Street to Main Street would serve as the primary vehicular route until Highway 82 is realigned; once realignment is complete, primary access to/from the alley would shift to Seventh Street. Also, by instituting this staff recommendation the Ll W Main Street extension would maintain a traditional type of streetscape appropriate to the location at the Entrance to Aspen and the entrance to the Main Street Historic District. Parking As the proposed development consists solely of deed -restricted affordable housing units, its off-street parking requirements are established by Special Review. Savanah proposes to provide one (1) off-street parking space for each dormitory room and one -bedroom unit, and two (2) spaces per dwelling unit for two- and three -bedroom units. This- proposal is consistent with the R-MF zone district's off-street parking requirements for similarly configured free market dwelling units, and results in a total of forty-five (45) spaces. Nineteen (19) spaces are proposed on Parcel 1, and twenty-six (26) spaces are proposed on Parcel 2, for a combined total of forty-five (45) off-street parking spaces. The surrounding neighborhood has a legitimate on -street parking shortage, and Savanah believes the provision of sufficient parking on -site will help to significantly reduce the demand placed on the limited supply of on -street parking. The City's Transportation Planner, Claude Morelli, is concerned with the proposed parking ratios (see Exhibit D) as he finds them to be much too high. Claude explains that the Bavarian Inn site is one of the most transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly sites in town: current frequency of RFTA service to Rubey Park averages about one bus every ten minutes; service to the AABC, Buttermilk, Highlands, and the Town of Snowmass Village averages about one bus every twenty minutes; a light rail stop is planned for the southeast corner of Main and Seventh Streets, and if lightrail becomes operational, service frequency to Rubey Park will likely remain at approximately today's level while frequency to points outside of Aspen will likely double; for pedestrians, the site is generally well connected via sidewalks and walkable side streets to the downtown core, points along Main Street, and the area around the post office; cyclists can easily access the site via designated bikeways on Hallam, Hopkins, and (in the future) Highway 82. Claude asks why, given the level of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendliness of the site, should we expect (or desire) Savanah to supply parking at levels normally associated with automobile -oriented suburban locations? He suggests that the City should be creating incentives for Bavarian residents to live without owning cars (or at least multiple cars), and that reducing the off-street parking supply would provide such an incentive and is entirely reasonable and justified given the excellent access to the downtown core and other locations via transit, foot, and bicycle. Claude's memo also points out that his assertions are supported by the fact that the Healthy Mountain Communities' Study of Local and Regional Travel Patterns, Volume 1, Figure 2.9 (pp.2-10), found that over 30% of adults and teenagers in Aspen and over the age of 16 do not have access to an automobile for personal use. Consequently, the City's Transportation Planner recommends the following off-street parking schedule: 5 :.; TYPE OF UNIT=AMOUNT (:. ` SPACES/UNIT '- NO. OF SPACES Dormitory Room 13 None 0 One -Bedroom Flat 4 ( 1.0 Two -Bedroom Flat 1 I 1.0 I 4 1 Three -Bedroom Flat 1 1 1.0---------- Two1 -Bedroom Townhouse 4 � 1.0 —I Three -Bedroom Townhouse '18 1.0 4 TOTAL 31 N/A I g , 18 Thus, according to the chart above, Claude is recommending a total of eighteen (18) off- street parking spaces with an additional number of spaces (perhaps five or six) that could .be made available for short-term (i.e., up to two hours) parking for loading/unloading and guests. Along with these spaces, Claude recommends that spillover parking management strategies be required and implemented, including such possibilities as the establishment of a parking permit system, a prohibition against on -street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use, and the provision of long-term car storage off -site. Each of these potential strategies are elaborated upon in Claude's memorandum, attached with Exhibit D. Page 35 of the TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelopment Traffic � Parking Study" (see Attachment ?) explains that ITE parking generation rates indicate a peak parking demand for forty-one (4 1) spaces based on a peak year-round occupancy rate of approximately 90%. Staff of the Community Development Department supports a reduction in off-street parking, but wants to see a site plan with the revisions suggested above in the "Proposed Site Plan and Layout" section of this memorandum before deciding on a particular number of spaces to recommend. Staff agrees with the assessment of the Transportation Planner, but also recognizes the shortage of parking in the surrounding neighborhood' as well as the fact that even the strongest disincentives (such as a lack of parking availability) do not fully eliminate vehicle ownership. Thus, Community Development Department staff supports a reduction in off-street parking, but feels that provision of just eighteen (18) spaces might be too drastic unless long-term, off -site car 'storage can be reliably provided (i.e., in the parking structure beneath the proposed hotel on Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, at the Music School, at the Golf Course, at the airport park -and -ride lot, at Buttermilk, at the Brush Creek Road intercept lot, at some other location identified by the applicant, or at any combination of these or other acceptable locations). Since the Special Review of off-street parking requirements will occur concurrently with the Planning and. Zoning Commission's review of the Final PUD application, staff and the applicant would like to know, at this point in the process (during Conceptual Review), whether and the extent to which the Commission will support the revisions to the site plan suggested by staff, the reductions in parking that would result, and/or further reductions beyond those required by the recommended site plan revisions. R Rezoning and Site Suitability As mentioned in the `Background" section of this memorandum (above), in the February of 1990 elections, the City of Aspen voters approved Savanah's construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel with the understanding (based on ballot language and campaign literature) that Savanah would submit a development application for the construction of an amount of affordable housing suitable to the Bavarian Inn property. Submission of an application suitable to the site was also a condition of Savanah's May, 1998, Section M. Amendment to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Given that the development of affordable housing is required on the Bavarian site, and that said development is to occur in a manner "suitable to the site," a density greater than that allowed under the R-15 zoning has been anticipated by the voters and the Aspen City Council. The anticipation of a rezoning request is evidenced in the fact thaE Section 26.92.030 of the Land Use Code requires that private applications for amendment to the City's official zone district map must be submitted by February 15 or August 15 of each year, and that these deadlines were implicitly waived in connection with the City Council's establishment of the September 15, 1998 submittal deadline for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD application with the understanding that a rezoning request would be involved. The applicant proposes to develop Parcel 1 in a manner consistent with its existing zoning, which is considered "suitable" to the site. On the other hand, a rezoning request is proposed for Parcel 2 in order to accommodate the development of multi -family dwellings. Parcel 2 is currently zoned R-15. The R-15 zone district does not list multi -family dwellings as either a permitted or conditional use and, consequently, does not set a maximum external FAR for multi -family structures. For purposes of comparison, the maximum allowable floor area for a duplex (the highest density permitted on a single parcel) on an R-15 lot of 18,050 square feet would be 5,103 square feet. To carry this one step further, since a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet is required for the development of a duplex in the R-15 zone,. only one duplex lot, and thus one duplex of up to 5,103 square feet, could be developed under Parcel 2's current zoning (4.8 d.u./acre). Although not requested with the rezoning application but for informational purposes, it should be noted that the AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same 1:1 FAR for multi -family structures as allowed under the R-NIF zone district. The application proposes a residential density of 31 dwelling units on 36,100 square feet of land (37.4 d.u./acre) under the R-NIF/PUD zoning designation. Broken down by parcel, the application proposes residential densities of 22 dwelling units on Parcel 1's 18,050 square feet of land (53.1 - d.u./acre), and 9 units on Parcel 2's 18,050 square feet of land (21.7 d.u./acre). The AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same densities that are allowed under the R-MF/PUD zoning.. With the proposal to rezone Parcel 2 to R-MF/PUD, its maximum allowable floor area would be the same as that of Parcel 1, 18,050 square feet. Under the proposed development of Parcel 2, the Eighth Street townhouse structure would contain 8,200 square feet and the Main Street structure would contain 5,050 square feet. Thus, a total of 13,250 square feet of floor. 7 area is proposed on Parcel 2 (4,800 square feet less than that which would be ermitted right). p by The Table below provides a comparison between the dimensional requirements of he R-15 zone district (existing), the R-MF zone district (proposed), and the AH-1/PUD zonedistrict t (for purposes of comparison). All indicated dimensional requirements are for mu • or residential dwellings, as appropriate, and where choices exist, those that would he most applicable to the subject proposal have been used. most The figures indicate that the R-15 zone district would result in significantly fewer units than anticipated and considered "suitable" to the site, while the R-MF and AH-1/PUDdistricts have very similar dimensional requirements, which become even more similarzone when a PUD overlay is attached to the R-MF zoning. The PUD overlay with the R=MF district would be consistent with the existing zoning of Parcel 1 while allowincr t zone he same flexibility in dimensional requirements as allowed under an AH-1/PUD designatio no free market component is proposed, the applicant has decided not to pursue the AH- 1/PUD zoning designation, which is meant to provide an incentive of free AH development for private developers of affordable housing, market zoning and densities. are "suitable'' to the site, and that Increasedff feels that the proposed exacerbate the parking -related issues discussed above, densities would likely Min Lot Size' Min. Lot Area per Dwelling Unit' vlin. Lot Width' Min. Front Setback' .fin. Side Setback' min. Rear Setback` Max. Height' Min. Distance between Buildings' Min. Open Space' Max. External FAR Max. Internal FAR Minimum Off -Street Parking' 15,000 sf 15,000 sf (for single-family or duplex; multi -family not permitted) 75 feet 25 feet 10 feet 10 feet 25 feet 10 feet eLR!-INIF�/P p z rA—fed UD 6,000 sf 1,500 sf • 300 sf/studio Same as • 400 sf/one-bedroom R-MF/PUD • 800 sf/two-bedroom • 11200 sf/three-bdrm. • 400 sf/bedroom for units of 4 or more bedrooms 60 feet Set by PUD 10 feet Set by PUD 5 feet (for ivlF) Set by PUD 10 feet Set by PUD 25 feet Set by PUD 10 feet Set by PUD N/A 3 0 See narrative above 1:1 N/A N/A • For Free market: l Same as R-15 space/studio or. 1- bedroom; otherwise, 2/d.u. • For AH: set by Special Review = can oe vaned wit et by PUD 1:1 NIA Same as R-15 Entrance to Aspen The Entrance to Aspen .Main Street Design Report, prepared by OTAK, November 3, 1997, concluded that light rail would be located on the south side of Main Street and that there is enough existing right-of-way to accommodate its construction. Thus, the only significant impacts of the Entrance to Aspen plan on the proposed Bavarian Inn project revolve around design, as explained above in the "Proposed Site Plan and Layout' section of this memorandum. Some of the statements and findings. in The Entrance to Aspen Alain Street Design Report relevant to the Bavarian Inn application include the following: • "The computerization and interconnection of new traffic signals at Seventh, Fifth, Third, and Garmisch with existing signals will allow for `platooning' of traffic along Main Street. This will improve traffic flow, disperse traffic along Main Street, and allow gaps between autos for cross street traffic and pedestrians." (page' 6.) • "A south side single track alignment allows room for left turn lanes at the signalized intersections at Seventh, Fifth, Third, Garmisch, and Monarch." (page 6.) • "ADA requirements will necessitate partial or full sidewalk reconstruction along Main, Monarch, and Durant Streets." (page 6.) • "Driveway closures on Main Street can be accommodated by providing side street access and parking for affected homes and business." (page 6.) • "Eighth Street will be closed off and can be modified to accommodate much needed additional parking for the area." (page 11.) • "The south Seventh Street connection to Main Street will be closed off to vehicular traffic." (page 13.) • "The north side of Main Street at this [Seventh Street] stop could retain its parallel parking. Additional street tree and shrub planting should be designed to reinforce the street edge. This will provide increased separation from vehicular traffic on Main Street for a more secure pedestrian experience." (page 13.) These statements can be summarized to explain that the light rail would run along the south side of Main Street, and the Seventh and Main intersection will be signalized, helping to enhance vehicular traffic flows and turning movements, as well as pedestrian crossing movements. Appropriate crosswalks should be provided. Parallel parking would be maintained along the north side of Main Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets, the Eighth Street connection to Main would be eliminated, and the resulting Eight Street dead- end would provide additional, much -needed on -street parking for the neighborhood. Driveways accessing Main Street should be closed, which leads staff to conclude that no new driveways should be permitted on Main Street (including the one proposed). The Main Street frontage of the subject site should have ADA complying sidewalks (minimum of five feet in width with appropriate grades) that are separated from the street by a planting strip with street trees. 