Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990810ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at the Pitkin County Library with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Tim Semrau and Roger Haneman. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Joyce Ohlson noted the all day housing symposium held at the Gant Conference room on 08/16/99 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Bob Blaich will attend for the whole day; Roger Haneman and Tim Semrau will attend the morning. Ohlson noted the next regular meeting was with the County Planning & Zoning, BOCC and City Council on the AACP. Julie Ann Woods said it would be the same draft the commission already had. Ohlson said the future land use map was also being worked on for the re-structure. Semrau asked if there was a revised map of the urban growth boundaries. Woods replied that would be discussed at the 08/17/99 meeting as well, but there would not be a new map. MINUTES Julie Ann Woods noted some clarifying statements for the July 13th minutes. She requested that the 07/13 minutes be held off for adoption at this time. MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of July 6, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Buettow had a conflict and was excused from the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD CONCEPTUAL, LOTS 3 and 5 Bob Blaich opened the continued meeting. Mitch Haas stated the last meeting was July 13th and the proposed Lot 3 development seemed to satisfy the drainage review and conditions from Engineering. He said that Savannah declared that they were assuming the risk of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan if it had adverse effects on their development application. Haas said the commission also seemed satisfied with the proposed housing mitigation for Lot 3. Savannah agreed to work with Parks on the trails and easements. Haas said the rezoning request; consistency with the AACP; transportation and traffic; and the general level of appropriateness for the development were not resolved as yet. He said the Lot 5 review was from the original Exhibit C. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Haas said the rezoning request was complicated. He illustrated Lot 3 on the map with 3 zone district designations: conservation, LTR-PUD and R15-PUD. The entire area of Lot 3 was governed by the section of the land use code with more than one underlying zone district. The section of the code that requires that you compare the dimensional requirements of each of the applicable zone districts and then the most restrictive governs. Haas said the minimum lot area in the conservation zone was 10 acres per residential dwelling unit; the R15 was 15,000 square feet and the LTR was 6,000 square feet. He stated that Savannah requested a code amendment to address this development with 47 residential units between Lots 3 & 5. That code amendment would be at the discretion of City Council in determining which dimensional requirements apply in the case of a parcel with more that one zone district and only with PUD applications. Haas said that a portion of Parcel 1 was proposed as multi-family residential and it was proposed to re-zone the entire portion to LTR. Parcels 6 & 7 would still be zoned conservation and Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 would still contain more than one underlying zone district subject to that part of the code. Staff requested the development parcels match the zoning areas and be rezoned with Parcels 1 through 8 as LTR; Parcel A left alone and Parcel B left in the conservation zone. This would eliminate the section of the code with 2 underlying zone districts and make the zoning more closely match the surrounding neighborhood, which was essentially zoned LTR. He said the conservation zone would allow an unlimited FAR for one unit since the zoning was applied prior to the code amendment. It would still have the same amount of open space that was proposed in the first place. The rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with the final PUD application and according to the review standards for rezoning. Haas said there was only one affordable housing zone district in the neighborhood. The purpose of the AH zone in the code was to provide the use of land for category affordable housing and resident occupied lots and units and allows a limited number of free-market lots to off-set the costs of developing affordable housing. Savannah has existing development credits for 47 free-market residential units between Lots 3 & 5. The proposed free-market units were not a limited component or were they meant to offset the cost of affordable housing in this case. There was no growth management needed because the credits were from re-construction and exempt for GMQS. Haas said the rezoning of all the development parcels was to LTR and left the remaining in the conservation zone, which would eliminate the need for the proposed code amendment and further contingencies in the development plan. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Ron Erickson asked for clarification on the number of units. He said the agreement was for 50 hotel units and 47 residential units between Lots 3 & 5. Haas said that floor area from the code for planned unit development (PUD) applications, where land is held as common open space, and more than one lot is proposed for development, that total floor area for each lo,t 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. There were 8 parcels, divide the area by 8 and distribute proportionately in each of the development parcels to understand the allowable FAR. Pursuant to the regulation 5,740 square feet, in this case, increased the area of each lot. Haas noted there was a Lot 3 data table handed out with Parcels 3 through 8 and the surplus FAR on Lots 1 & 2 would be more that enough to re-distribute between these to the other parcels to make up the surplus. He said the only way that could happen was if Council would approve the plan to re-distribute as proposed by Savannah. Haas mentioned the Housing Office and Board