Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990615ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 Bob Blaich, Chairperson, opened the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 6:05 p.m. after the Growth Management Commission Meeting. The following members were present: Roger Haneman, Tim Semrau, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bob Blaich. Staff in attendance were: Chris Bendon, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Claude Morelli, Transportation; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre asked about a follow up on public funding and disclosures brought up at previous meetings. Joyce Ohlson replied that Lee Novak would bring up the issue with Housing and saw no reason not to disclose pre-conceptual meetings on projects. She said they had no problem letting the Commission know how the design teams were chosen. Julie Ann Woods responded that if the Commission thought the information was important for decision making and could be provided, but it was not a requirement of the process. Tygre asked if the other commissioners felt this a valid part of the process. Tim Mooney stated concern for the whole process when the sites were identified, to the design and for what was appropriate on that site. Mooney said historically housing has an idea for a site and brings it to City Council. He said the steps of the process should be defined for every application, especially affordable housing with community funding. Woods said that when the City was the owner of a project, Council has to look at and approve the expenditures to appropriate the funds. She said that some clarification could be provided in writing. David Hoefer noted that this was a philosophical discussion and should probably be brought to Council by the Commissioners. Woods asked the commission how far along they were on the AACP for direction. Mooney asked for residential and commercial maps because they were the most important to be included for the review. She said the maps were still in draft form but would be attached. Ron Erickson inquired as to why it was the 1998 AACP. Woods said the AACP work session would be postponed to Thursday, June 24th from Noon to 3 p.m. Steve Buettow and Ron Erickson read the draft minutes from the June 8th Burlingame public hearing. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None disclosed. PUBLIC HEARING: 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 1999 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Aspen Mountain PUD to June 29, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/08/99): BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. David Hoefer stated the public notice had been provided. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Burlingame Minutes from June 8, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. Jim Curtis, representing the MAA, stated there was no additional presentation but did want to discuss Item # 6 & #23. He said from the last hearing there were 3 conditions added for clarification (exhibit #2). Ron Erickson said that Jim Curtis was representing the MAA; he asked who represented the other 9 months of the project. Curtis replied that the City has granted the MAA consent to submit the land use application; depending on what the specific questions were, he could refer to the City Manager and he felt comfortable regarding the land use. Erickson asked if any warrants made tonight would be binding on the City of Aspen. Curtis replied that they would be conditions for approval. Steve Buettow inquired about the offer from the MAA to dedicate two of the back buildings to year round housing and when that would be presented to City Council. Curtis said the Housing Board was appreciative of the offer and hoped City Council would consider it; it would be presented to City Council. Chris Bendon mentioned the commission needed to consider all the relevant main issues. He introduced a letter from the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Interim Manager (exhibit 3) dated June 15, 1999. Dave Gordon was present to answer any questions. The Airport requested 5 conditions of approval. ~9 avigation easement © prohibited use of reflective or magnetic material, nothing to interfere with the airport ® use of proper construction materials and analyze the noise impacts of the airport ® public disclosure for residents of the housing project ® review of site specific plans prior to construction. Bendon included these conditions with the exception of the disclosure. Curtis stated these conditions were acceptable. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 Bendon said there were no expansion plans in the current Airport Master Plan. He said the RPZ zone would not be changed, but if it were to change, if the noise lines exceeded a 65 DNL, the airport would have to buy those homes. Bendon noted there were no Federal Aviation regulations regarding noise near airports. Roger Hunt stated that he understood that the airport protection zone doesn't get extended if the south runway was only extended for departures, however it gets the noise generator closer to this project. He asked for noise profiles for this area or the profile of the present take-off point in relation to the berm or any other protection from the airport noise. He commented that for his acceptance of this project, those issues would have to be satisfied. Michael Hassig, Teague Architect, introduced Jeff Koltkowski, Acoustical Engineer, from David Adams Assoc. Hassig presented maps showing the DNL decibel contours and maps with obstructions from the approach showing the berm in relation to the first building, it clips the roof comer. Koltkowski explained the DNL (day/night noise level) which is a 24 hour average on annual usage that penalizes noise between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am; 10 decibels is added to the noise at night. He noted the FAA uses this measurement to quantify airport noise and its impact on people and used by HUD in site evaluation. He said that if the level is 65 or lower no measures were needed to mitigate noise other than normal construction. Koltkowski said this project was 55 DNL and no measures were needed in his estimation. Erickson asked if the DNL took in different types of aircraft. Koltkowski responded the level was for the Aspen Airport. Hunt noted there was a problem since the