0 Variances The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the R-MF zone district. with the exceptions of maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and minimum front and rear setbacks (see Zoning referral memo, Exhibit D). The variances are requested'as part of the PUD review process. Since the Parcel 2 portion of to property is currently zoned R-15, the applicant is relying upon approval of the request trezone to the R-MF zone district. In general, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be do ne concurrently- with review of a Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time it reviews a Final PUD application, especially those requests associated with setbacks and open space requirements. P The height variance requests are not expected to change, with the possible exce tion of the alley structure being redesigned if made to front on Main Street, as recommended b ' staff.' Portions of the three new multi -family structures would exceed the district's maximum allowable height of twenty-five (25) feet by approximately four to five (4-5) feet. Savanah is requesting variances to allow a maximum height of approximately twenty-nine 29) feet (. for the Eighth Street structure and the alley portion of the Main Street structure variance). Similarly, the proposed height of the Bleeker Street structure is 30.5 feet afoot 5 foot variance). The variances are requested to permit the dwelling units located in t subject structures to be completely above grade. he The Parks Department is supporting the height variance requests since, without the variances, the buildings would likely be sunken below grade which would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees --- trees the applicant is attempting to preserve see Exhibit D . The Parks Department memo goes on to explain that at -grade foundations i ) protection of significant tree roots on many of the large, mature trees.will allow for the Development Department staff would support the Parcel 2 height variance requestsCommunity based on agreement with the points and concerns of the Parks Department as well as la feeling that the variance requests are modest in scope, result in more attractive architectural designs, would result in more livable, better dwelling units, and would have little adverse impact on area residents or the community at large. On Parcel 1, however, Community Development Department staff is of the opinion that the townhouse structure should be made to comply with the twenty-five (25) foot height limit. As proposed, this structure would have a height of 30.5 feet at a point that is one-third ( of the way between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. This would result in a buildingthat is 37 feet, 7 inches (37' 7") tall at its highest point. Since most of the proposed density would be located on Parcel 1 (22 units, as opposed to 9 on Parcel 2), it can be assumed that the Bleeker Street neighbors would incur heavier impacts than would the neighbors across 7th, gth� or Main Streets. For reasons of fairness, staff feels the Bleeker Street should not also have their views compromised any more than the underlying zoning would bo permit. Thus, staff suggests that the roof form be modified and/or a garden level e b be constructed on the Bleeker Street townhouse building so that the R-MF height limit can be met without removing any units. Compliance with the APCIL4 Housing Guidelines The application is set to be reviewed by the Housing Authority at its April 7, 1999 meeting. As this memo was completed prior to the Housing Board's review, their recommendations could not be included. Thus, staff will verbally present the recommendations of the Housing Board to the Commission. The proposed unit sizes and category mixes are shown on the Development Program Summary Table, attached as Exhibit B. The Housing Board will be addressing the proposed mix of units and income categories, the proposed dormitory units, and the issues of credit for occupancy and the ability of the applicant to use the proposed units for mitigation of future growth. Housing Office staff is recommending that the Housing Board forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing, subject to the following conditions: 0 Detailed submission (Final PUD. application) will include calculations of exact net livable square footage for all units, including dormitory units; At detailed submission, the applicant will propose unit rents and prices to the extent that units will be rented or sold at levels below current maximums in the Housing Guidelines; • The units at the Bavarian shall not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The referral memo from the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) estimates that the proposed development would create the demand for approximately twenty-nine (29) additional transit trips on an average winter day (see Exhibit D). The RFTA analysis goes on to state that. this demand could necessitate an annual subsidy of approximately $13,000, which is offset by an estimated $8,000 in annual RFTA sales tax revenue generated by forty- two (42) new employees. The result would be an annual shortfall of approximately $5,000 with the development of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing PUD. The RFTA memo conc Ludes this analysis by expl ^ � ring that RFTA is currently struggling to identify sufficient resources to maintain existing _ ;rvice levels, replace obsolete vehicles, and maintain needed staffing levels. RFTA, therefore, recommends that the potential transit impacts of the Bavarian Inn development be borne by the developer, and since housing is RFTA's highest need at the current time, they r-dommend that one (1) of the housing units proposed be dedicated to RFTA employees to offset potential transit impacts. Unfortunately, Community Development Department staff feels that it must recommend against RFTA's suggestion. That is, if Savanah is willing to dedicate one unit to RFTA, then that is encouraged. However, RFTA is suggesting an exaction based on potential impacts, and staff is concerned with the legality of such an approach. First, the City has never adopted a transit impact fee or housing in-Iieu ordinance, and recent court decisions have found that an exaction (even when part of a legally adopted regulatory scheme) must have a rational nexus to the impact generated, be roughly proportional to the costs associated with offsetting the impacts generated, and be used to offset the actual impacts. The RFTA e outlines "potential" impacts and suggests an exaction (one deed restricted dwelling unit in lieu of $5,000 worth of annual impacts) that might not meet the rational nexus test or be roughly proportional to the impacts generated, and probably would not offset the actual impacts. REFERRALS: Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Transportation, RFT Zoning, Sanitation, Housing, and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit D, and a ' referenced as appropriate throughout both this memorandum and Exhibit A. re DISCUSSION: The review criteria for Planned Unit Development as well as staff s A evaluation of the application relative to these criteria are provided in the attached Exhibit A. Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standards For a complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit A attached hereto. Community Development staff is recommending approval of the 'proposed Conceptual PUD,.with conditions. While staff is recommending Conceptual PUD approval no recommendations with regard to the requested variances are included due to the otential for a conflict with the suggested requirement to change the site plan and the P 1 layout proposed development. Rather, staff is recommending that the specific varian requests evaluated during Final PUD review, with decisions rendered at that time. ce requests be RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conce tual PUD with the following conditions: P l . If the requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-MF/PUD is not a rov Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. PP ed, this 2. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Site Development Pla follows: Pment n shall be revised as a. The structure proposed along the alley shall be relocated to front on Main Street between the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street and the Eighth Street townhouse structure. b. Vehicular access to parking shall be from the alley only, with the one exce tion of the existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh StreetP proposed temporary curb cut shall be eliminated., m front of the Bavarian Inn. The C. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh Street shall be restricted to right -in and right -out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street, the Seventh/Main Streets intersection has been signalized, and traffic volumes on Seventh have decreased, the right -in and right -out only restriction may be removed to allow left turn movements to and from the alley. 3. The applicant shall make a eker good faith effort to modify the designof the proposed Street townhouse structure such that no units would be lost and theight ouldcom comply with the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation. P y 4. The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified in .accordance with the changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing the proposed landscape plan 12 for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work cooperatively with the City Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. The plan shall also demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shall provide plans or documents describing provisions for the on -going maintenance of all common areas and for ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. 5.: The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting plan, as well as the following written commitments: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and. all outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be prohibited. These lighting requirements shall be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association." 6. The Final PUD shall meet 311 requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems, and the - maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Proposed snow storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. 7. The Special Review application shall include a spillover parking management plan outlining specific strategies to limit the need for on -site parking. Such strategies might include but are in no way limited to the establishment of a parking permit system, a prohibition against on - street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use. and the provision of long-term auto storage off -site. 8. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including proposed easements; a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PM10 mitigation plan; a fugitive dust control plan and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestos inspection of the Bavarian Inn and its associated out -buildings as completed by a person licensed by the State of Colorado; a draft plat and Subdivision/PUD Improvements Agreement: and, any other reports identified by the City. Engineer as necessary for a full evaluation of the proposed development. 9. The Final PUD application shall clarify whether the applicant intends for the Category units to be rented and sold pursuant to the applicable APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of building permit issuance, or whether they would be rented and sold based on the policy statements contained in APCHA's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines. 10. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicable fees) with &.: Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant may be the recordation fee to the City Clerk, who will record the Resolution. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by,a Board/Commission having authority to do so. r RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD application with the conditions outlined in the Community Development staff memorandum dated April 13, 1999." 13 EXHIBITS: A - Staff analysis of the proposal relative to the PUD Review Standards B - Development Program Summary Table C - Vicinity Map D - Memos from referral agencies ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Application materials Attachment 2 — TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelo ment Tr affic raffic &Parking Study" 14 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD Staff Review of The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code. As explained in the main body of this memorandum, Parcel 1 is presently zoned R-i✓iF with a PUD overlay (R- MF/PUD, which requires PUD review for any proposal). In addition, Savanah proposes to rezone Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-yIF/PLD to accommodate the proposed multi -family structures. Since the entire parcel does not currently have a PUD overlay, any Conceptual PLC approvals would have to be fully contingent/conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. As part of the PUS application, Savanah is seeking variances from the minimum required open, space, maximum height limit, and minimum front and rear yard setbacks associated with the R-iVIF zone district. While staff is recommending Conceptual PUD approval, no recommendations with regard to the requested variances are included due to the potential for a conflict with the suggested requirement to change the site plan and layout of the proposed development. Rather, staff is recommending that the specific variance requests be evaluated during Final PUD review, with decisions on the variance requests rendered at that time. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staffs evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. la The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Of the statements in the AACP that relate to the subject proposal, the preponderance lend support, especially those of the Growth Action Plan and the Housing Action Plan. Examples of such supporting statements found in the AACP include the following: • The Intent of the Housing Action Plan, as stated on page 30 of the AACP, is to "Create a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." The proposed project would be appropriately scaled considering the mixed densities of housing found throughout the neighborhood. The policies listed on page 31 of the AACP also recommend continuing "the approach of dispersed mid -size to smaller projects throughout the Aspen metro area and upvalley of Aspen Village," and encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area ..." The proposed development is a mid -sized, infill project within the existing urban area. The Housing Action Plan also states that permanent resident housing should be located near desired activity centers, and the proposed deed restricted units would be just a few blocks from the Commercial Core. • It is recommended in the Housing Action Plan, that the City encourage "the purchase of existing structures to preserve them for resident housing in order to discourage displacement of local residents." Part of the proposal calls -for renovating an existing structure, and deed restricting all of its units for occupancy by local residents at affordable rates. As indicated on the Exhibit B table, the proposed development would house approximately sixty-four (64) local residents/employees. A-1 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptuai PUD There are also other statements found in the AACP that support the proposed development plan. For instance, Page 32 of the AACp, Housing Action Plan, calls for private sector development of units that "benefit the character of the community" and are `family oriented for working residents." The proposed unit and category mixes would provide family - oriented units for working residents. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 98-11 adopted the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an update to the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP. The Citizen Housing Plan set policies with regard to the locational philosophies and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. Since the proposed development is within the Metro Area; is in close proximity to multiple mass transit is self-contained and surrounded by existing development; can beserved b existing an d available utilities and public services; would fit- within the existing community fabric and character; does not propose under utilization of the site; and is consistent with the housing needs 'Identified in the APCHA Guidelines, staff finds the proposal :o be consistent with the Housing Element of the AACP and the priorities of the Citizen Housing Plan. Overall, the preponderance of goals in the AACP lend support to the proposed PUD. Accordingly, Community Development staff finds that there is enough support in the AACP for the proposed PUD to satisfy this criterion. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Surrounding developments include: the Klein duplex on the southeast corner of 8th and Bleeker (adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 1); the Villas at Aspen across 8th Street to the west and northwest; Bleeker Place condominiums across Bleeker Street to the north; - single-family residences across 7th and Bleeker Streets to the northeast and east; the Christian Science Reading Room then the Hickory House restaurant across 7th Street to the east; the West Hopkins Affordable Housing to the southeast; and, single-family residences across Main Street to the south. There is also an existing single- family residence (the Long residence) on the northwest corner of 7th and Main, adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 2. (See Vicinity Map attached as Exhibit C.) The Villas at Aspen and Bleeker Place are both multi -family condominium complexes, while the other surrounding uses include single-family homes and duplexes, as well as commercial/office uses. The proposal includes four multi -family residential structures of various sizes to be consistent and compatible with the existing single-family, duplex, and multi -family residences located on the adjacent properties. With staff s recommended changes to the site plan, the units would all be oriented and designed to have front porches face adjacent streets and contribute to the streetscape in a positive way. Each facade would be modulated in plan and elevation to create interest, scale, and massing which is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential uses. The site design would preserve significant tree clusters, maintain view corridors from some of the neighboring developments, and enhance the pedestrian experience along streets adjacent to the property: A - 2 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD I c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The project site represents one of the last significant development opportunities in the immediate area. As the area is essentially built -out, it is expected that the proposed re/development would have little, if any, affect on the future development potential of the surrounding area. In fact, positive affects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area might occur since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate the redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood; for instance, there are downstream collection constraints associated with the area's sanitary sewer system that would be eliminated through a system of prorated additional connection charges. 1 d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GILfOS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS allocation is not required for the proposed development since it would be exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050(Q(3)(b) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations as a 100% affordable housing proposal provided it is found to comply with the applicable requirements of APCHA's affordable housing guidelines. The GiVIQS Exemption request will be processed concurrently wi.h a Final PUD application and will require a recommendation from the Growth Management Commissien prior. to City Council's final decision. Conceptual PUD approval may be granted prior to the granting of the GtitQS Exemption, but the GiVIQS Exemption must be granted prior to Final PUD approval. ?. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying :one district. RESPONSE: A sub -section of the above -cited standard requires that the density of a PUD be reduced if the site contains areas with slopes in excess of 20%; however, no such reduction is required as both Parcel 1 and 2 are essentially flat. Thus, the entire square footage of Parcels 1 and 2 is available for density calculation purposes. Under the R-iN F zoning, the proposed development program for Parcel 1 requires a minimum lot area of 11,900 square feet while the Parcel 2 development would require a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet. Both of these figures are significantly less than each parcel's available lot area of 18,050 square feet, meaning sufficient land area is available to accommodate the project's proposed density: Also, see the "Floor Area" and "Rezoning and Site Suitability' sections in the main body of this memo. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, Parcel 2 is not currently zoned R-N1F/PL`D, and the existing R-15 zoning would not permit the proposed density. Thus, if Conceptual PIUTD is to be granted, the approval. would have to be fully contingent1conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorised to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house A-3 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD configuration, but multi family dtivelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying -one district. RESPONSE: The R-MF zone district lists multi -family units as a permitted use. Alain, multi -family residential uses are not permitted under the existing R-15 zoning of Parcel ?; consequently, if Conceptual PUD is to be granted, the approval would have to be fully contingent/conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying =one district: provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes): c. Minimum front yard: d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the R-MF zone district with the exceptions of maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and. minimum front and Year setbacks. Since the Parcel 2 portion of the property is currently zoned R-15, the applicant is relying upon approval of the request to rezone to the R-MF zone district. In general, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be done concurrently with review of a Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time as it reviews a -Final PUD application, especially those requests associated with setbacks and open space requirements. The height variance requests are not expected to change, with the possible exception of the allev structure being redesigned if made to front on Main Street, as recommended by staff. Portions of the three new multi -family structures would exceed the district's maximum allowable height of twenty-five (25) feet by approximately four to five (4-5) feet. Savanah is requesting variances to allow a maximum height of approximately twenty-nine (29) feet for the Eighth Street structure and the alley portion of the Main Street structure (4 foot variance). Similarly, the proposed height of the Bleeker Street structure is 30.5 feet (a 5.5 foot variance).. The variances are. requested to permit the dwelling units located in the subject structures to be completely above grade. The Parks Department is supporting the height variance requests since, without the variances, the buildings would likely be sunken below grade which would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees --- trees the applicant is attempting to preserve (see Exhibit D). The Parks Department memo goes on to explain that at -grade foundations will allow for the protection of significant tree roots on many of the large, mature trees. Community Development Department staff would support the Parcel 2 height variance requests as well, A EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PLD based on agreement with the points and concerns of the Parks Department as well as a feeling that the variance requests are modest in scope, result in more attractive architectural designs, would result in more livable, better dwelling units, and would have little adverse impact on area residents or the community at large. On Parcel 1, however, Community Development Department staff is of the opinion that the townhouse structure should be made to comply with the twenty-five (25) foot height Iimit. As proposed, this structure would have a height of 30.5 feet at a point that is one-third (1/3 ) of the wav between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. This would result in a building that is 37 feet, 7 inches (37' 7") tall at its highest point. Since most of the proposed density would be located.on Parcel 1 (22 units, as opposed to 9 on Parcel 2), it can be assumed that the. Bleeker Street neighbors would incur heavier impacts than would the neighbors across 7th, 8th, or Main Streets. For reasons of fairness, staff feels the Bleeker Street neighbors should not also have their views compromised any more than the underlying zoning would permit. Thus, sty f suggests that the roof form be modified and/or a garden level be constructed on the Bleeker Street townhouse building so that the R-vIF height limit can be met without removing any units. With regard to the setbacks, Savanah is requesting a variance of approximately four (4) feet from the ten (10) foot rear yard setback requirement to remove the nonconforming status of the existing Bavarian Inn structure (Parcel 1) where it is set only six (6) feet back from the alley. Similarly, a five (5) foot variance is requested from the required ten (10) foot front yard setback to accommodate the proposed multi -family structure that would front on Eighth Street (Parcel 2). All other proposed building setbacks would meet or exceed applicable requirements. The R/1ff zone requires that a minimum of 35% of the site must remain as open space meeting the definition of "open space" as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the code. As both Parcels 1 and 2 contain 18,050 square feet of land, the zoning provides that approximately 6,320 square feet of each parcel be maintained as open space. Under the current plan, Parcel 1 would contain approximately 5;460 square feet of open space or 30.2% of the total site area (861.% of that required, resulting in the need for a 5%, or 860 square foot variance). As proposed, Parcel 2 would contain approximately 4,510 square feet of open space or approximately 25% of the total site area (some 71% of that required, resulting in the need for an 11 %, or 1,810 square foot variance). The proposed shortfalls are largely attributable to the way in which open space is measured/defined, and to the applicant's attempt to provide the same amount of parking that would be required were the proposed units of the free market variety. In addition, the areas located between the property lines and the curbs cannot be counted towards open space calculations, but to the viewer/passer-by/user will be indiscernible from an..1 contiguous to the front yards; if this area were figured into the site, the percentage of open space provided would be significantly higher. In summary, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be done concurrently with review of a A EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD . Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time as it reviews a Final PUD application 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be van -red from that required in the underlying _one district based on ... [six enumerated) considerations. RESPONSE: The off-street parking requirements for the proposed development are to be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the Special Review application that would be processed concurrently with the Final PUD application. Sze "Parking" section in the main bodv of this memorandum. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying :one district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "response" to standard 4, above. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: See referral memo from the Parks Department, attached as Exhibit D. The submitted conceptual landscape plan identifies each of the site's existing trees that are proposed for preservation. The landscape plan provides for plantings including a mix of deciduous trees, coniferous trees, mixed shrubs, and groundcovers. The landscape . plan commits to the planting of several new trees which will compensate for the trees that must be removed. The plan includes concentrations of plantings along the street frontages which will greatly aid in enhancing the pedestrian experience, and softening the views and street presence of the structures. With staffs recommended changes to the site plan and layout of the proposed Parcel 2 development, the landscape plan would have to be revised accordingly. A detailed landscape plan will be required in conjunction with the Final PUD application, and the applicant is encouraged to work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so. rigidly enforced that individual initiative is shed in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character * based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimise A-6 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD disturbances to the natural terrain and max.*miae the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce.soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as architectural elevations and perspectives (see Attachment 1). The proposed architecture complies with all provisions of the City's Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.040. No changes to the exterior of the existing Bavarian Inn structure are proposed with the exception of new paint and finishes. Some people would like to see the exterior of the Bavarian Inn remodeled and made to be more compatible with the architecture of the proposed structures, but others feel that the existing architecture adds to the eclectic nature of Aspen's architectural tradition and should be retained. The proposed structures have been designed to be compatible with one another, but not identical or repetitive. The townhomes have principal windows facing the street and have been broken into primary and secondary masses by varying their textures and wall planes, and by employing dormers to vary the roof forms in an effort to maximize consistency and comp_. iity with existing residential structures on adjacent parcels. For instance, the size of the proposed new multi -family building on Parcel 1 steps down as it approaches the adjacent Klein duplex, while the height of the easterly end of this structure. approximates that of the adjacent Bavarian Inn structure. Similarly, the height of the easterly -most proposed structure on Parcel 2 is compatible with the height of the adjacent Long single-family residence. In general, the designs are of a contemporary nature yet compatible with each other and the visual character of the city. They use peaked roofs and gable forms while providing windows, decks and front porches. At Final, materials, colors, textures, and patterns will be selected to be appropriate to the alpine environment and consistent with those typically used throughout the City's history. This criterion states that "building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion." The development would be required to comply with the City's drainage standards, and many trees are proposed for preservation (see Parks Memo, Exhibit D). The need and desire to comply with this standard helps to support the requested height variances on Parcel 2. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed . to meet this criterion. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and all outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be prohibited. These requirements will be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association." A detailed outdoor lighting plan should also be required as part of the Final PUD application. FM EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: Given that this criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development- plan. 1I.. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: According to the referral memorandum from the Engineering Department (Exhibit D), "there is sufficient capacity in the utility systems to accommodate the increasing demands and loading which would be created by this development." Similarly, the memo from Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal, explains that "the project shall meet all of the requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes.'' The application includes a conceptual engineering report prepared by Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Mever, Inc., Consulting Engineers. Mr. Hammond's report indicates that existing utilities in the immediate site area are adequate to serve the proposed development. Existing utilities in the immediate site area include water, sewer. electric, telephone, natural gas and cable television. The submitted application represents that all costs associated with the installation or upgrading of required public facilities and utilities will be bome by Savanah, and that all utility extensions will be located underground with appropriate easements dedicated to the various public and private utilities, as required. Existing utility pedestals will be relocated from the alley right-of-way as will be required, and potential locations for new and/or relocated utility pedestals and electric transformers are identified on the proposed site development plan (see Attachment 1). Emergency vehicle access would be provided via the adjacent public street system and the alley. Fire hydrants are conveniently located at the northwest corner of Seventh and West Bleeker Streets, on the west side of Eighth Street near its intersection with West Main Street, and at the northwest corner of West Main and Seventh Streets. 1 "a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to each dwelling unit would be available from the alley, West Main Street, Bleeker Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street. Pedestrian access is also provided from these rights -of -way. 12b:Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum ha-ards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. lVinor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. A-3 EXIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD RESPONSE: There are no minor streets within the PUD. The applicant submitted a TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelopment Traffic and Parking Study," included as Attachment 2. On page 25 of the TDA report, it is stated that, based on a 90% year-round occupancy rate, "Using ITE trip generation rates, we estimate that the proposed developments will result in a net increase of 10 trips." The TDA- study concludes that: During the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, all studv intersections operate at1OS [Level of Service] B or better under existing background and project conditions. Overall intersection operations remained unchanged between background and project conditions. Northbound left/through/right movements at 7th Street/.Main Street intersection degraded from LOS D to LOS E during the summer p.m. peak hour with the project. Overall operations at this intersection remained at LOS A. The proposed project does not degrade any intersections to an unacceptable level of service, so no mitigation is proposed. The realignment of Highway 82 will substantially reduce traffic volumes on 7th Sh-eet and Hallam Street and will improve LOS at the study intersections north of _Llain Street. The planned traffic signal at the 7 StreetlMain Street intersection will improve access to and from 7 Street to the north. In addition, the TDA study recommends (on page 22) that the east end connection of the alley to 7th Street be restricted to right turn -in and right turn -out only. The study explains that "left turns into the site from northbound 7th Street would be difficult due to the large volumes of sozithbound traffic. Left turns out of the alley could be problematic due to the he.:.y southbound traffic volumes and dire to the short distance to the intersection at 7rh Street/_Llain Street where large volumes of traffic are just completing their turn to the north and are approaching the alley exit," (page 22). The study goes on to explain on page 22 that "After Highway 82 has been. realigned to 11ain Street and traffic volumes on 7th Street have decreased, it could be possible to allow left turns between the alley and 7th Street." These TDA recommendations are included in staff s recommended conditions of approval. 12c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Response" to standard 12b., above. 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: As proposed, the development would comply with this. standard. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating tragic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: There are no nonresidential uses proposed within this PUD. A-9 EXHIBIT A Bavauian-Conceptual PUD I2f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: All relevant streets are already public rights -of -way, and comply with all . pertinent City regulations and ordinances. A-10 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE BAVARIAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ON LOTS D THROUGH I, BLOCK 11, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND LOTS K THROUGH P, BLOCK 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735.123.08.004 Resolution #99 - 1 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Savanah Limited Partnership, owner, as represented by Vann Associates, LLC, for Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval of a 31 residential unit (18 apartments and 13 dormitory rooms) affordable housing development on two (2) parcels located between the intersections of State Highway 82, Seventh Street, Eighth Street, and Bleeker Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, designation of land Planned Unit Development and development of land designated Planned Unit Development may be granted Conceptual approval by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the' Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, Parks Department, Environmental Health Department, the City Transportation Planner, the City Zoning Officer, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, W-HEREAS, during a special meeting on April 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to (_ to _) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should approve this Conceptual- Planned Unit Development application for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing project subject to the following conditions: . 1. If the requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-W/PUD is not approved, this Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. 2. For the Final PUD application, the, proposed Site Development Plan shall be revised as follows: a. The structure proposed along the alley shall be relocated to front on Main the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street Street between townhouse structure.. and the Eighth Street b. Vehicular access to parking shall be from the alley only, with the one existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian on of the proposed temporary curb cut shall be eliminated. Bavarian Inn. The C. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh restricted to right -in and right -out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned Street shall n Street, the Seventh/Main Streets intersection has been signalized, and trafficgned to Main Seventh have decreased, the right -in and right -out only restriction may bvolumes on allow left turn movements to and from the alley. Y be removed to 3. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to modify the Street townhouse structure such that no units would be lost and then of the proposed Bleeker the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation. height would comply with 4• The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified i changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing theproposed l an s with the for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work co landscape plan Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection ofvely species, the City Parks plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. species, spacing of demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to The plan shall also Aspen Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shallprovide Main Street documents describing provisions for the on -going maintenance of all co provide plans or ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. mmon areas and for �. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting following written commitments: "If any outdoor fighting is used on the plan, as well as the will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and all outdoor lightingsubject property, it own -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be employ lighting requirements shall be included in the covenants (or other documentsprohibited. These affect) of the, homeowners' association." of similar 6. The Final PUD shall meet all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm s District, including maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. systems, and the storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. Proposed snow 7• The Special Review application shall include a spillover specific strategies to limit the need for on -site parking. parking management plan outlining in no way limited to the establishment of a parking penn't s stem auch les might include but are street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto'use, and prohibition against on - long -term auto storage off -site. provision of 8. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PM10 mitigation plan; a fugitive Bused easements; and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestost• control plan the Bavarian Inn and its associated out -buildings as completed b a person inspection of State of Colorado; a draft plat and Subdivision/PUD Improvements Agreem licensed by the other reports identified by the City Engineer as necessary for a full evaluationt� and, any proposed development. of the 9. The Final PUD application shall clarify whether the applicant intends f or the to be rented and sold pursuant to the applicable APCHA guidelines in 'effect atCategoryunits at thheettime of @F E building permit issuance, or whether they would be rented and sold based on the policy statements contained in APCHA's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines. F' 10. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicab a fees) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant maybe the recordation fee to the City Clerk, who will record the Resolution. A 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. APPROVED by,the Commission at its meeting on April 13, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING CONMSSION: i City Attorney ATTEST: Robert Blaich, Chair Exhibit B Development Program Summary Table AR L 1 PROPOSAL Amount of Bedrooms Net Livable Cumulative AH No. of Tenancv Units (per Unit) Area Net Livable Category Employees Type Area Housed' Remodeled Bavarian Inn Structure 7 dorm 200 sf 1,400 sf Two 7.00 rental 6 dorm 300 sf 1,800 sf Two 12.00 rental 1 2 1,100 sf 1,100 sf L.P. Three 2.25 rental 1 3 1,160 sf 1,160 sf Two 3.00 rental 15 5 + 13 N/A 5,460 sf N/A 24.25 N/A Bleeker Street Building 2 1 650 sf 1,300 sf Two 3.50 sale 2 2 900 sf 1,800 sf Two 4.50 sale 3 3 1,200 sf 3,600 sf Three 9.00 sale 7 15 7 N/A 6,700 sf N/A 17.00 N/A Parcel 1 Totals 22 20 + 13 N/A 12,160 sf I N/A 41.25 N/A :. .. ;PARCEL 2 PROPOSAL Amount of Units Bedrooms (per Unit) Net Livable Area Cumulative Net Livable Area AH Category No. of Employees, Housed' Tenancy Type Eighth Street Structure 5 3 1,200 sf 1 6,000 sf Four 15.00 1 sale Main Street Building 2 2 1 2 1,125 sf 1,000 sf 2,250 sf 2,200 sf L.P. Three L.P. Three 3.50 4.50 sale sale 4 6 N/A 4,450 sf N/A 8.00 N/A Parcel 2 Totals 9 21 N/A 00,450 sf N/A 23.00 N/A 1 = Based on APCHA Guidelines' Occupancy Rates WE Exhibit B Development Program Summary Table Combined Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Totals: • 31 units (13 dorm + 18 regular) • 54 total bedrooms (41 in the 18 regular units + 13 dorm rooms) • 22,610 square feet of net livaole area (12,160 on Parcel 1, and 10,450 on Parcel 2) • 30,280 square feet of FAR (17,030 on Parcel 1, and 13,250 on Parcel 2) • 64.25 employees housed' • 18 Category Two units (13 dorm for rent; 2 one -bedrooms for sale; 2 two -bedrooms for sale; a � and, 1 three -bedroom for sale) • 5 "lower -priced" Category Three units (2 one -bedrooms for sale; and, 3 two -bedrooms, of which one would be for rent and two for sale) • 3 standard Category Three (all three -bedrooms for sale) • 5 Category Four (all three -bedrooms for sale) • Total of 15 rental units (13 of which are dorms), and 16 units for sale • 100% Affordable Housing, of which: • 58% would be Category Two 26% would be Category Three (of which 62.5%, or 5 of 8, are "lower -priced") • 160% Category Four APP ro�simately 36,100 square feet of land (18,050 on each parcel) • 45 Off -Street Parking Spaces (19 on Parcel 1, and 26 on Parcel 2) 1 = Based on APCHA Guidelines' Occupancy Rates IM _ 6 ! sr DRAFT rvfEM0KkNDL"_NI To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh. City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom.'Project Engineer Date: March 26, 1999 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, GINIQS Exemption and Vested Property Fights Reviews Phvsical Address: 801 West Bleeker Street and 834 West tilain Street. Citv of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lots D through I, and K through P, Block 12. Aspen Original Townsite. Citv of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO. After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the comments made by the members of the DRC: Discussion: .As a conceptual application, the applicant has addressed the major elements and requirements of the development and there are no apparent problems which would preclude the development as proposed. The major areas of conce,rn are the adequacy of the parking, the geometry and access to accommodate the vehicular traffic, and neighborhood drainage patterns. Given the future re -alignment of Highway 82 from N. 7th St. to W. Main St., it may be more appropriate to execute agreements for future construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and streetscapes rather than construct these before a design is available for the new highway alignment. If the proposed site plan is modified from the one presented in the application, as discussed in the DRC meeting, the Engineering Dept. should review the new site plan to verify that these comments are still pertinent to the development and to review the proposed design. Nc additional information is necessary at this time, although if the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated February 15, 1999) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to chancres in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. A draft copy of the Traiiic & Parking Study, dated March 12, 1999, was also reviewed. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the several forms of development requested in the application. 1.: Parkincr: This neighbor is relatively contested with vehicles typically parked the entire length of N. 8th St. and W. Bleeker St. due to the inadequate on -site parking at the Bleeker Place and Villas of Aspen. The final design and practical use of the site should dictate the number of parking spaces. As presented, the number of parking spaces and parking plan are reasonable. While the Aspen Municipal Code does not have a standard nor definition for semi -compact nor compact designated parking spaces, this may provide additional alternatives if standards for these types of parking spaces were developed. 1 OF 2 DRCv10999.D0C Memo -Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: m, Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning Special Review for ParkingGNtQS Exemption and Vest Rights Reviewsp Vested Property DRAFT When the re -alignment of the highway is completed, there may be a net loss of on -street ark' Of this proposed development since the block is shorter in a north -south direction parking around the block Assuming that parking would be permitted on �t 7th St. (200 less two driveways at the Ithe east -west direction. on W. Main St., (�'70 ft less two driveways [one residential, one commercial there c oda nand not permitted two on -street parking spaces. �)� could be a net loss of probably The driveway locations along the N 7th St. frontage may be improved if the existing trees are removed and the entire length of the street frontage adjusted to best -fit the driveways and re lacement available for driveways, trees and -a maneuverable parking Q P tre,.s. Given the space appear to be feasible. P arran`ement, only minor improvements to the entrances 2. Parks Dept.: (See the separate memo from the Parks Dept.) These comments are conditioned upon a thorough evaluation of the conditions of the tree any revisions to the site plan including the depth of the building foundations. Several trees may be recommended site, and for removal or relocation on a case specific basis after further evaluation of the health of the. ommetr es which are identified as being preserved in the application site plan may actually be impacted by trees. Other trees the buildings due to the proximity of the buildings to the trees and the building foundation construction of depths. 3. Electric Dept.: Refer to the comments provided in the previous review of this project. P 4. Environmental Health: The project will need to address PM-l0 mitigation which may be in part or whole, through paving of the alleyand parking accomplished, projects. p area, and by financially participating in other off --site �• Utilities: No utility plan was provided in the application packet so there are no comme aspect of the proposed development. Generally there is sufficient capacity in the utility system- to nts about this the increased demands and loading which would be created by this development. The a- iicant'own' e cco would nee e to fulfill the current standards of each utility provider for service atdevelopment. the time of r would need 6. Public Street Improvements: The applicant/owner should install street lights and other typical street improvements as part of the development. Since the street a ' curb, ,utter, sidewalk, along the W. Main St. frontage has yet to be designed for the re -alignment of W. 141ain Stn and the configuration frontage may be re -configured with the re -location of the Highway, it would be practical the N. 7th St. complete an improvement agreement for this portion of the public improvements. Acondition or the applicant to regarding the timing of the improvements in relation to the re -development of the public rights two included two street frontages. ay on these DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Sonny Vann, John Sarpa Staff & Referral Agencies: Rebecca S., Ross S., Mitch H., Tom Bracewell, Phil 0., John K. DRCM0999.DOC 2 OF 2 NMEM, 0RA�tDL YI TO: Mitch Haas FRONT: Claude Morelli C C : Amv tilargerum. Randv Readv, Julie Ann Woods DATE: 1 vovember 1998 This memorandum responds to your request for comments on the Bavarian Inn PT;D appiication recently submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership. Having carefully reviewed the application and its supporting materials. I offer the following thoughts and recommendations regarding the transportation aspects of :his proposal. SITE ACCESSIBILITY The Bavarian Inn site is one of the most accessible in the entire cit;r for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Current frequency of R.FTA service to Rubev Park averages about one bus every ten minutes. Service to the AABC, Buttermilk, Highlands, and the Town of Snowmass Village averages about one bus every 20 to 30 minutes. A light rail stop is planned for the southeast comer of Main and Seventh S -eets. If and when light rail becomes operational, service frequency to Rubey Park will likely remain at approximately_ today level, while frequency to points outside of :aspen will likely double. For pedestrians, the site is generally well connected via sidewalks and walkable side streets to the downtown core, points along Main Street, and the area around the post "office. Cyclists can easily access the site via designated bikeways on Hallam, Hopkins, and (in the future) Highway 82. PARKING SUPPLY Redevelopment of the Bavarian Inn site carries the possibility that a parking spillover problem may arise in the future, particularly with regard to the neighboring Villas townhouse complex. Savanah has sought to avoid this problem by including abundant off-street parking in its proposal. More specifically, Savanah has proposed one Memo re Bavarian Inn Claude 1. Moreili 11/17/98 space for each dormitory room and one -bedroom unit, and two spaces for each n o- and three -bedroom unit.' This would produce a total of 45 spaces. As Savanah notes. supplying parking at this quantity is "consistent with the R"NIF zone district's off=street parking requirements for similarly configured free market dwelling units.'" I am very concerned by these ratios. I think they are much too high. As I have already noted. the Bavarian Inn site is one of the most transit. pedestrian and bic':vcle- friendly in town. Given this fac:. why should we expect (or desire) Savanah to supply parking at levels normally associated with automobile -oriented suburban locations' It seems to me that we should be creating incentives for Bavarian residents to live without owning cars (or without owning multiple cars), rather than the other way around. Reducing the off-street parking supply provides just such an incentive. and is entirely reasonable and justified given the excellent access to the downtown core and other locations via transit, foot, and bicycle.' Another problem with the amount of proposed off-street parking relates to the quantity of land it would consume. The total developable area of he site is only about 36,000 square feet. Of this amount, parking would consume approximately 10.135 square feet, or over'_'8-percent. Wouldn't this land be put to better use as space for additional housing or a green area? Finally, under the current proposal. parking will virtually dominate views of the site from both 'Main Street and "th Street. Parkinuvill consume about 40-percent of the view from Nfain. and about 50-percent of the view from 7th. If maintaining a continuous street wall on this site is at all desirable (as I think it is), these percentages are much too high. Parkin; Supply Recommendation. As an alternative to the parking ratios outlined in the existing proposal, I recommend the following off-szeet parking supply schedule: Type of Unit lUnits- Spaces/Unit Spaces Dormitory Room 13 none 0 One -Bedroom Flat 4 1.0 4 Two -Bedroom Flat 1 1.0 1 Three -Bedroom Flat 1 1.0 1 Two -Bedroom Townhouse 4 1.0 4 Three -Bedroom Townhouse 8 1.0 3 TOTAL 31 NIA 18 I Application for Conceptual PUD Development Plan Approval (September 15, 1998), p. 19. 