discussed the proposal on May 5th and recommended approval with conditions. Haas said the city engineer provided interim Drainage conditions as a necessary measure to address these concerns at the conceptual level. Haas said that staff requested Savannah to supply at least 2 site plan alternatives that would eliminate the cul-de-sac design. Staff remained open to the fact that this cul-de-sac design could be the most sensitive to the site, but just wanted comparative site plans. Haas said that in 1996 P&Z denied the conceptual plan for Lot 3 based upon issues of consistency with the AACP. The current proposal has 4 affordable housing units and each of the single family homes on parcels 3 through 8, including the duplex on 3, would either have an ADU or pay the applicable cash-in-lieu. The AACP was to re-vitalize the permanent population and bring back local serving businesses to the Aspen area. The housing portion of the AACP was also to encourage in-fill development within in the existing urban area to preserve open space in rural areas and allow more employees to live close to where they work. It also promoted on- site affordable housing. Haas stated the current Lot 3 proposal would provide 13 free-market units; 4 deed-restricted single family homes and up to 6 deed-restricted accessory dwelling units. That was a total of 10-11 deed-restricted units. Staff felt the proposal met the underlying provision in the AACP for housing. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Haas said the growth action plan stated the intent for land use and business events for the local community and the tourist base. The free-market units would be either full time or second homes with ADUs, which could be rented out. In theory there would not be a change in growth. Haas said that there was sufficient parking for each unit (more that 2 for each) and trail easements would have to be enhanced and sidewalks would have to be provided. The proximity to shopping and transportation in Rubey park, it inherently reduces the dependency on the automobile. Haas stated the Open Space had 2 significant proposals. The preservation of trails with connections was required by Parks, and there was open space mixed with affordable and free-market development. Haas noted that P&Z Resolution #98-11, the Citizen Housing Plan, set policies with regard to locational philosophies and preferences and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. The proposed development was within the metro area in close proximity to multiple mass transit options and was self-contained within the area. Haas said Savannah's traffic consultant would discuss the traffic study further. John Sarpa, applicant, said that computer imaging (trees without leaves) and a traffic consultant were items requested and available. Sunny Vann, planner for the applicant, stated they provided one method for calculating FAR and the planning office requested calculation in a different way. He said that basically the numbers come out about the same, within 2,000 square feet. He said there was more than enough FAR on the site with about 22,000 - 23,000 square feet on Lot 3 alone not proposed for utilization. Vann said the condition for parcel 3 and 5 could be rewritten to concur with the approach for the recommendations for approval. Jasmine Tygre requested clarification on the zoning agreements with the new number of units at 13 and forget the 47. Vann said there were no other parcels within the PUD agreement in which the free-market units could be utilized, assuming the hotel was approve on parcel 5. There was no proposal for transference of those units to any other property but in order to build the hotel there would have to be a borrowing of hotel quota from future years to make this thing work. He said there was no other hotel competition, but that was the approach applied for in scoring the growth management. He said there was also a proposal to take the unused residential credits and convert them to lodge rooms under some form, which was not applied for. Tygre said this was purely for clarification since 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 this has been going on for so many years. Vann said that when this PUD agreement gets approved, the prior approvals disappear. Anne Murchison, 5th Avenue, said it was their position that this was entirely too big. She said the trail issue was the same and she held the same opposition. Jack Crawford, Tipple Inn, asked when the unresolved issues on 5 would be done. They were parking and the location of the garage. Vann said the concerns expressed by the neighborhood were conditions recommended by P&Z to Council that may take some time to solve. Sarpa said the commission will discuss the conditions and voted on them. Erickson said the alternatives should be discussed with this commission and allow the public to address prior to city council. Erickson stated that anything that could be resolved at conceptual would be a benefit prior to going to council, because it would be a more complete recommendation. Sarpa said they were anxious to move the process forward because it's taken so long. Erickson stated that as advisors to City Council, P&Z would better serve them if the conditions would be included in the recommended resolution. Blaich stated these issued should be listed. The garage access on Lot 5, circulation, number of parking spaces and story poles were issues to resolve. David Booth, Aspen Lodging Co., said the issues were the number of parking spaces underground, the ice rink parking spaces and story poles to be erected for the feel of the hotel roofline. Vann said the story poles would be erected prior to council and there was a parking requirement for the hotel rooms, the affordable housing and the replacement spaces for the ice rink. Booth questioned what the process was and hoped to resolve some of the issues prior to city council. Steve Fallendar, public, asked at what point was the impact of the construction upon the neighborhood dealt with and how would the construction process be handled. Vann replied there would be a construction management program set up to deal with the all of those issues with neighborhood input as part of the process. Judy Blandin, 5th Avenue, asked when this was sold to private contractors, would they have to maintain the same building sites and everything. Vann responded that the approvals were on the land and would remain the same. Gene Reardon, public, stated concern for safety with Mill Street being very steep especially with snow and ice in the winter. He suggested a gatehouse for the affordable housing. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Sarpa stated that they have been discussing a 150-room hotel, which relates directly to parking and the entrance. He said part of the concerns were the conceptual approvals and what if we design all of the plans around 150 rooms and council doesn't want that many rooms. Vann noted there were no rights with the conceptual approval. Haas commented that the hotel would have to be scored with growth management, that was a substantial opportunity to look at the design in detail and again at final PUD. David Hoefer asked for the explanation of the number of steps for the approval process. Step 1. Conceptual PUD is reviewed by the Housing Board, P&Z and City Council. Step 2. GMC scoring and competition on Lot 5 and GMQS recommendation which goes to the BOCC and Council for allocation. Step 3. Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management exemption, 8040, possible text amendments, special review, mountain view plane review which goes to Housing, P&Z and Council. Sarpa stated that maybe a list of items that were P&Z concerns could be forwarded to Council. Erickson agreed that would be good to have on the record. Vann noted that after several years they have never gotten past step B. Jack Crawford, public, stated concern for the parking and entrance and asked it be forwarded to council. Blaich requested staff do a list of open items. Erickson said that anything resolved at conceptual will make it that much easier for the final process. He requested a conceptual resolution. Vann noted this was a multi-step process, which was difficult to solve all the issues up-front. Tygre said the idea of resolving threshold issues at conceptual and that other issues could be dealt with further review. She suggested that maybe those issues could be separated for a level of comfort. Vann responded that was acceptable to them. Blaich aksed to take the issues one at a time. Haas said garage access and circulation would be first. Vann replied that without knowing the size of the hotel, the access, entrance location and number of parking spaces would be hard to determine. He said that he believed it was a resolvable issue but tossing out ideas would not constitute a commitment. Klm Well, Poss Associates, stated the floor plate of the hotel could handle 105 - 110 parking spaces, under the open space. He said if there were fewer hotel rooms, there may be more affordable housing units. He said there were too many variables at this time. Haas said there would be 9 spaces for the ice rink, either next to the rink or in the garage and some spaces designated for the affordable housing. Blaich commented that there were many open issues that could not reach definitive answers tonight. Tim Semrau asked if there were any other issues. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Haas said the another issue was the placement of story poles. Vann stated that those would be placed for council. Joy Macharsh, Galena Place, said that she wanted to see everyone happy but there was a tremendous impact of what goes on in that area. She said that they would like to see how high that hotel would be with story poles. Sarpa said it was when they would put the poles up, not if and they would be up before any approvals. Blaich requested they move on to Lot 5 and the traffic study. Vann said the traffic consultant, David Leahy, TDA Denver Office was present. Woods said the next issue was Drainage. Vann asked if this was threshold for conceptual. Erickson said that someone said the SkiCo is pumping water from Ruthies over into Valeo Gulch, which is the top of Mill Street. He said the report that you are doing does not take into account what the SkiCo is doing with moving their water off the mountain. Sarpa stated that they have moved past collecting the data for the report with an outside agency, which was being managed by the city. He said updating the data would include changes that occurred with the World Cup grading and accounting for the temporary movements to get them into the data base. Sarpa said there were various ways to mitigate for the site plan, which was being modeled specifically with the commissions' recommendations. It was a crude model presently but it would be put into a more accurate model with readings taken every 25 feet. Erickson said that drainage was inadequate at the base of Aspen Mountain as it was throughout the whole town; anything that was done on the mountain would impact all the neighbors when it comes to drainage. Haas said there were recommendations with a set of conditions from the city engineer to address concerns prior to the final level of approval. He said the final will conform to the results of the drainage master plan findings and mitigation will be accomplished; the Bests Management Practices (an Engineering guidebook) will be followed. Vann commented that this project will either meet those standards or it won't be built. Blaich noted drainage was a concern from the very beginning. Haas said that housing mitigation was the next item. He noted that there were residential re-construction credits and for many years; there was an argument for the need to mitigate those. Savannah decided to put those aside and take the multi- family housing replacement program; they looked at what was demolished and what would have to be built today. He said that was how parcel 2 more than satisfied those requirements. Haas said the reconstruction of detached single family or duplex units satisfied the required ADU or cash-in-lieu. He said the applicant will do one or the other, which satisfied the