HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000418ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting
Room with Charles Vresilovic, Roger Hunt, Roger Haneman, Tim Mooney, Ron
Erickson, Jasmine Tygre and Steven Buettow present. City staff in attendance:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Rebecca Schickling, Scott Chism, Parks
Department; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development;
Lee Novak, Housing; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson said that an owner of the Aspen Main Condominiums asked Housing
to deed restrict a unit but P&Z denied the request because it did not meet minimum
size requirements (this was done some time ago and now the owner wanted to have
a new review). David Hoefer responded that in order for it to be approved it had to
meet the statutory requirements on size of the unit.
Tim Mooney said that the alternative process was passed and he asked if that
process would include Burlingame. He stated concern for the new process not
being utilized for new purchases, such as other pieces of Burlingame. Joyce
Ohlson replied that the coop process was adopted by Ordinance and was now law;
it could be utilized and applied to projects that come into the planning pipeline.
Ohlson said, as a point of clarification, that it was never part of the new ordinance
to include that council had to use the coop process to purchase every piece of
property. Mooney said that he asked specifically if this team concept was part of
the review before the acquisition of a property. Ohlson responded that she
remembered that John Worcester identified it, as the purview of the city council to
proceed with the acquisition of land, if they so choose; they could seek the
advisement of anyone in the community. Bob Blaich stated that he also recalled
John stating that the city acquiring property could go through this process, but in
some situations, it might not be able to use the process because of the nature of the
sale. Jasmine Tygre stated that she wanted to pursue Tim's concern about the
process, since she voted against it. She said that one of the reasons that she voted
against it was because this was a process that went no where as far as P&Z
accomplishing any of their concerns. Tygre said that there have been negotiations
that the city lost out on because of lack of negotiating expertise on contracts. She
said that this process would give P&Z less official say than the old system allowed.
Ohlson responded that the coop ordinance requires the planning and zoning
commission representation on the task team; she said shall was the key word.
Ohlson said that the coop process falls out of the new acquisition and not to change
any purview of the council or P&Z. Blaich requested a short memo of clarification
for future coop process projects.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Mooney said that the negotiations that were taken behind closed doors heighten his
criticism of conflicts of interest like Burlingame with Jim Curtis. Ohlson replied
that this was a separate issue from the coop process.
Blaich noted that a newspaper quote from the mayor gave the impression that P&Z
was the reason that the Snyder project was over budget. He said that Housing
stated that wasn't true. Blaich said there was an article about Truscott that
misquoted him and he just wanted that to be clear about problem if not enough
parking was provided.
Ohlson distributed a memo regarding the AACP adoption, the coop process
resolution, Mittel-Europa and Apex signs.
Jackie Lothian noted that Councilman Hershey requested a budget from the City to
provide light meals for HPC and P&Z for the long meetings and to thank you for
your hard work and dedication.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Steven Buettow stated that he had a conflict with 235 SilverLode and would step-
down from that review.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of February 29,
2000. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0.
Ron Erickson asked about follow-up on the Explore parking mitigation and annual
review for employee generation. Nick Lelack responded that the parking would be
discussed at the first meeting in May. Joyce Ohlson stated that they would follow-
up on those items.
NEW BUSINES S:
235 SILVERLODE - 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Bob Blaich opened the 8040 Greenline review for 235 SilverLode. David Hoefer
noted that there were criteria sheets for the next 2 items. Nick Lelack introduce
David Brown, architect for the applicants, Mary and Lee Erb.
Lelack stated that the proposed addition would be in the corner of the lot within the
building envelope. He said that the addition footprint would be about 235 square
feet and the total FAR was 370 square feet. Lelack stated that this addition would
bring the floor area to the maximum allowed for the property, which was 3,837
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
square feet. Lelack said the area was flat and there were conditions of approval
which staff recommended approval in the resolution #00-19.
David Brown stated that he agreed that it the application met the criteria.