21bid. 3 It is worth noting that, currently in Aspen, over 30 percent of adults and teenagers over the age of 16 do not have access to an automobile for personal use. Healthy Mountain Communities, Study of Local and Regional Travel Patterns, Vol. 1. , Figure 2.9, page 2-10. C:\HON[E\NiITCHH�liNATTACHIBAV AR—VP.DOC Memo re Bavarian Inn Claude S. Morelli 11/17/98 An additional number of spaces (perhaps five or six) could be made available as short-term (i.e., up to two hours) parking for guests and loading/unloading. These spaces should be designed for future conversion to additional housing once 7th Street is reconstructed (follow-ing the -re-route of Highway 82 onto the modified direct alignment) to include on -street parking. PARKING SPILLOVER SOLL71ONS I believe that a solution to the parkins spillover problem is achievable through a combination of parking management strategies. These include • Establishing a parking permit system. • P:ohibitina on -street parking. • Requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use. • Providing long-term car storase off -site. Discussion of each of these strategies follows. Parkinb Permit System. In order to park off-street at the Bavarian. residents should 'Oe required to obtain parking permits. A substantial fee should be char`ed for these permits. and the fee should be separate from the ;ent for the housins. The total number of permits valid at any given time should be no greater than the total number of Iona -term par'_king spaces provided on -site. 4niv residents of the non -dormitory units should be entitled to receive permits from the housing manzement. The entitlement should consist, however, of only one permit per household. Each household should be free to sell its permit to. the highest bidder, in a private transaction. Thus, each non -do =l Tory household would be free to obtain more than one permit if it finds another household that is willing to give up its entitlement. Dormitory households should also be given the right to bid on the for -sale permits. All permit holders should be required to register with the housing management. Prohibition of On -Street Parkin;. Residents of the Bavarian should be prohibited from obtaining permits from -the City of Aspen for on -street residential -area parking. This would mean that anv automobile owned by a Bavarian resident and parked in a residential area on a long -tern basis would be ticketed and towed if necessary. A precedent for this type of arrangement is the agreement between the Red Brick and the City regarding parking availability for tenants of the building. The on -street parking prohibition could remain in effect zither indefinitely or until Highway 82 is re-routed off 7th Street, and 7th Street is reconstructed with additional on - street -parking. C:\.HOyIE\NIITCHI-D-tNATT'aCH,BAVAR--VP.DOC Me.nio re Bavarian Inn Claude J. Moreili 11/ 1'/98 Landlord -Tenant AgreementslRemote Car Storage. Residents of the dormitory units should be required to sign an agreement with the housing management (and possibly with the Villas and the City as well) stating that they will either (a) not own or have regular access to automobiles while living at the Bavarian, (b) store automobiles oniv at V designated locations off -site: or (c) park on -site only if they- have managed to obtain a permit. Residents of non -dormitory households should be required to sign an agreement that (a) limits the number of automobiles owned or availabie to the number of permits possessed by the household: and (b) requires storage of any additional automobiles at one or more of the designated locations off -site. Off -site, long -tern car storage facilities might be established at any one or more of the following locations: the yiusic School. the Golf Course, the ai.mort park -and -ride lot, beneath the proposed hotel on Lot of the Aspen Mountain PUD and he Brush Creek Road intercept lot. The city could require Savanan' to lease a cerain number of spaces at one or more of these locations. This number could be adjusted on an annual basis depending on the revel of demand for spaces exhibited in the pre,,-ious year. Savanah would be compensated for the lease payment through fees for parking it would charge to its tenants. WALKWAY I1-YIPROVENIENT R.ECONIMENDATIONS Sidewalk Location and Continuity. A continuous sidewalk should exist along all streets fronting the project. These include Main, Bleeper, Seventh and Eighth Streets. The parking lot in front of the old Bavarian Inn should be removed to make way for a sidewalk at that location, and for additional green space or housing units, V Alley Treatment The alley should be designed to calm traffic and permit its use as a safe walkway. Sidewalk Design. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet in width and be detached from the curb. The strip of ground between the sidewalks and curbs should be landscaped with appropriate street trees set twenty to thirty feet apart, on center. Crosswalks. Current conditions at the intersection of Main and Seventh Street do not permit easy crossing of the streets by pedestrians. Plans for the re -alignment of Highway 8? away from Seventh and the installation of a traffic signal at tilain and Seventh will generally solve this problem, but only if adequate attention is given to the design of the crosswalks. Crosswalks should be well marked and include pedestrian signals. Curb Cut iWinimization. Because the existence of curb cuts introduces a level of discomfort for pedestrians walking along sidewalks, the number of curb cuts associated with the Bavarian project should be minimized. Thus, the temporary curb cut should not be permitted on Main Street, and the existing curb cuts in front of the old Bavarian Inn should be eliminated (along with the parking at this location). C:\HONIE\NfITCHH\INATTACH\BA V. \R--VP.DOC 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing, Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property R._hts. DATE: March 11, 1999 The following analysis is based on both Parcels 1 and 2 being zoned RM-F (Residential Multi -Family). The proposed project meets the dimensional requirements of the RM-F zone district with the following exceptions: Parcel 1: - Requires open space variance of 5% to allow for 30% open space. - Requires height variance of 4 feet to allow for a height of 29 feet. - Requires rear yard setback variance of 3.7 feet to allow for a 6'4" rear yard setback. Parcel 2: - Requires open space variance of 10° o to allow for 25% open space. Requires height variance of 4 feet for Main St. structure to allow for a height. of 29 feet, and 5.5 foot height variance for Bleeker St. structure to allow for a height of 30.5 feet. - Requires 5 foot front yard variance on 8`" St. to allow for a 5 foot front yard setback. - Requires 5 foot rear yard variance at alley to allow for a 5 foot rear yard setback. (* * Per Section 26.04.100 — Yards, Corner Lots — On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, and the chosen yard must the meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the required front yard setback distance. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots, regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner.) Floor area calculations cannot be verified at this time as inadequate information is available for that level of review. All dimensional requirements will be re -verified at time of building permit review. Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development FRONT: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director n DATE: March 18, 19.99 RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing - Conceptual PUD; Subdivision. Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, Vested Property Rights - CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership and offer the following comments: • The applicants have striven to preserve trees on the site to the greatest extent possible. There are two, possibly three (2-3) trees on Parcel 1 however, that we are requesting be relocated instead of removed. They are located on the alley side of Lot 1 and depicted as an 8 Spruce, an 8" Pine, and a 10" Pine. We would like to work with the developers as this project proceeds to determine the optimum survivability for these trees. There are also a few trees that we may recommend be removed and replaced as part of the overall landscape plan. -In particular, the two to three (2-3) large Spruce trees in the Seventh Street right-of-way (R. 0. W .) are in decline and are inappropriate trees for a R.O.W. We would prefer Cottonwoods be re-established in this area alone with an improved sidewalk situation, which may include reconfiguring the access to the parking lot. • We would also support the applicant's request for a height variance for the buildings. This is because sinking the buildings below existing grade would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees they are attempting to preserve. An at -grade foundation will allow for protecting significant tree roots on many of the trees. The final comment is there are two (2) Aspen trees which no longer exist on Parcel 2, yet they are indicated on. the Tree Removal Plan. It appears that they may have been removed recently (in the last year or two), however, no mitigation will be required for these trees. All other trees have been inspected on the two parcels, and all other trees must have a proper tree removal permit or will be counted for mitigation. To: Mitch Haas, Planner From: Aspen Fire Protection District Subject: Bavarian Inn Parcel, ID 4 27351-123-08004 Date: February 26, 1999 Dear ditch, This project shall meet all of the requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Also, please note the five minute response tune, as mentioned in Part IV Review Requirements subsection B 9 64 is no longer a criteria for determining fire sprinkler requirements. Please contact me if you have any comments or concerns. YOU, Ed Aspen ConsolidatedSanitation district Kelly y Ke airman P1u1 Smith ' Treas :Llic,zael Kelly March 9, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 13 0 S . Galena Aspen, COS 1611 Re: Bavarian Inn AH Dear Mitch: John Keleher Fran Louslun Bruce -Lladl erly, \Ilgr The comments that we made on this application in October of 1998 remain accurate. We will need to review the utility, drainage and landscaping plans for the site. Shared service line agreements will be needed for multiple units served by a single service line. A grease interceptor will. required for the common kitchen provided for the dormitory units. New service fin be proposed development will be needed. The emsting service lines will need to be es for all of the according to District specifications. Development built on grade may be able to beserved by moved gravity. ��Ve would recommend that any common elements or improvements be specifically addressed though condominium or association regulations or covenants. There are downstream collection system constraints that will be eliminated through a system of prorated additional connection charges. The total connection charges for the development can be estimated once detailed plans are, available and tap permit is completed at our office. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, S,-, w — Bruce Matherly �. District Manager 565 N. INlill St -,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / EVY (970) 925-2537 MEMORANDUM j o: Nlitch Haas, Community Development Department Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director Nancy From: Nan MacKenzie, Environmental Health Specialist �- Date: November 17,1998 - Re: Bavarian Inn :Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GNIQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights Parcel ID # The AsP en/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal for the Bavarian Inn Property, which is located near the intersection of Main Street and North Seventh Street, under authority of the Nlunicioal Cade of the City of ,Asuen, and has the following comments. SEWAGE 'I'RE ATNiENT Alv-D COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the dty to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device." The plans to pr ovide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department The ability of the Aspena Co ant must anitatide on District to handle the increased flow for the project should. be determined by the ACSD. Thepp p documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. ADE LATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER L"EEDS: Section 23-53 buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municpal water utility system." The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health water ises available ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of aspen Water Department shall determine ifadequate for the project The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement to serve the project must be provided. WATER QUALITY IlMPACTS: Secply from tion 11-1.3 "For the purpourisdicse of tio within the incoand rporated limits limits f the -City of g its municipal water pAspen and over injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory) rP° all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plant o mitigate,the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. AIR QUA and techniques to control, prevent : Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Codel to achieve the and raximum practical educe air pollution degree of air purity possible by requiring the use seek to lessenable s congestion" aractical nd 'avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations g to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". 1 The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project PNI-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution The applicant needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE trip generation rates), commit to a set of control measures, aid show that the control measures offset the traffic or PM10 produced by the project Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition.Free Market and Affordable Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.33 trips per day per unit. Rental apartments generated 6.47 trips/day. Free -Market units located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.3 trips per day and affordable Housing units are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips per day. We have calculated that the existing use, one single family house and 19 rental apartments, generates 14.2 Lbs of PM- 10 traffic emmissions per day. The proposed development of 31 affordable housing units will generate 32.6 lb of PM- 10 per day. 32.6 minus 14.2 =18.4 lbs of P?N1-10/ day increase in PM-10 that will be generated by this development The applicant is required to mitigate the increase in PM-10 that will be generated:18.4 lbs of PN1-10/day ( the equivalent of 131 new vehicle trips per day.) The application does not address traffic impacts as related to PM-10 mitigation. The applicant needs to meet with the Environmental Health Department on this subject. The proposals to extend sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation is one form of mitigation. Other accepted mitigations include offering tenants and owners the use of free bicycles, providing for lower homeowners' dues for those owning fewer cars or paving RFTA bus stops. A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide a PM10 mitigation plan for approval from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, which documents that measures are sufficient to offset increases in P'NIzo caused by the project. This plan should be approved prior to detailed submission or issuance of buildinz permits. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PEMNUTS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodst-oves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per buildinz. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site. ASBESTOS Commercial - Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. Environmental Health cannot sign any building permits until we get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. E€ . V OISE ABATE-vfENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that'noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a ;:anent and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and f" at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissi%Ie sound Level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 P.M. F It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. i 3 ISOARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY PEN, COLORADO To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department, City of Aspen From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency Date: 03/12/1999 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Summary The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) has conducted a' review of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Application to estimate the potential impact upon the public transit system. In general, it is estimated that the development will create the demand for approximately 29 additional transit trips on an average winter day (Table A). This demand could require an - annual subsidy of approximately $13,000 (Table B). This subsidy is offset by an estimated $8,000 in annual RFTA sales tax revenue generated by 42 new employees (Table C). Therefore, RFTA estimates an annual shortfall of approximately $5,000 with the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Application. - RFTA is currently struggling to ident'rry sufficient resources to maintain existing service levels, replace obsolete vehicles, and maintain needed staffing levels. RFTA, therefore, recommends that the potential transit impacts of the Bavarian Inn development be bom by the developer. Since housing is RFTA's highest need at this time we recommend that one of the housing units proposed be dedicated to RFTA employees to offset potential transit impacts. 0 Page 1 Analysis Transit Trip Demand Based on the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines, the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing conceptual PUD application proposes a development that will house 64 employees. Since between 19 and 22 employees currently live at this location, the development will create a minimum - increase of 42 employees. The most accurate means of estimating the number of transit passenger trips that would. be generated by the Bavarian Inn development is to compare the land use quantities with similar quantities served by RFTA. The population of Aspen is estimated to be 5,524 (Colorado Division of Local Government, 1997). As shown in the top portion of Table A, the number of average daily transit trips made by Aspen area residents on RFTA (over both a peak summer and peak winter day) was divided by the estimated population to identify a daily transit trip rate of .58 transit trips per capita in the summer, and .68 transit trips per capita in the winter. Multiplying by the estimated increase in population of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing (42), the estimated number of one-way transit trips generated by residents of development is identified as 24 over a summer day, and 29 over a winter day Anndal ridership was estimated by applying the existing observed ratio of annual RFTA ridership on .Aspen service to the average winter daily ridership. Using this ratio, the Bavarian Inn is estimated to generate . approximately 6,823 RFTA passenger -trips per year. Impact on RFTA's Operating and Capital Costa The second part of the analysis estimated the annual RFTA operating and capital costs attributed to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development.. The Castle/Maroon bus route was used as the basis for this analysis, since this is one of two city routes which serves the development This route also has the lowest cost per passenger of the two routes that would serve the Bavarian Inn Development. First, total projected ridership on the Castle/Maroon Route was calculated by taking existing projected ridership and adding the Bavarian Inn ridership. Using projected costs, a cost per passenger of $1.84 was. calculated. This cost was then applied to the passenger trips created by the Bavarian Inn PUD. Therefore, there is a $12,500 transit operating cost attributable to the new Bavarian Inn employees. From the analysis, the Bavarian Inn will increase ridership on the Castle/Maroon bus route by about two percent. This percentage can then be applied to the annual • Page 2 Table A: Analysis of Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Impact on RFTA Ridership and Fleet Requ i rement Residential Land Use Estimated Average Daily RFTA Ridership Pop Aspen Summer Writer5,524 1 O Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate 3,199 (2) 3,762 (2) (Cne-way Psgr-Trips per Capita) 0.58 0.68 Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing 42 (3) 24 Conceptual PUD Application 29 Ratio of Annual Ridership to Average Winter Daily Ridership on Aspen Service 239 2 Estimated Transit Trips per Year Note: 1 Demography Section, Colorado Division of Local Government, November, 1997 Note: 6,823 2 RFTA Counts Note: 3 Estimated Increase in population Table S: Impact on RFTA subsidy requirements Line Estimated Transit Trips Per Year For Bavarian Inn PUD (From Table A. 6,823 A *^Cne Way Ridership on Castle/Maroon Route 417,436 ` B Total Projected Ridership With Bavarian Inn= Line A + Line 8 424,259 C Percent Change in Ridership = (Line C - Line B)ILine B *100 2% D *1999 Projected Net Total Cost of Castle/Maroon Service $778,646 F 1998 Net total cost per passenger.= Line E I Line B $1.87 G New Projected Net Total cost per Passenger- Line E/Line C $1.84 H Total subsidy required for new passengers= Line A X Line H $12,522.31 i Estimated annual cost of buses on Castle/Maroon $53,163 J Percent of new bus attributed to new riders = Line I X Line D $868.95 K Total Annual Operating and Capital costs attributed to Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing = Line J + Line H $13,391.26 L * Note: RFTA Budget Dated Ncverr W er 30; 1998 1999 Projected Numbers Used* " Note: Castle Maroon Route Used Due To its Low Cost Per. Passenger Table C: RFTA. Estimated Sales Tax Generated From 42 New Employees In Aspen Estimated Average Annual Income For Employees $33,058 Asume 40% of Income Spent In Aspen $13,223.20 Sales Tax Generated For RFTA $198.35 RFTA Sales Tax Generated By 42 People $8,330.62 Based on RFTA's Average Annual Income For Year -Around Employees capital costs of buses on the Castle/Maroon route. Therefore, $869 in annual capital costs can be attributed to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing project. If the operating and capital costs are combined, the annual total subsidy created by the Bavarian Inn PUD could be about $1 3,000. Sales Tax Revenue Generated I The final part of the analysis concentrated on sales tax revenue generated for RFTA by the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing development. This analysis required two assumptions. First, the average annual income for the new 42 Bavarian employees is estimated to be $33,000 (the average income for RFTA year -around employees was used for this assumption). Second, 40% of this income is spent in Aspen on taxable goods and services. With these two assumptions, RFTA could receive about $8,000 in tax revenue from the 42 employees housed by the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. As the City's-Housing Designee. the Housing Cffica is =thori.ed to make reoommend.atrons to City Council regarding the moot of gmwth or- housing, the appropriateness of a proposed : aordng for housing purposes, and :he use as mitigation of housing that is proposed, in.addition, he City oral die housing Board have been contacted h,: citizens Zeno -erred about the deve:ope I3 obiigavicr,, to provide this '_:4u31ng. Staff has reviewed the. listory of tlis :Qsue, through the written record and stater ents by citizens and representatives of the developer. We betieeve, based* on our : evie;v, that the ballot question -vas condT.=Ied in a context that included community-corcerlt about the . amount of Zcrdable hcusi:.g proposed as mitigation for +d'.e P'_nZ= I Hotel (R t.2 Hotel). The ballot language approved by the voters appears to do two Iings: 1. It approves the PUD agreement that was previously ==ded and approved by :he Cary Council. The PUD agreement specifies the requirements for affordable housing in Phase I of the PU'D, and speificaily requires review of affordable locusing to be provided in future pbases. 2. It provides for the developer to submit a land use application fer Mousing at the Bavarian Inn propery, in addition to the PUD agmment Based on the historr of ;he : roject and the :lean language of the ballot, staffbe?irves that there is a clear housing Interest at issue, and that it is appropriate for the City's Housing Desipee to take a position cn :his issue. 5taEfurL'='oeueves tAat yhe develcgers obligation to provide housing at the Bavarian Insi property lees not entitle the developer to use those units '; mitzgate fcr any future chase of the .Aspen Mountain PUD. Recommendation: Staff : ec.orr.rnends that the Housing Board rorward a recommendation for approval of the Bavarian Inn A5, rdable Housing, subject to the following; 1. Detailed submission will include calculators of pact net livable square Lee± for all units, including dcr.uitory utits, : 2. Ai detailed submission, the applicant will propose unit rents and prices to the extent that units will be rented or sold at levels below current saxu , , a in the Heu:ing Guidelines. 3. The units at the �3ava -ian shall not be used for mitigation of ary unbutt pl=, a of the Aspen Mountain PUS. To: Housing Cfics Board of Directors From: Dave Tolen, Executive Director Re: Bavarian L-m :fordable Housing Date: 18 March, 1999 Summary: The -Attached applicauon for 100°'a affordable housing at .he Bavarian Inn property has been sub:ritted by Sav=nah Limited partre+skp; as part of its obligarion under the Aspen Mountain PLUD approved by Aspen voters in 1990. The application is for conceptual mvview, with a detailed or final review subsequent to Conceptual approYal. BackMund: In 1990, Aspen voters were. asked to choose between two alternatives for the aspen l�%untain M-D, which included the Ritzz Hotel. T"ne option proposed by the project developer was favored by the voters over an option propmed by the City Ccuncl. The option approved by the vetws included the following language (the full ballot is attached): In a tick Developer shall, in podfaith, process a lard use applicat on for affordable housing suitable for the 8/10t`hs o, f an acres mown as the Bavarian Inn property. The approval granted by the vc ters in 1990 cud :rot include a requirement to house any specific mrnb&,- of employers, although the applicant at that time made certain representations about the number of ernpicyees to be housed. This application has been submitted in order to fuHE the obUgation in the ballot. 'This memorandum addresses the following issues at the conceptual level: 1. The proposed nix of units and income catagcries 2. The proposed dorinitcr4,units. _ I Credit for occupancy and ability of the applicant to use these units for mitigation of $iture growth. Units and Category Mix: The application proposes the following unit types and Categories: Dormitor, ;nits: utLf s 6 Units Rental Ap ". eats: One person occupancy T wa person occupancy Catesory Category ? 1 3-bedrecm apartment Category 3 1 2 bedrecm apastrnent Category 3 O ner3.hip Units: 2 1 bedroom flats Categcry ? 2 1 bedroom TH units C=zcr-y 3 2 2 bedroom TH units Category 2 2 2 bedroom TH units Category 3 3 bedroom TH units Category 3 5 3 bedroom TH units Category 4 All of the units meet high priorities for unit type and income, The average price of the units in the project is less than the midpoint between Category 3 and Category 4. The project proposes no XO, units..AD of the units meet or exceed the mkr nzum net livable size. Dormitory Units: The Housing Guidelines set Out requirements for dormitory units. Occupancy of the proposed units is consistent with the regturmnent for 150 square :ed per person. The building includes a large amount of common area and potential stcrage. Common Ih ing areas are proposed, including a common kitchen, dining, Laundry, lirzng and storage areas. Based on the conceptual application, these units meet the physical requirements of the Housing Guidelines. Rents for dormitory units are set by special review, These traits are proposed at Category 2 levels. R=ts for dormitory units have generally been set on a per person basis. For comparison, Category 1 units at Alpina House rent for approi mately $270 per month, with single occupancy. Staff proposes rent levels at S300 per person, with qualif caEon based on individual income. Credit for occupancy: The application represents that the proposed units will house a total of 64,25 employees,. based on occupancy standards set out in the Housing Guidelines. It is staffs understanding that the housing provided at the Bavarian project is required to satisfy the terms of the voters' approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD, and that these units may not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt portion of the PUD. To some extent, this is a legal issue as to the interpretation of the ballot question. Units and Category Mix: The application proposes the fnikowing unit types and Categories: Dormitory Units: 7 Units 6 Units Reutai Apart-nems: Owner3hip Units: Cne person occupancy Two person occupancy 3 bedreem apartment ? bedroom apartment 2 1 bedroom flats 2 1 bedroom TH units 2 2 bedroom TH unit, 2 2 bedroom TH units 3 3 bedroom TH units 5 3 bedroom TH units Category Category 2. CateQorf Category 3 Categcri 2 Cmagony 3 Categor; 2 Category 3 Categcry 3 Category 4 All of the units meet high priorities fcr unit type and income, The average price of the Units in the project is less than the midpoint between Category 3 and Category 4. The project proposes no R.O. units. AD of the units meet or exceed the nihiL"—= net livable size. Dormitory Units: The Housing Guidelines set out requir=Lnits for dormitory units. Occupancy of the proposed units is consistent with the requirement for 150 square :eet per person. The building includes a large a=unt of common area and potential storage. Ccnuron li%ring areas are proposed, including a ommon kitchen, dining. Lvmdry, UNing and storage areas. Based on the conceptual application, these units meet the physical requirements of the Housing Guidelines. Rents for dormitory units are set by special review, These units are proposed at Category 2 levels. R=ts for dormhory units have generally been set on a per person basis. For comparison, Category 1 units at Al-pina House rent for approo mately S2.70 per montb, with single occupancy. Stafpropases rent levels at S300 per person, with qualification based on individual income. Credit for Occupaincy: The appficatson represents that the proposed units will house a total of 64.25 employees, based on occupancy standards set out in the Housing Guidelines. It is staff's understanding that the housing provided at the Bavarian project is required to satisfy the term of the voters' approval of the Aspen Mountain PCTD, and that these units may not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt portion of the PUD. To some extent, this is a legal issue as to the uiterpretation of the ballot question. '— � = � ' � �If West Buttermilk Parcel Not Included In Annexation Y ` _ Zoning DisftIs Conservation nn Rural Residential u � � '� ° 77 7 Potential Re -align W.Buttermilk Road FUTURE BURLINGAME RANCH- 0 300 600 5118199 \ � J. ZOLINE 32 AL; MAROON CREEK CLUB GOLF COURSE INN AT X ASPEN Highway 82 R.O.W. 9 ACRES Note: Zoning for that portion i!! rrERMILK of Highway #82 R.O.W. to be KI AREA annexed is the adjacent zonin6, along both sides of the highwayi extended to the cemerline of he ighway MAROON CREEK CLUB GOLF COURSE CREE BRIDGE- ` s IL O a O � , v � a � a � a � a a + + + CONSERVATION � a � a � a � a 0 � ' n D o ' WEST PARC oo A ^m=C. West Buttermilk Parcel Not Included In Annexation Pftkin County - AFR-10 Zoning Conceptual uai Building Envelope BURLINGAME RANCH - PROPOSED ZONING MAP =� _ �° Alit=A annexed is the adjacent zoning I / along both sides of the highways \ extended to the centerline of �\ \ the highway. I MAROON CREEK CLUB f GOLF COURSE MAROON CREEK BRIDGE - t XM � � fjli' it �\\\\�� •',� ^�/ /�~jj f I . , r ,.'"