housing board and 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 recommended approval with conditions. Haas said the deed-restrictions on the category units on parcel 2 will be set with the guidelines in effect at the time of Final PUD Approval and the ADUs will be set with the regulations in effect at time of the building permit issuance for single family homes. Vann and Sarpa concurred that was acceptable, whatever it was at building permit. Erickson asked about the mix of units at three 3-bedroom and one 4-bedroom. Vann replied that it was based on the height and bulk concerns from the neighborhood, which were substantially smaller that the condominiums that were previously proposed. He said these units also met the multi-family housing replacement program, which has specific criteria for categories and units that must be provided. Vann stated that these units comply. Tygre stated that she wanted to re-visit the ADU issue on Lot 3; whether ADUs or cash-in-lieu was more appropriate. She said that this was an issue that deserved a thorough debate. Vann noted that the ADUs were mandatory. Tim Mooney asked if the applicant was also the builder. Vann and Sarpa replied that they did not know at this point. Haas said that Savannah was willing to work with Parks on the trails and easements through relocation when necessary and to provide the necessary easements. Vann said they agreed to work with Parks to establish a mutually acceptable trail that accomplishes the objectives which the original trail was granted for; he said that was all they could do at this time since the final site plan was not done. Anne Murchison, public, requested to be present at the meeting with Savannah and Parks. Sarpa responded that they were happy to have her there. Haas said that architecture and the site plan were not very specific at conceptual except staff recommended alternatives to a cul-de-sac for comparative purposes. He said the driveway on the north or south side of the affordable housing was still to be determined. Vann commented that if the neighborhood could reach a consensus prior to council, they would be happy to place on either side. He said the FAR was in the single-family homes at the base of the hillside and the plan was to tuck them in. Vann said the 8040 Greenline would be reviewed later in the process. Haas stated there would be buffers for visibility from town. There was discussion of when the plan would come back to P&Z and it was at final. Woods noted that it was a constrained site. Tygre stated that site design was a threshold issue; the size and the location of these houses on the parcel. She said this also related to the rezoning and the consistency with the AACP. She reiterated that there were too many things tied 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 into the site plan for it not to be a threshold issue for her. Blaich and Erickson agreed with Tygre. Sarpa stated that they have given their site plan and staff came up with the alternate site plans with the topography and turn around radius. Blaich stated concern for the plan being changed prior to going to council. Sarpa stated that the site plan was what the P&Z commission approved. Sarpa stated that the history was requested of how they got to where they were today. Vann said the request for conceptual approval with the site plan included the number of parcels; the proposed uses on those parcels; affordable housing; triplexes; single-family; the access; the open space parcels; basic landscape concepts to address visual impacts; building envelopes; architectural vernacular (type of style); and FAR necessary. He said that any of those components could be taken issue with or make recommendations on. Haas said the rezoning issue was a staff recommendation. Roger Hunt said that with the exception of"B" and possibly "A" everything else was being rezoned to LTR. Vann said the development portion of the property was what was being rezoned. Vann said that everything below the 8040 Greenline would be LTR, Parcel "A" would be open space or whatever it was zoned, it didn't matter. Hunt said the R-15PUD then had no advantage to the community. Erickson replied that it would reduce the lot size. Vann said the purpose of the PUD was to provide more open space and not put it into the individual lots. He said to just tell them what they wanted for density and the number of units, the zoning didn't need to be gerrymandered to get the results that you want. Erickson said that the proposed FAR for all the units other than parcel 1, were excessive. Vann replied that only if calculated on the individual lot basis; he said look at the total, the amount of floor area that's allowed on the property was a methodology in order to compute the FAR. He said this was a response to the question of if it could be done on this site. Haas said the catch was if the FARs were not acceptable then recommend to council the FAR from Parcels 1 & 2 not be re-distributed. He said the catch was then it could end up with a 45,000 square foot building on Parcel 1 and a 25,000 square foot building on Parcel 2 and smaller ones on the remaining parcels. Erickson replied unless they recommended something smaller. Vann and Sarpa noted they all had to live with what made sense on the site for everyone. Vann noted the question was if this project can be done in compliance, and the answer was that yes it could. Mooney noted that this was done by a previous agreement and that the easiest way was by the rezoning recommended by staff; it would work out the same way. He said it would be easier than a code amendment. Vann responded that absent a rezoning, there was no project. He said if anything other than a single-family 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 house was built, rezoning would have to occur. Vann said that the city entered into an agreement with more than one house in the plans, 33 units from previous plans. Erickson asked if the open space parcels A & B would be deed-restricted. Vann and Sarpa responded that there would be permanent open space. Haas said that the PUD allows Savannah to