Ron Erickson asked for clarification of a powder room/bathroom. Brown replied
that it was a powder room with a shower, no bathtub.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Erb 8040 Greenline
Review for an addition of 370 square feet of floor area to the northwest
corner of the existing single family residence at 235 SilverLode Drive
finding that the criteria on the sheet have been met and with the
conditions in Resolution #00-19: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain
in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a.) The primary contractor
shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of
approval have been read and understood, b.) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit
fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or
Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement, c.) The
City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed
addition. 3. The building permit application shall include: a.) A copy of the final Ordinance
and recorded P&Z Resolution. b.) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of
the building permit set. c.) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. d.) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks
Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement
or mitigation of removed trees, if applicable, e.) The building plans shall demonstrate an
adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. 4. No excavation
or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles,
materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless
specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking,
including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking
limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The
applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record
the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the
Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the
applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant
shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style
mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. All uses and construction will comply
with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions
of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code
as they pertain to utilities. 10. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts
this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and
water lines. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 7-0.
Jasmine Tygre stated that over the years the commission has seen "creeping
PUDism", which was a very carefully executed PUD with many meetings; no
sooner was the PUD registered and recorded, then someone requested an
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
amendment to that PUD. Tygre stated that this should be a cautionary note for
future PUDs approved.
NEW BUSINES S:
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, LOT 1- 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Bob Blaich opened the review. Nick Lelack noted that no notice was required for
the 8040 Greenline but the Design Review needed to be noticed. David Hoefer
said that the Design Review needed to be posted for a full 5 days. Hoefer stated
that the Design Review portion would have to be continued to a date certain.
Lelack introduced Joe Wells, representative for Jim Martin. Lelack explained that
the Ute Park Subdivision contained 4 lots total; 3 free-market lots and Lot 4 had 7
deed-restricted affordable housing units on it. He noted that Lots 2 and 3 received
8040 Greenline approvals in 1994. He said that this was a constrained site located
in the trees with 2 avalanche zones. Lelack utilized colored maps depicting the
avalanche zones, 2 building envelopes, proposed building footprint, garage setback
and trail easements on the parcel. Lelack said that the residential design standards
were hard not to discuss in the context of the 8040 Greenline because extending
the corner of the house brought the scale of the house down. Lelack said that the
two residential review standard variances were from the secondary mass (10% of
the above grade floor area was required to be in a separate or connected structure)
and the driveway cut exceeded two feet from the natural grade.
Lelack stated that the building would be structurally sound to withstand the lateral
derbies of an avalanche as opposed to a retaining wall, which would further impact
the hill and native vegetation on the site. Lelack said that the FAR was 5,770
square feet and the conditions included a landscape plan that must be accepted by
the Parks Department. He said the Nordic Trail was still being negotiated and how
it will work in the winter months. Lelack said that the project was designed for the
minimum impacts to the hillside and the views from town. He said this was a steep
site but this site was approved with the development rights in 1994.
Joe Wells provided the history of the subdivision stating this was the first housing
project developed under the new AH Guidelines; he said that Jim Martin should be
commended.
Jasmine Tygre asked for clarification that only 2 trees were being removed and if
any trees facing Ute Avenue would be removed. Wells replied that there would
only be 2 pines removed and some of the smaller under brush trees; he said that
they wanted to plant trees as screen for the affordable housing units (some of the
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
bedrooms faced this proposed house). Wells said they wanted to plant heavily but
someone from Parks said that it was not wise to plant on the downhill side.
Wells said that the structure was designed to withstand derbies and snow loads.
Ron Erickson asked if a revised site drainage plan was done with a 2-year or 10-
year event. Wells replied that there was a condition of approval based upon a 20-
year.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the 8040 Greenline
Review for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision to build a new single-family
residence finding the criteria have been met and Resolution/t00-20
with the following conditions: All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain
in full force and effect. 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary
contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the
conditions of approval have been read and understood, b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and
building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the
Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to
the agreement, c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the
parcel and proposed addition, d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental
Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not
blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads, e. Run-off from
the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or
similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. L The Applicant shall submit
and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a
detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City
Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site
replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to
the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be
clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 2. The
building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and
recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of
the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 -
75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with
Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished
construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic
trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails
Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a
short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a
portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located
has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to
finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to
minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on
during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and
usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail, e. The building plans shall
demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen
Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and
that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest
elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper
floor at approximately 25 psi. L Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for
sprinkler service, g. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need
to be added for sprinkler service, h. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump
and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 3. No excavation or
storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 4. All construction vehicles,
materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way
unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle
parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour
residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of
this condition. 5. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction
activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 6. Before issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building.