� , • � CITY LAND AFR 1-10 37 ACRES \ i:• tt J_�` i r ((.•� . r /-. � \ \• � ram__ /- / m West Buttermilk Parcel Not Included in Annexation Min Cog=- AFR-10 Zoning Conceptual Building Envelope Zonita District, Q = AFR-2 (1 unit / 2 acres ) Agricultural / Forestry / Residential = AFR-10 (1 unit / 10 acres) Agricultural / Forestry / Residential WEST PAR EL\� Potential \ ��• • , Owl Creek Rd ' `` ` 1 , 4s t • Z. ..r t / \�\ \\ \�1;`; ��► ,• i i i �311r'1 r } i / t , � `\ \ ` C,��N;1 \ 't i t t \ 1 r t , jji t i•iE •: 1 WA i t Parcel �,,. i1 i' CITY LAND L t t o \:`,\ \\4 4il AFR-2 1� t� f\ t>, N, tt� 51 ACRES i r `` � � \ ,Y; '. \ � '---•�, I ` i / � \ ��` "`�\ , t t { `• ; —Potential Re -align w%- `:, W.Buttermilk Road , i` `\\ \\ ? \\ \\\ '`•\ FUTURE BUR&N-LINGAME RAN01- EXISTING PITKIN COUNTY ZONING-0 300 6°° WtaT: % `FEDERAL'_ STORAGE ✓ \ UNITS IN BIVIC WE LJ ;•r'J%�/i l•`; a;t;y� `:1'.:•j•3:-':i i•. •y j. \y { , ? v:�-?�1,ie 1s• : r !l;J,i ,._ 'LA TRUST rlllr'. Z • :` �� �- `\ is /�' i. t'. i;��l< t\ / �� ../ '✓ /./ \71W. • 01t - \� p- � �.� �. �'�, / , tea\}'�`.'. '\`__... y -S .(� � •\ \� ', r � / �. \ `� — S / \ `��i ;EAST PARCEL ; i� t j�lj \#r?3 \ p f r-• �, _{ /: ;! 90 ACRES •f� # t�►.\- \: r \ \\. �_ L.I .t 7 fir. ',+. r r /^�'• `l ! i' ir. iE[�::1: :\ �'+ l: '��! it \`� - ..\11, _ . 1\,�`_��-� .+ ;i�{i .1•a t..t_ i \\`'_` :j/��� ``� �LZ\, .,t\• lt 1i'.°„�� \\•,'t `::�� `� \': '\\y— \\l\it \I� `�, • \\ -l:c; t 'i•' -� LAND F / , / s. r /j!l ♦E •\ - , \ CITY i•.r� iES %,f /�t E�'l':t •" \i> �,.�L✓.'J i�! .✓: (t:-..�•�-� 't. r ♦J �{ ,`t '\\� `i '� �� \� ; -,li.! `\ \!--- / / ' 1%.': iiF ..i: iv .:• :\`\�:•j /' 'vr/ i t :, t/;�\._ � \ \ 1 i ` � / \� \�\\ •� `�` \ j �i; '\l \ \ ';``\' •\ t� 'i i//: :ill. ;l�j `��• �../Hi l^'�J/(t �, 'l � rr �,\1 f j < \ � \' ,: /` r1 i��ti"`;'i i•' ii: ff.";% •� `^ i ./' ,.tt \ \• '.� ','. y �,!il ! .^•.� .: i i : ! : `.'.'�,., ! • { i 1 \\ �-1 ;iii' ' s`:; =:�: `\ CITY LAN t:\ \o. l✓r.. tip. :, 3g ii \ "1 `''' '! ,'` AFR - 2 ?'s 4�; ZOUNE - NORTH t ZOLINE - EAST L? T �� MyIr r \.. ;;.i L� 1 ' 20 ACRES - AFR - 2 �� AFR -10 rt t \ 73 ACRES \ = 36 ACRES ;i`';`; '`'•?i rr t't: CD •\...:.'/i'r•'!I��"ii• •\'cl,,,, \\�+\. \ jY'ity�i`'-.. t• ::ii. i �//r!-�:•.\ �-'-'t�rl `�,\\ -�{\ �'�\ / ^•_ i•t} .♦ � ' \\ � .,:�\ , ,\\,l; m T � ' � 'r�:'i � '� t 1 �"`\ f r f ���'♦ \, '\� ; 1/ } '�- �'._ l 1 i •i I t r/ r% ��•':\�� ..\ `•i, \�` m! rr , f �t`rJ iF,/ ��\ �.� � '!tf 1) I`\t = \\\ ��-�., f tt i i ; J'\\� , • `S�i `- 1 ``a\vr 1 ,•,.\\\\. y,SOLDNER , ir±; • \ •l \`+\' t ACRES 46 +:. , ` ZOLINE TOTAL 7, �, t A 3 141 ACRES :! i \\(�9F, 7i•� }; rk�;vl!\\\♦:r tirjt �\ L� t �� �t \ ( `, t 1 ♦ ♦ i if: iir MAROON CREEK ' CLUC31B FACILITIES I V'.°I.j FU NSIT �'\:•,` O 1 , —'�� %:���'u� 1 i47 ZOLINE - SOUTH =� r=C r ♦ • \�/ %��' MAROON CREEK CLUB 32 ACRES a GOLF COURSE ASPEN ,�. ��` , ,\, .cam• '—�f I/ \��• �\ Highway 82 R.O.W. \ .. l 9 ACRES -04 i \ Note: Zoning for that portion `i \BUTTERMILK �\ `�. of Highway #82 R.O.W. to be r �_ SKI AREA ,\\v annexed is the adjacent zoning` r•'; �,� _ c \ < along both sides of the highway extended to the centerline of z_" \ r •�._ the'highway. µ / • j. \ i�• MAROON CREEK CLUB ' GOLF COURSE MAROON CREEK BRIDGE l3 I \ �' ��'\Nlk \1 �\_ - 7 0 4 O Q e A West Buttermilk Parcel Not Included In Annexation Pftkin County - AFR-10 Zoning Conce tg' ual Building Enveiooe ■ v • a •9� a O ' CITY LAND • AFR -10 \\ , , 37 ACRES \ � \ 1 a \ WEST PAR EL _ 8 ACRE ♦ �' ` \ , `� i ♦� \ �„ % t ♦ Potential O \ Zoning Districts = AFR-2 (1 unit/2 acres) Agricultural / Forestry / Residential = AFR-10 (1 unit / 10 acres ) Agricultural / Forestry/ Residential Us UNITS BMC WEST GP i GRIZZLJ �' a ' ` \ Parcel, t CITY LAND a + ' AFR-2 ! 1 51 ACRES S� Mr . ♦ 1 t \ • Potential Re -align w/ —} W.Buttermilk Road BUDLINGAME RANCH EXISTING PITKIN COUNTY ZONING F� I •FEDERAL ' EXPRESS" 1 �` BLDG \ t LAND TRUST � Z 39 ORES 1 RiL �JJS.�..4R-Ll t � ■ f 's('� • — _ —� _ _ �. - ::tom` EAST PARCEL 90 ACRES R ■ l ` \ 2 CITY LAND ' AFR-2 ZOLINE - NORTH ` ZOLINE - EAST ' 20 ACRES AFR-2 ` AFR -10 y t 73 ACRES ` 36 ACRES `1 co` i iSOLDNER : 5 ACRES r ZOLINE TOTAL 141 ACRES Ti i 1 STAGE ROAD C MAROON CREEK:. Z I CLU FACILITIES. 1, Q , t P:� PAAlCI ° � b 0 ; MAROON � >; '�° - o CREEK CLUB ZOLINE - SOUTH r 10- AACRE GOLF COURSE 32 ACRES JINN AT ASPEN ° ,J Highway 82 R.O.W. 9 ACRES BUTTERMILK Note: Zoning for that portion r of Highway #82 RO.W. to be SKI AREA V I �O\ \ \ annexed is the ad}acent zoning along both sides of the highway, r extended to the centerline of the highway. \ I MAROONCREEK CLUB GOLF COURSE I �! 0 300 600 /� s . J sn s,99 - L MAROON CREEK, BRIDGE CITY LAND AFR-10 70 ACRES e7* s ■4 SENT BY:GTHL ASPEN rIE:O OFFIG; 5- 1-99 ; 2.14PM t Ta:ohz� a� rxom: Allis n subject; Ides hs # of Pages: 4 FAY.. a, Sa.vanah Lid, Dabb4ns, TDP, roject =x Iysis of additiornal P i THE GRAND ASPEN-i +570 920 54394 2 J11DI �I Fax #; 97(-92,;4$7 Dad: 5/8/99 Tine` 1'08 PM job #; 1939 �oTlcl j �nda6ons for long term aCC8s ix� ly is of th n Tanis memo ;u:nma ' s ouT analysis an sis of the t site, I've also d bed our ions from further level of s�rt��ce anal report for the IM i hwa S� corrid�z. 7'h;s[informatiar► w>� folded rota the trar►spQrsgtum Highway Project. . I look forward to 11 epting ou next week• LONG TERM AC�E59 7Q THE BAVARIAN !NN SITE the a zed the future xatf ores at the ' it on of 7,+ Streaet/ Main Street using e TDA ply folvwing assum ,'Qns , 7" Sty (to the north w Mein att a t�ew1ient for I�ig way $� it enters ' arterA of M� Streeet will se ve as a collector m ra �� a statithan on at 7d Stz�t. LET runs alori the th side of Main � et wi The intexsrec+d n is Sig a)ized, Main StTee one with the exce tian of e�tbaund left rn lane at the inters for, laxie in each dvn tQe west of the ' t+ersectiofi• I�ia+ Strut has two tan in each rlirectian tat east o the intersertinn. � Street has two � Iesou�� the inters � is rlas=d northbound a to a north of the.inte ection. The sou g to through tr c and is used for W ar Ss may. We esti=W thefuture rating 7r, t ft�e P Main intersection► by re-r ttutg cps to Lane y Streei n1Iailarn, 711 Street north of 111ant, and o and from a thr,ugb volumes on HigbwaY 82 were used. at the emoting 711 Ivtain ' tersecSaan. ting rave Q toy d frorn other sine sireeiS (such as Biker or Hallam east of 7 )ire . du tv diJffi talties in prediciin which new rouse they would sake � �� asnot 1;ncludi calculations (aee teach ) p raduce estirna sull eastbound left turn 135 Ark, southbo d left turn volurnes as high as 2M Tlie table }slaw 1�ov,Ts a ix,tez'si�ctian o attan� u�g �g}3�vay Capacity Software ali7pd, release 3.1a) assuming nn opt Yized sign$1 cycle length of 115 wands, ' resultsale the s me for ckgro,. nd Sandi ons aDd with the $avariazt Inn project included, i V t SENT BY:CTHL ASPEN FIELD aFFIC; 5- 1-99 ; 2:15PM THE GRAND ASPEN-f +970 920 54394 3 1 s I I 1 may28J 1999 John sarpa Page 2 LEA i � Eastbound Left T� Eastbound Throu W estbovnd Thro, Westbound Ri i Southbound Left Southb4und Overall tcE ,,�T 7. s6,mpAA1N STRI;rr, YEAR tom .'IC SIGNA4 AND RE -ALIGNED HIGHWAY . �$i[12112�18t WiI��C'! L©S LOS E D B � C A A D � Ll D B i. We used Trar,syt- software, release 5.10; determine hew far the traffic back-up (or queue i �,�, Dil 7' Street wc�ul extend This model pred cts that traffic in the southbound left tarn lane would bw-k up 1 feet away front the in tio�n and that lraffiC »4 the 5Ott�lbOVd 1l�' St lane would back u for 1 feet. The westbo d through movement w9l back up gas i The alley is loca apprc would extend past this pt 1MV on wuthbound 711 St would be unable t enter queue, These are xpecte j When Mgjn Streal becon onto ),Rain Suet A Vould Becau� the tra back-� pit ., It to , we i . alley. The axis fin 8Uey western end of tlh alley Widening the a to pr ' trees. These trees limit d adequate width ic Ir the p concerned about crease According t- the tram the re -aligned Hi hway Street will rued t be re-; i . i mately 125 feet n rth of the intersection. Because theback-LIP it, traffic exiting alley would be unable to Set into the lefb-tum et (to go toward rwntown). Traffic appthfrom the bound traffic South ,e alley because ey w©uld have to cross le to'ue the prima tnovemenfs to and fmm the project. j the new highwa corridor, it is expected that the tempoz'ary curb cut closed as part of cess management along the new highway. from a new al '� extend past the alley �takutg that access _ c,rmunend sat a 'veway be provided from Bleeeker Street to the rrnects to Bleeke t egt via Sth Street but use of $th Street and the r project access is of recommended for a COg1e of Teas=' ide access from 8 Street is infeasfle due to the existent'e of nutute to tM f which does not Provide width of the all acacem approximat* S. Neighbors of the Bavarian hm site are also ;masY ptaiect traffic on Sth Stre t if a widened ally were the Prima 7 access - to Aspect Main S dues to a differeme Design lLipork Eighffi Street win not Connect to in grade, Traffic currently using S* Streetf ItUin used to S}h Streetj bleaker Stxee't; so some traffic increase m$y =ur SENT BY:CTHL ASPEN FIELD OFFI1 IM&y 28,1999 John Sada page 3 on Sth Street and levels. Project access from e e between the multif ffl1 .of housing units ' the 7 this �p1�1ii8Ct1Orl. While we recogn' the neighbors) feel tha this I recomu►end that * ase c 6- 1-99 ; 2:11 and Bavarian iPM THE GRAND ASPEN-; +970 920 5439;# 4 f rin pro edaccess to the west would add to tra& to Bleaker Stet ould be accomplished by providing a d dveiway xcivre and the ex ting Bavarian hint lodge on Parcel 1. The number i-family structux�would need to be reduced in order to provide /SpOhcyt.omat affordabie hous4 We (and the prr►p8fty0S s location adjac t to Highway 82 makes it unique, and we Z�tances we giv special cazlsideratiort. ANALYSIS OP LE1/Et 01 SERVICE IN Inte'rsectionn Level j We reanalyzed Because most trafi movement (traffic in the LC)S at the t I it was more Sin* HIGHWAY 82 CORRIDOR level o service at 7t� Shve /Hallam Street and 7thStwt/Main Sheet. at th a intersections "th is in& we reduced the capacity for the rough" )no g Highway Q. change did not produce a noticeable dffiereme 0 m e6ons, We mo pied the way we rail the-7a /Hallam intmeCtiM so to the they intersection; is actually produced a better In discussions wf MK C for the Entrame to Aspen possibly* the Cemetery La, Castle Creek brid has a causing Outbound traffic i movements at die terser conditions calcula ed. for 1 Overall LCS is cal traffic volume for ,experience rnuvm traffic but this wo While the delay e: izlters don may l tlimigl volumes intersec&ds ova, i Based on the ariva the level of semo during WinW1 i State Highway, 82, data. TDA jLMMe's (or n d not t"lI ttenriial, the en firm that is providing modeling assistance Yoject, we crnlclu ed thst the existing Castle Creek bridge and r signal are essert lly "�f; traffic through the S. curves, The Mited capacity (a proximately VM Vehicles per hoar), and it is back up into the S•curves. The bridge, rather than fiie conflicting ons, is aie rain of the delay for, traffic in the Scarves, and tra report may ep at to be letter than they rely am taping the Bela fox each Movement and w4htingit based on the ,merit. The large volumes'of through traffic.on Higbwap 82 delay due to the tier movements (the'bridge is delaying Rough y reflected in the.," erations for the intersection being analyzed). j by left- taming r through movements from the aide shots at the itial, the traffic v lumes 1a then movements is dwarfed by the t ay gz so tbese s' a street movements add very lithe tO y (looking at a =adwgY segment rather than at & intersections), fm the 9-curves sectacm of Highway 82-is F during SUMmeT and B a A.9*ft FMS. th in traffic, DepadTrAnt' of T110sportation, utw 1994 traffic QOVZL 13 building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Comments 4 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d. 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. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. tin area may ue approved as a conunon park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular Staff Comments 3 uj vl� 4 �F! ¢0 wiirw. fir �b7e�f olzw { �t w zoxgW y �Vg #4. a3r a.w Sgyys bias 0 — U 0 t�hp 0w�► pry E'�sdl wui d in - Z Sdi => w 0 • %i ' s Z, t >-3�x%�t�9is��r�:� ui 1 }. (0 0 Z tip _ Lu ' _ ui i- P' O z rd < V .ef Y R 0 w of (X LL D SpV b./ F F Vt ®. ix fiord cf- F 0 0 4L cotL . p lLU w tCLI LI �C Q. 0 w 6A5i W to . u .. J ® tea. V w G� t� -- L X -- O M O W LU 0 > >- F- � z )e uj uj < 0 LU � <: 0) > p-- U Z < to mw Zw to � !di cl > -i 4 =Z<I-<ZWW z uj # t-- I-- D F- < F w z Z F F ( >- t- OOwrtLww %t.. d �-- � � � � _Iwowwn>x LL3 <�i<D�t < 0 o 0 Ln C U C MAROLT RA rvTT0n T V 1 R Z 9, 1 :x Qui L q1zu- s cr ♦ , wwo .. 000 yy i sa # t . �-4040 f ♦ T «; f . a ., w .: ,, +► s a < 0 .. Y 0 ♦ Rco . _ ♦ O s s a. • OfR ♦i5z wzzziltyw r • •, w - s z c w w s..rr F��� } W xp� 40 a w A Z Q) 8 — ui w >— 0 C Z LU - x LL z Xy CL w F CO q ys } to i! 0_ w @. < Ak 40