use the unused FAR from Lot 5, the proposed hotel was some 8,000 + square feet under the allowable FAR. He said rather than bring any of that onto Lot 3, Savannah proposed to re-distribute parcels 1 & 2 within Lot 3. Vann said there was also an unlimited amount of FAR in the conservation zone district that they were not requesting any credit for. Sarpa said there was about 28,000 square feet of unused FAR and the previous designs that were approved at the conceptual level (contractual) were way too dense for that. Blaich stated that the deal was cut, now we need to understand what the agreement was. David Hoefer stated that 3 years ago it was clearly presented to P&Z there were certain rights under the 1988 PUD agreement, which was a Final PUD, not conceptual. He said the agreement was made with Council and the developer. Hoefer said there were certain rights under that agreement which cannot be breached, consequently we need to find the best project available under the terms of that agreement. He said that was the process that the commission was proceeding under today. Vann explained that the process was what P&Z recommended. Tygre stated her question about zoning was more philosophical than anything else. She said that the LTR zone was for properties similar to North of Nell with some short-term rentals and some property that was lived in, like 5th Avenue. Tygre said the LTR was more of a use situation than a dimensional one. She said the Lot 3 proposal was basically a residential development; houses of the size that were seldom rented on the market. She said that the another concern of the zoning was creating non-conformities and then having to amend the PUD 10 years down the line. Tygre said that zoning with the specific lot sizes and building envelopes may prevent future problems. She said that she was not comfortable zoning the parcels above the 8040 Greenline LTR; it was too artificial for the uses. Vann responded that there was a common misconception about the LTR zone district and the way in which it was developed in the past, but the intent was to allow single-family, duplex and multi-family. He said it was not solely for tourist use; there were numerous examples of duplexes and single-family, which were long-term residential or vacation residential and not rented. Hunt said the spirit of the project was commendable. Vann stated the 8040 Greenline was established as a boundary to ensure assuage of utilities, primarily water, which evolved to include access, architecture and visual 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 impacts on the mountain. He said that there was nothing in the 8040 Greenline that said you cannot develop above or below but within a certain distance of the 8040 Greenline as a review for certain issues. He noted the key to this site was to tuck the buildings into the site to minimize bulk and mass. The single families at base of the mountain reduced the visual impact of much of that FAR, the townhouses where built lower. Tygre commented that this project looked very land consuming and wondered if this could be minimized. She suggested more density on Lot 5 for the same return for the developer. Sarpa noted that would not get to where they needed to be, hence the reason for the residential component on Lot 3. Mooney said the 8040 Greenline was a threshold level issue because each building envelope needed it's own review and requested it be placed into the conditions. Haas recapped that the building envelopes would be in general but each lot would come back with their own 8040 Greenline review. Vann and Sarpa agreed. Mooney said the alternatives of moving to parcel B would be worse and now they rather matched the contours of upper Mill Street. He said the compromise worked and this was a threshold question but this was the simplest way to accomplish the project David Leahy, TDA, stated that they have been involved in this area since the early 1980s beginning with the Ritz-Carlton and the base of Little Nell and have conducted a number of traffic counts. He said there were two components (3 safety and © capacity; the report dealt with capacity. He stated the intersections were analyzed and the findings were acceptable. Leahy said the safety side will be accomplished/finalized in the future to the access locations with relation to the garage, queuing, reservoir space, pedestrian conflicts, volume, and those types of things in perspective. Erickson questioned the use of private parking for the 5th Avenue. Vann stated the parking on the top of Mill was all private parking, which met or exceeded the requirement. Blaich noted the final designs were critical to the project when architecture takes over. He said there was a good architect to do this project right. Sarpa agreed that the clearer the direction the better. Hunt brought up bulk and size of windows, which could be addressed. Tygre agreed. Mooney suggested that the Poss design be considered in the homeowners' covenants. Vann stated there would be a specific set of guidelines to accomplish what should be done according to the final PUD. He there would be parameters set. Weil said the drawing had been done prior to the Design Review Guidelines and he said these plans met those guidelines for the most part. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1999 Woods said there was consistency with AACP for affordable housing. Tygre noted this would not be considered a local housing development. Mooney said there will be people living in deed-restricted housing; there was a mix. Woods said there would be a resolution provided for the next meeting. Blaich asked if there was a model for the whole project. Weil stated they were in the process of remodeling the model. Mooney requested that the referral comments and the drainage conclusions be included in the resolution. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Lot 3 and 5, Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual Review to September 7, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED. 7-0. Meeting adjourned 7:05 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12