There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee
to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 7. The applicant shall not track mud
onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be
installed during construction. 8. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public
impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and
sanitary sewer and water lines. 9. All uses and construction will comply with the City
of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8
(Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities. 10. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building
compatible with the hillside. 11. There shall be no future grading on the site without
8040 Greenline Review. 12. Approval of the 8040 Greenline Review is conditioned
upon approval of the variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade
provisions of the Residential Design Standards for this property. Roger Hunt
second. Vote: Haneman, yes; Tygre, no; Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes;
Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich. Yes. APPROVED 6-1.
Tygre noted that her finding did not comply with items # 1 and #7 on the criteria
sheet. Erickson asked the applicant to provide some heights for the design review
next week.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SKATEBOARD PARK- RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was
received and the commission had permission to proceed. Nick Lelack presented
the proposal for a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park to be located in
Rio Grande Park by Resolution #21. Lelack said the basketball courts would be
moved to an undeveloped area to the south. Lelack noted that site A was north of
the yellow line and the Skateboard Park would be located on Site B.
Lelack stated that P&Z and City Council approved the Rio Grande Master Plan in
1993; that plan was a conceptual approval for the park. He said that any
development must go through a final 2-step SPA process (City P&Z and then City
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Council). Lelack noted that there were no new lights approved for the park or any
new parking for the park. He said there would be a couple of new sanilets until the
new Civic Center Master Plan was completed.
Scott Chism utilized a colored map for the different zones, the yellow band was the
20-foot buffer zone necessary for the potential future use of a transportation
corridor. The green circle was the future site of the John Denver Memorial along
the river. The skateboard area was along the park edge. Chism noted there were 4
basic skateboard areas: a plaza space for the park proper and seating area, the
walkway that accessed the general Park, basketball courts and skateboard park. He
said there was a beginner skate portion and then elements in the Skate Park which
become more difficult.
Rebecca Schickling noted that the transportation easement did include the possible
trolley line placement. Roger Hunt stated that the entire Rio Grande Park was
purchased with transportation funds, which included the recycle and "red area".
Hunt said that buffer was an indefinite boundary and he stated concern for the area
being proposed in this plan as a transportation corridor, that was not where the
trolley would be but rather on the south side of that buffer area. Chism said that
the "red zone" triangle of land was identified to be devoted to youth recreation
(specifically for skateboard and basketball). Hunt reiterated that the original
basketball court could have a corridor for the Trolley around it but this plan just
filled in that area. Chism noted that the proposed plan included all landscape and
actual hard surface, which could be part of the original corridor with a 20-foot
boundary. Schickling distributed drawings from the original master plan.
Ron Erickson asked if the skateboard park would be available for in-line skating
and if it would be snow-melted in the winter. Chism replied that in-line skaters
would be accommodated but the skateboard park would not be snow-melted.
Charles Vresilovic asked why the basketball courts were being moved. He asked
why the skateboard park wasn't realigned to accommodate the basketball courts.
Chism replied that they were trying to accommodate all the current uses with the
passive sections being the Theatre, John Denver Memorial and the trail. Chism
said the skate park would be a more active use than the basketball courts and noted
that the lines needed to be longer than the courts also needed a smoother surface.
Vresilovic asked if there would be fencing because of the hazards of the sport and
an area for bike racks. Chism replied that the existing grade would be used to their
benefit for the skate area and bike racks would be supplied.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Mooney asked where the observation area was located. Chism responded there
was a turf edge, street tree planting with a grass slope that went down 4 to 1; this
slope and edge would be a great seating area because of the view from above the
skate area. There was a significant beginner area with a deck space under the trees.
Mooney stated that he was not in favor of any kind of commercialization of this
area, no vendors. Schickling stated that there were no plans for any vending
activity in any of the parks.
Roger Haneman asked if the $100,000.00 in state lottery funds had any restrictions
placed on the use. Schickling replied that the state had placed no restrictions.
Chism responded that there were also private donations, they have made an
application for a GOCO grant and have general parks and recreation funds.
Buettow asked what after dark activities were planned. Chism and Schickling both
answered that there would not be any lights because lights would be in conflict
with the other park uses. Chism said this was daytime activity only.
Jasmine Tygre asked if the 17,000 square feet L-shaped in-ground park was the
entire park area or just the concrete portion. Chism replied that it was essentially
(plus or minus) the concrete area.
