Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990713 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999, 4:30 PM PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY MEETING ROOM I. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Aspen Mountain PUD (continued from June 29, 1999), Joyce Ohlson III. ADJOURN *PLEASE BRING PREVIOUS PACKET MATERIALS* ADDENDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directory FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: Aspen Mountain PUD --- Lot 3, Conceptual PUD DATE: July 13, 1999 SUMMARY: This addendum is intended to supplement the existing staff memorandum for Lot 3 of the AMPUD. It addresses only two issues that have been brought to staff's attention since the original memorandum was drafted and distributed. The two issues deal with FAR and drainage/geotechnical requirements. In addition, staff has summarized the P & Z's comments from the last meeting (June 29, 1999) and has attached additional information. Allowable FAR: It was explained in the previous memorandum that Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area : lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73- 74 of application packet, Attachment 1). The previous memorandum went on to explain that staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the existing PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. Staff felt it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, it was believed that further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Since that memorandum was distributed, the rationale for Savanah's approach has become more clear. First, in terms of density, the PUD regulations require that slope analyses of the entire property be accounted for prior to the creation of new lots in order to determine the allowable density; therefore, the PUD regulations preclude basing the allowable densities on the subdivided parcels. Perhaps more pertinent, is the "Definitions" section of the Land Use Code, which under "Floor Area, F. Planned Unit Development," states that; For planned unit development (PUD) applications where land is held as common open space, and more than one lot is proposed for development, the total floor area for each lot shall be determined in the following manner: The total area of each lot in the planned unit development (PUD) shall be increased by an amount equal to the total area of the land held as common open space divided by the total number of lots proposed for development. Notwithstanding the above methodology for determining floor area ratio for each lot, applicants may suggest different methods for allocating the total floor area allowed for the PUD to individual lots; provided, that the total floor area allowed for the PUD does not exceed the cumulative total of the floor areas for each lot as calculated by the above referenced method. As proposed, the lot sizes of Parcels 1-8 would be as follows (in square feet): Parcel l 51,680 Parcel 5 10,370 Parcel 26,520 Parcel 10,380 Parcel 3 14,260 Parcel 7 18,920 Parcel 4 13,290 Parcel 8 18,390 Open Space Parcel A 28,740 Open Space Parcel B 50,230 Therefore, under the formula provided in the above -cited definition, the total area of each lot shall be increased by 9,871 square feet ([50,230 + 28,740] _ 8). The resulting lot areas for the purposes of determining allowable floor area would be as follows: Parcel 61,551 Parcel 20,241 Parcel 36,391 Parcel 20,251 Parcel 3 24,131 Parcel 7 28,791 Parcel 4 23,161 Parcel 8 28,261 These lot areas would be used as base numbers from which to begin figuring out allowable floor areas for each Parcel. Since Parcel 1 would be developed as multi -family residential, its FAR would be set at 1:1, or 61,551 square feet, exclusive of potentially applicable reductions. Parcel 2's allowable floor area is difficult to determine since two duplexes are proposed, and the L/TR zone district provides FAR formulas for only detached residential dwellings, duplexes, and "all other uses." Two duplexes on one lot is not considered multi- family or detached residential. The duplex formula provides an allowable FAR for one duplex on one lot, not for two duplexes on one lot. If the two Parcel 2 duplexes were connected by a small linking element, they would be considered a single multi -family structure, or "all other uses," in which case the allowable FAR on Parcel 2 would be 1:1, or 36,391 square feet. Parcel 3 would be developed with a duplex, and its allowable FAR would be 5,510 square feet (9,000 square feet of FAR is proposed). Parcels 4-8 would be developed as detached residential dwellings, and would have allowable FARs as follows: • Parcel 4 --- 4,428 square feet (6,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 5 --- 4,282 square feet (5,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 6 --- 4,283 square feet (5,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 7 --- 4,710 square feet (6,500 square feet of FAR is proposed); and, • Parcel 8 --- 4,683 square feet (6,500 square feet of FAR is proposed). Note that none of these FAR figures take into account any potentially. applicable lot area reductions; thus, further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Nonetheless, given the above provided analysis, the proposed floor areas on Parcels 3-8 are well in excess of that which would be permitted. The previously provided conditions recommended by staff would still be sufficient to address the findings of this section. Geologic and Geotechnical Studies: In the previous memorandum, staff recommended that the Commission table the Lot 3 application pending completion by Savanah of further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept. This recommendation was largely based upon the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement. Staff recommended that the City err on the conservative side by deciding not to consider the Lot 3 Conceptual PUD application until such study and evaluation is completed by qualified experts (paid for by Savanah) and reviewed by City staff. Staff further recommended that, should the City decide to move forward with the review process, as a minimum, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should require Savanah to complete all necessary studies, as suggested by the geotechnical engineering study that was commissioned by the applicant, and include such with the Final PUD/Subdivision application. Since the time these recommendations were drafted, new information and a clearer understanding of some of these issues has been obtained. First, it should be understood that when the cited language of the PUD Agreement was drafted, a Conceptual approval for the development of a 33-unit multi -family structure on Lot 3 had already been granted. At that time, however, Planned Unit Development review included six steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council; Preliminary before the Commission and Council; and, Final before the Commission and Council. Now, PUD review requires only four steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council, and Final before the Commission and Council. Therefore, the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement allowed for the first stage of PUD review to be completed before further geologic study and evaluation is completed. In this vein, it would be appropriate for the Commission to allow the application to proceed through the Conceptual PUD review process without tabling the application. Similarly, the conditions recommended by the City Engineer and included in the staff recommended conditions of approval were provided as an interim measure for the purposes of Conceptual PUD review in order to provide the necessary protection to adequately address drainage related concerns. The recommended conditions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be adequate for granting conceptual approval to the aforementioned 33-unit multi -family structure on the Top of Mill, and staff considers them adequate for the current proposal as well. While staff is comfortable changing its recommendation from tabling the application to recommending approval with conditions based upon the information provided above, another reason should be factored in as well. The Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) process that has been ongoing for the past few years has included a good deal of analysis with regard to geotechnical and subsurface conditions. The next/final stage of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to analyze today's site conditions relative to the proposed development plan. Therefore, the need to conduct further geotechnical and geological studies based on today's conditions has been ongoing (not neglected) and the final phase of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to evaluate the proposed development relative to the findings of the studies. Consequently, staff recommends that the Conceptual PUD review move forward (not be tabled) with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions outlined in the previous (dated June 15, 1999) staff memorandum. 3 June 29, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing on the Conceptual PUD Application for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD ---Commissioner Comments --- The following notes summarize each Commissioner's comments relative to the given issue/topic. Specific names of Commissioners are not being attributed to the comments provided for the sake of this summary. ON DENSITY AND LODGING GROWTH ISSUES: • Growth is not a problem, and the density is appropriate provided mass and height issues can be accommodated. • The concept of locating the proposed hotel at the subject location makes perfect sense and the density is appropriate; mass and scale should be similar to that of the previous/townhomes proposal. • Replacing a 150 unit hotel with a new 150 unit hotel is a wash --- no density -related problems. • The density works and is not too high; it's an appropriate location --- only concern is with maintaining the pricing level. • The density is not a problem, especially at the given location and under the existing zoning. • The density is totally appropriate and belongs on this location. ON HOUSING RELATED ISSUES: • Leave the Bavarian discussion to Council; off -site housing within the existing City Limits is preferable to putting all housing on -site since a better unit mix can be achieved off -site. • As long as the mitigation requirements are met, it does not matter whether it's on- or off -site. • More on -site housing is appropriate. • In favor of on -site housing and in favor of using the remaining allowable FAR for this purpose. • A mix of on- and off -site housing would be okay. If on -site housing is required, it should not come at the expense of lodging rooms. At least prior to the vote and election campaign, remembers the Bavarian Inn site as being available for use to meet mitigation requirements. • No major problems with the housing issues; a mix of on- and off -site housing would be acceptable. ON TRAFFIC AND PARKING RELATED ISSUES: • The 0.7 parking requirement ratio is sound for the entire facility; should address impacts of headlights shining onto the Tipple properties when cars exit the garage at night. • Consider moving the portico drop-off to the east side, perhaps fronting on Galena; Should provide ALL needed parking. • Based on experience, the 0.7 parking requirement ratio is insufficient in Summer months; The St. Regis is a convention -hotel, which demands less parking than would the proposed hotel; Parking spaces for employees should be provided; will need more than 106 spaces --- perhaps a 0.8 ratio would be more appropriate. • An airport shuttle is needed; please look into off -site parking/car storage for the housed employees; will need short-term parking (for restaurant, bar, etc.); need to address circulation of valet parking and car returns (back and forth between the drop- off area and the garage). • Try to find a way to get to the parking garage without using Galena, if possible; could look into making the Dean Street drop-off area a one-way on the west half only (from Mill to the portico), with two-way access from Galena onto Dean and around the portico area. • Need to provide more parking and a circulation plan. ON DESIGN AND HEIGHT RELATED ISSUES: • Good architectural treatment; would really like to see a model- and/or a 3-D simulated photo of the proposed hotel relative to the Ritz and other surrounding structures, with Aspen Mountain in the back -drop. • Good design; would like to see an explanation of just how necessary the conference space and banquet area are --- could this space be better used for housing? • Would also really like to see a model and/or a 3-D simulated photo of the proposed hotel relative to the Ritz and other surrounding structures, with Aspen Mountain in the back -drop. • Looks good for a Conceptual plan. • Good site and architectural treatment; the massing is excellent; the height is okay since it is being used to provide parapets that would screen all mechanical/HVAC equipment and recedes away from the streets. • Would also really like to see a model and/or a 3-D simulated photo of the proposed hotel relative to the Ritz and other surrounding structures, with Aspen Mountain in the back -drop; the 47' height figure seems daunting but willing to reserve judgement until it can be seen (i.e., until story -poles are erected). ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP: • All agreed that the proposal is highly consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP, especially is all conditions of approval are met. 2