Vresilovic asked if there was a drainage plan. Chism responded that drainage
would be accommodated with the engineering plan, which included the landscaped
areas. Roger Hunt asked how deep was the deepest bowl and if a water analysis of
the area had been done. Chism answered it was about a 10 foot depth from ramp
to bottom. Schickling replied that a water analysis was done.
Jon Busch, public, stated that it appeared the trolley plan was not reviewed because
of the placement for the trolley barn; he said this plan, as it stood, eliminated the
trolley. Chism replied that the recycle center area was where the trolley barn was
to be located and the playing field area was to be for the terminal. Busch stated
concern for the trolley turn around in that area from an engineering standpoint.
Tammy Dawson, Theatre in the Park, stated concern for the sidewalk that the
patrons used because it was being changed with this new development. Dawson
wanted to make sure that the walkway was designed to carry vehicles for set-
design, stage props and handicap access. Dawson said that noise was a concern
during performance times; she asked if it was possible to post signs for the
performance times. Schickling replied that the Skateboard Park was close to town
with enforcement if necessary and that signs could be posted. Dawson stated
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
support for the Skateboard Park but wanted to be assured that the park uses remain
compatible.
Alan Osborn, Theatre in the Park, said that they appreciated all the work done and
voiced concern for the entrance to the Theatre being in conflict with in-line skaters
on the path.
Mitch Haas, public, asked if bikes would be allowed on the ramps in the Skate
Park. Chism replied that the users would work out the uses.
Hunt stated that he did not want to see this go forward until he saw how the rails
would work. He said that he did not want to approve anything that might prevent
the rails from happening.
Erickson stated that he was a trolley lover, however he said that he had been a
trolley lover for 20 years and nothing has happened yet. He said that he did not
want any delay in this skate park because this was progress; the kids needed to get
out of downtown in a place designed for their use.
Tygre said the concern for the transit uses was a valid use because it was a matter
of public trust. Tygre noted that a piece of land purchased with transit money was
supposed to be used for transit. She said that if the land was used for something
else then it needed to be more of a public process than just a P&Z meeting. Tygre
stated that the acquisition of this land was part open space and part transit funds;
she said that many worthy groups approached the city for space in the Rio Grande
park. Tygre stated that she was not sure that this was the best place for a
skateboard park, given the history of the Youth Center. She questioned taking an
area of a park and putting 17,000 square feet of concrete on it, even below grade,
as such a good idea. She said that from the land use planning area there were a lot
of questions to be answered and she said that she was not ready to make a decision
on this until those questions were answered.
Blaich asked, for the sake of public safety, where the Ambulance access would be
located. Chism replied it was the same access as the handicap use for the Theatre.
Mooney requested that a condition be added to include an overlay from the
existing master plan and a diagram from the existing conditions from the railway
and trolley designs, including the access. Mooney said that this would show no
encroachment and the priority for trolley and transportation facilities on this
property.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Hunt stated that even with that condition added he felt that it was premature to
approve this until it was shown that this could work.
Buettow asked since this was purchased with transportation money, could the
added condition include that transportation rights were primary to the recreational
rights, and if in the future the public wanted to place the trolley system on this
property, it had priority. Buettow said that if a study proved that the transportation
could not work with this plan, the Skateboard Park would have to be taken out.
Erickson stated that transportation rights are superior to recreation in this vicinity.
Blaich asked Parks to come back with a plan that shows that this will work with
the trolley, transportation and parks.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the Specially Planned
Area Review to build a Skateboard Park and relocate the basketball
courts on Rio Grande Site B finding that all of the criteria have been
met and to adopt P&Z Resolution# 21-2000 with conditions: 1. All
prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency
vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher
demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks
Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these
demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the
satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to
the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot
for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation
lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto
City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be
installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall
obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall
submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall
be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would
control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. The
Applicant shall provide a Trolley System overlay on the Rio Grande Park site plan to
City Council, demonstrating how the proposed skateboard park, basketball court, and
landscaping would affect the potential for a Trolley System. Transportation rights for
Rio Grande Park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. Tim Mooney
second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes;
Tygre, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-2.
Schickling noted that the master plan stated that the group realized that there were
other decision-making processes that could effect the development of the two sites.
The group knew that a valley wide rail system terminating at the Rio Grande,
ultimately a tri-county decision, could use a significant portion of the property.
Schickling stated that she felt that was an underlying presumption of the property.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Ohlson said the plans needed to be revised prior to council submittal and the
overlay would be shown at council.
MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m.
Ron Erickson second. Approved 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DRACO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD
Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated for the record that the
affidavit of notice met the jurisdictional requirements.
Chris Bendon explained that the hearing was for conceptual and final PUD,
subdivision, Residential Design Standards Variances, Special Review for Parking
and Rezoning. Bendon said that this was part of Community Banks property with
the parking garage and the Pitkin County Library to the east. He said the proposal
was for 6 units with 6 parking spaces on the first floor. Bendon stated that the
building was 4 floors; the second floor proposed 3 one-bedroom apartments, the
third floor proposed 2 two-bedroom apartments and the fourth floor proposed 1
two-bedroom apartment with a common roof terrace.
Bendon said this was a voluntary private affordable housing proposal with the units
being sold by the developer to employers in Pitkin County. He said those
employers would rent the apartments to their employees. This was a new concept
but encouraged the private sector to build affordable housing.
Bendon noted that the parking was short of the code requirements but with the
proximity to the commercial core, autos should not be needed in town. Bendon
said that this was an example of infill housing. Bendon said the setback
requirements from the UBC code were not met and the applicant requested an
easement from the city and the county. Bendon said the access ramp and stairwells
for the city-parking garage and from Pitkin County to allow for the fenestration as
proposed. Bendon noted that both the city and county asset managers had no
significant issue other than the process of obtaining those easements. He
recommended that as a condition.
Bendon said the zoning dimensions could be established through adoption of the
PUD. He noted that the FAR was allowed at a 1 to 1 ratio; the applicant proposed
a 1.62 to 1 ratio. He said the applicant requested an increase in height from the
current requirement in the office zone district of 25 feet to 38 feet, which the
applicant would actually like a 39 foot height variance. Bendon said that there
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
were no protected view planes in this area; the most significant view (from staff's
perspective) was from the Rio Grande.
Bendon stated the site was not conducive to secondary mass and this was more of
an urban streetscape. The pedestrian faCade may include an indentation to the
main mass of the building for the front door. The garage setback was also a
variance requested from Residential Design Standards, which could be
accommodated by pushing the garage back but that would probably call more
attention to the garage. Bendon provided amendments to the resolution.
Ron Erickson asked if there would be a cash-in-lieu for the parking. Bendon
replied that the PUD determined what number of parking spaces were allowed
under the PUD and cash in-lieu was for commercial development only.
Mitch Haas, planner for applicant, explained that the developable site was basically
50 foot by 50foot. He said that there was no room for open space and to clarify the
easements was for openings in the wall in the back because the UBC required that
nothing will ever be built within 5 feet of that building. Haas said that since the
building sits on the property line, the only way to guarantee that was to obtain yard
easements from the City for the parking garage. Haas said that the rear was more
complicated because the county owned it but the ramp was a city access easement
through Pitkin County ownership. He said that the city asset manager and city
engineer had no problems from the city side and the rear easement was up to the
county. Haas said that they were going to the county commissioners for the
approval. He said that a 1 O-foot setback from the parking garage would take up
20% of the building.
Haas said that the sidewalks would be straightened out and include snowmelt.
Haas noted that the 6-space garage would basically be for auto storage with small
spaces. He stated that the project was within walking distance of downtown with
many transportation options. Haas said that the units would be deed-restricted to
category 3 with general support from the housing board in a preliminary meeting.
Haas said the roof terrace took up 20 feet of the top floor. He said the height
request for the extra foot was just in case there was an error in the parapet walls.
He said that looking at the perspective of the other buildings around it, the
difference of 38 or 39 feet was really no difference at all. Haas said the views from
the Pitkin Library that would be obstructed were not from offices, tables or desks
but just stacks. Haas utilized bluelines to illustrate an amenity as a way to get out
from the second floor into the parking garage; it was not needed for a fire exit.
12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Bendon reviewed changes to the conditions, which were reflected in the rewritten
resolution.
Tim Mooney suggested moving the deck to the sunny side and asked what the
material was on the building walls. Haas replied that if the terrace was placed next
to the library, the roof of the library would shade that deck area. Haas responded
that it was brick to match the community bank building. Stone Davis responded
that it would be panel brick and laid brick on the north side. Davis said that panel
brick was fired ceramic brick not plastic. Mooney asked what was the construction
of the bridges. Davis replied that they were made of steel.
Ron Erickson asked if they spoke to the city about leasing spaces from the parking
garage, since it was next door. He asked if they could then add more units. Davis
said that 2 units could be placed on the ground floor with a mechanical room, but
then the residents would have to park in the garage. Davis stated that he had not
approached the city about the parking garage.
Steven Buettow asked if there would be some kind of relief for the front faCade
with a canopy across the massive brick box. Davis responded that they were on
the property line now and could not go out any further. Michael Gassman,
architect for the applicant, stated that this was a limited site with a fixed number of
units and size of the units from the UBC. Gassman said this was a background
building that was not meant to call attention to it, just fade into the surrounding
buildings.
Roger Hunt asked if ADA was accommodated with an elevator. Davis said the one
bedroom units had to be accessible and that a lift would be fitted to the stairwell on
the one side of the building with ADA fitted kitchens and bathrooms. Hunt asked
that a condition be added stating that no mechanical will be placed on the roof.
Davis responded that there would only be vents but no mechanical on the roof.
Charles Vresilovic asked if tying the units to employment was a concern of this
commission. Bendon replied that the housing authority reviewed the employees;
the employees had to work in Pitkin County and employers had to own businesses
in Pitkin County. Vresilovic stated that the terrace was a wonderful space but the
terrace also could be eliminated with another unit placed on the top floor.
Bert Myrin, public, stated concern for the height of the building but said that he
felt that it was great to use the entire space. He said that there should be an east
west comparison for the height. Bert Myrin asked if the top unit could be removed
to reduce the height and asked if the city could work out a percentage discount for
13
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
these units parking in the garage. He stated that by placing the units on the ground
floor level, no units would be lost if they were removed from the top floor.
Walt Madden, public, stated that his comments were about the same as Bert's.
Walt Madden said the height was a concern from the park.
Marsha Goshorn, public, stated that the plan was wonderful and she encouraged
more projects like this for the use of space in town. She said that this plan housed
employees without any public subsidy. Marsha Goshorn noted that you would not
see anything different from the park except less of that side of the library. She said
that to take out employee housing units for that was not something that she would
like to see happen. Marsha Goshorn said that a deck on the south side would be
too hot to use; the north side placement would be the perfect place to watch the
park activities from. She said that more projects like this one should be
encouraged.
Mooney asked if the garage door could have some kind of paneling or texture.
Davis replied that the panels could be placed on those doors. Mooney stated that
the ownership should be in the employees name because that was an important fact
for the pride of ownership. He said that the employer had leverage over the
employee and that concerned him as not being fair.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m.
Tim Mooney second. Approved 6-1.
Erickson stated that this was a fabulous project except that the parking could be
located outside the building, which would maximize the number of units that could
be placed in the building. He said that after 5 years of talking about in-fill density,
this is what it would look like.
Hunt said that he liked the project and was happy that there was no mechanical on
the roof. He said that he had no problem with the employers owning the units.
Jasmine Tygre stated that she agreed with Ron and Roger and felt that it was an
appropriate use for this site. She said that the market, shopping and everything
was in close proximity. She noted that this was not a residential neighborhood and
therefore made good accommodations to the uses around it while providing a very
good living experience for people. Tygre said to keep the terrace where it was
located.
14
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
Roger Haneman said that due to the project location, the "shlep factor" was
reduced and asked if city council could direct the parking department to make
parking available in the garage for this project. He noted it provided on-site
parking with the least need for it because of the proximity to the parking garage.
He said if the city was trying to encourage people to walk around town, then 6
spaces should be opened for this project.
Erickson asked that city council be given a choice on the parking and the number
of units. Erickson asked that the number of units be maximized and not let the
parking drive the number of people that could be housed. Stone Davis said that the
people interested in buying the units were glad to see parking.
Blaich stated that they could make a recommendation about the parking in the
parking garage. Blaich said that he liked the project and the plan was very good.
He said the building was like a loft.
MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to adopt P&Z Resolution #00-22,
recommending to City Council the approval of Conceptual and Final
Planned Unit Development, Rezoning to Office PUD and Subdivision
for the DRACO, lnc. Affordable Housing Project at 210 North Mill
Street, finding that the criteria have been met with the following
conditions from this meeting: 1. Prior to final adoption of this PUD, the City Council
shall be assured through an adopted Resolution, or other official means, that Pitkin County
agrees to provide the applicant with a yard easement as presented in the land use application.
The applicant shall gain the approval of City Council to provide a similar easement and an
access easement as presented in the application. These easements shall be affirmed on the final
Subdivision plat. Failure to affirm the easements shall render the PUD null and void. 2.
Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building
Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Development Plans. The
Subdivision plat shall include easements and signature blocks for any utility mains that are
intended to serve adjacent parcels. The Subdivision plat shall depict and describe easements
granted by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen related to yard setbacks and access easements
and shall include signature blocks representing the respective property owners. The Final
PUD Plans shall include an illustrative site plan that shows landscape features and describes
the dimensional requirements of the PUD, an architectural character plan, a utility plan, and a
grading/drainage mitigation plan that includes mitigation measures for the construction phase.
A separate landscape plan is not necessary. A copy of the drainage report used to define the
appropriate drainage mitigation shall be provided to the City Engineering Department for
review and approval. No clear water may be directed to the sanitary sewer. The drainage
report shall indicate the appropriate depth and maintenance interval for drywells. 3. Within
180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the
applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD Agreement binding this property to this
development approval. The agreement shall include any provision for using the City of
Aspen parking lot(s) north of the parcel for construction staging and contractor parking.
The agreement shall describe the ownership, construction process, construction cost and
responsibility, and ongoing responsibilities including maintenance of the proposed "bridge
15
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
to parking garage." The agreement shall include a provision that ensures adequate garage
door access for garbage service providers. The agreement shall include a maintenance
provision for any on-site drywells. The agreement shall include an agreement to join any
future improvement districts that would benefit the property under an assessment formula.
4. The dimensional requirements of the PUD shall be printed on the Final Illustrative Plan.
5. Prior to applying for a building permit the applicant shall: a.) Record the final
Subdivision Plat, PUD Plans, and PUD Agreement, as described above, b.) Execute and
submit a shared (sanitation) service agreement and pay all necessary fees to the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. c.) Provide an air quality mitigation plan for review and
acceptance by the Environmental Health Department. 6. The Building Permit Plans shall
include/depict/demonstrate: a.) A current (within 12 months) site improvement survey, b.)
A letter from the primary contractor stating the conditions of the development order have
been read and understood, c.) A fugitive dust control plan with provision for watering
affected streets, d.) An encroachment license for the construction period and a permanent
encroachment agreement for any improvements on City property including, but not limited
to, a heated sidewalk system if necessary, e.) An oil and sand separator for parking garage
drainage. This drainage cannot be directed to the sanitary sewer, f.) A shared service
agreement for City Water. g.) Any physical improvements required by the Air Quality
Mitigation Plan approved by the Environmental Health Department. h.) A completed
Asbestos Form, available from the City Environmental Health Department. i.) Certification
from a qualified Engineer regarding the adequacy of ventilation in the parking garage area.
This shall be provided to the Environmental Health Department. j.) Compliance with all
pertinent requirements of the Building Code, as amended, k.) Compliance with all
pertinent requirements of the Fire Marshal including an adequate fire suppression system.
1.) Full payment of required impact, review, and tap fees payable to the City of Aspen
including $3,973 for School Impact, unless waived. 7. The applicant shall inform the
primary contractor about any agreement reached regarding the City parking lot(s) north of
the Community Banks building for construction staging and contractor parking. 8. The
applicant is encouraged to monitor noise and dust levels and accommodate neighboring land
uses and residents to the extent practicable. Construction is prohibited between 7 p.m. and 7
a.m. and all day Sundays. The applicant is encouraged to provide recycling containers for
residents. 9. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and
Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this
fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 10. All material representations made by
the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
amended by other conditions. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0.
The commission discussed alternate plans to be presented to City Council to solve
the parking problems and support infill-housing. The commissioners expressed
that this was a very well done infill project.
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved that the applicant consider drafting a
plan "B" to consider that this project could support additional
affordable housing units and such provision would further the goals of
the City with respect to infill-housing if the applicant had the
opportunity to provide "car storage" at an off-site location. The
applicant is hereby encouraged (not required) to propose such an
16
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2000
COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 1
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 2
MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
235 SILVERLODE - 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW ............................................................................................2
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, LOT 1- 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW .................................................................. 4
SKATEBOARD PARK- RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT ......................................................................... 6
DRACO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD ........................................................................................................ 11
18