airport did not operate from 10 pm to 7 am which brought the average down significantly. He asked what the top of the berm was for the peak noise level experience from the first flight in the morning, from the Stage 3 engines or a private Stage 2 jet. He stated that was what would rattle the cups and saucers, not this average. Koltkowski replied that HUD said the DNL was the best evaluation and did realize there were peak trip times, which were louder. Hassig asked for the decibel reduction accomplished with the berms on the site. Koltkowski utilized a chart to illustrate the first and second level windows of the housing. He said if the berm blocked the line of sight, then there was a reduction. Blaich asked if the berm height were raised, would that help the line of sight. Koltkowski responded it would, but at some point it would hit the law of diminishing returns, but would have some benefit for the second level. Hunt asked if landscaping would have an effect. Koltkowski replied that the landscaping, trees/bushes, to significantly reduce sound transmitters would have to be a couple of hundred feet deep. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 Mooney asked for clarification of the line through the actual unit on the contour map. Koltkowski said it was the line of sight from the runway. Erickson asked that point or vector of maximum noise. Koltkowski said that it was the point where the aircraft was closest to the development. Mooney asked if there were units directly in the line of sight. Hassig said they were all shielded by the berm. He said they felt they have justified the mitigation accomplished by the construction and the berm. Erickson said the revision of condition #6 releases the sound mitigation, leaving it open-ended; the experts, for the noise level at the top of the berm have quantified nothing. He said that if the Commission agrees with these levels and then the noise levels are unbearable, what happens. Hassig said the 30 DNL was borrowed from the North 40. Bendon said the suggested condition did not have a criteria built into it, but could have it built into the condition. Mooney stated concern for the in-ability of the experts to make a representation because there were no numbers taken to calibrate for this project. He asked what was the DNL was for this site on the chart and said the figures were not there. Hassig replied that the airport provided the 55 DNL figure and lies outside that contour; it was less than 55. Mooney restated that these were averages that do not pertain to this site. Hassig stated that he took issue with that and the point of these contours were an attempt to quantify those impacts in a consistent way to apply standards. Hassig said that DNL were one thing related to averages and over-flight incidents were something else; the question was how frequent would the noise spikes for over-flight be. Koltkowski stated the FAA and HUD recognized the outside level at 65 DNL, counting the 20 decibels attenuation reduction for regular construction brought the DNL to 45. Hassig noted that figure did not include the berm which was another 5 to 15 reduction. Erickson noted there was an additional 30 reduction and asked why they did not want to be held to the 30 db reduction. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the public hearing to 7:30 pm. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-1. Hassig stated that they would accept specific criteria related to an average noise level within the unit, however they may achieve it, or a specific reduction of 30 db in terms of all measures if that was acceptable to the Commission. Julia Marshall stated the berms adjacent to the Maroon Creek were 4 feet higher than this project, so if we use what Jeff said to raise the berm 4-5 feet it should lower the decibels by 10. Curtis asked for flexibility in achieving that number. Hassig asked Koltkowski if 35 was an achievable interior DNL given the project construction, orientation and berm height. Koltkowski said the berm also protected from road noise and the 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 interior was the best way to verify and 35 would be quite aggressive but the 45 would be acceptable. Bendon asked for clarification if that was an average dba for a 24-hour period. Koltkowski replied that it was determined the same way. Blaich noted this was the second meeting and public participation was not held at the prior meeting. He opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Mickey Herron, representing the Maroon Creek LLC, said there was information that he requested at an embryonic stage of the project and he never received it. He voiced concern for the process itself with a proprietary nature, the representations made by Jim Curtis on behalf of the City were binding. Herron said there were things occurring through this process that would not occur when a private developer came before the City planning process. He stated objections and concerns: (3 the procedure or expedited process © access; a lawsuit is currently pending and usually an application is tabled until that access issue is resolved. ® open space consideration; from the definition in the code there is no open space on this project. ® parking issues; music students may not have cars but 9 months a year this project will be used by other than music students which does not consider the winter parking use ® incremental application is disturbing because this is a large project which involves more than this portion ® traffic issues; alternate accesses have not been looked at; using Stage Road; underpasses for the highway. Bendon responded that he was not asked to provide any specific information to Mickey Herron. He said the expedited process was typical for public and private affordable housing projects, which was consistent with City and County projects. Bendon said there were several access and transportation issues which could be answered by Claude Morelli, City Transportation Planner. Bendon said that CDOT did not consider Old Stage Road an access to the parcel and the access presented was the access to the parcel. He said the open space was in the memo, none of the area on the parcel qualifies as open space on this parcel because of the modifications for the noise concerns. He said parking was in the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Bendon said this was part of the large Burlingame parcel but really had nothing to do with the Burlingame Village, which may or may not come forward. He said there was a minimizing disturbance to Deer Hill with no access on or across Deer Hill. Herron said that it was the process that was the issue and CDOT did not make the rules. Erickson agreed that Ralph Trapani should not decide our land use issues. Curtis noted the courts would solve the access problem. There was more discussion on Old Stage Road access, CDOT, the bike path, and traffic signals. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 Mooney restated the reason that he voted against the project conceptually was because of the intersections, traffic signals, road, transportation and access issues without a master plan of the entire area. He said the plan was less than inadequate to address these problems with a very transit orientated project. Claude Morelli, Transportation Planner for the City of Aspen, stated CDOT has spent time and money to relocate and connect Owl Creek Road, an awkward and dangerous intersection. He said putting the frontage road in to connect Old Stage Road to the light was problematic because of the berm and awkward 90© angle turn which was not an ideal design. He said the key issue was capacity at the grade, the golf carts use in the summer when the music students live in the housing and they don't have cars but have excellent transportation into the city. He said the conflict with Maroon Creek Club was a non-issue regarding the MAA and there was no conflict in the winter (illustrating the trails and signalized intersection). He said the construction period would likely coincide with the initial occupancy of the development but CDOT had an early action item of the signal or temporary signal. He said if it were an issue, it would only be an issue for one season. He said there were limited parking issues and with regards to shopping he suggested taxi vouchers for residents of this development to be included in the rent. Erickson said the underpass right-turn onto Highway 82 from the Tiehack Road with a bus was also when everything goes from 4-lane to 2-lane; the snow packed acceleration lanes in the winter were also problematic. Morelli said he did not think those were issues and if they were, it could be discussed with CDOT. Herron commented the incremental development problem exists and will only be exacerbated by opening the door today; that was their concern with the next 500 units that go into the project. He said there was nothing in the proposal that stated the MAA would remain there forever. There were questions on the access of New Stage Road, which were deferred because the courts would decide. Mooney questioned the length of the walk from the farthest unit to the up-valley bus stop and the route. Hassig said it was a quarter mile. Buettow asked the audio specialist what the estimate sound level, not considering averages, standing in the middle of one of the units would be. Koltkowski replied that he could not answer accurately because the maps provided by the FAA guidelines do not give the maximum noise level information. Buettow asked for an estimate. Hunt said the contour map was not specific to take-offs. Koltkowski said from other projects in the area it was in the 80 to 90 db range, but he did not know where they were located; deducting 30 would put this project in the 40-50 range. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 15~ 1999 Hoefer said to put this into perspective, what would the decibel level be in a nightclub with a band. Koltkowski said probably in the range of 100-105. Hunt said he understood that the highway would be raised 10 feet, the images in the book were at the present highway elevation. He asked what would happen to the sound differences. Hassig said the estimates were based upon the raised highway. There was discussion about continuing the meeting to a date certain. Woods noted that this was scheduled before City Council on Monday, June 21 st. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing to 8pm. Steve Buettow second. APPROVED 5-2. Bendon said there needed to be a condition regarding the construction level for the units. Hunt said rustling leaves at 15 db was probably too low. Bendon said the common standard was no higher than 45. Koltkowski said that subjectively the way that most people perceive sound; at a 10 decibel difference, most people think of it as half as loud; at 5 decibels it provides a less of a difference and at less than 2-3 decibels the difference can't be perceived. Hunt asked if the Stage 2 jets would be considered. Robert Harth asked why the commission wouldn't impose the same restrictions as the Maroon Creek Club Employee Housing; why would this housing be any different. Curtis stated that he would research and certify the standards used at the Maroon Creek Club and review with Community Development. Harth stated they were in the music business and ears were the important thing musicians have. He said they are concerned about the music students, which was a fact of life for them. Hassig said he would accept whichever standards were more rigorous, the Maroon Creek or HUD. Woods recommended the UBC requirement of 45 be used, or the applicable rules. Tygre stated that Mickey Herron made a good point on the incrementalization of Burlingame with this project and she understood the applicants' view that this was only their portion of the project. But, she said, you must understand the P&Z point of view as a land use review board, having to consider all the parts of the project, particularly as it affects the access and transportation. Tygre said the project was not transit or walk friendly. She said the kind of traffic that is generated by these projects was underestimated. She said the whole idea of how people are going to get in and out of this project will have tremendous impacts and there are certain 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 variables that have not been worked out. Tygre stated that because of the location of this project, the affects on transit and parking should have been thought out. Tim Semrau asked where the urban growth boundary rings landed from the AACP in reference to this project. Woods responded the outer-most ring was at the Bus-barn; the next ring inward was at the Maroon Creek Bridge. Semrau asked if it was the goal to vote tonight. Blaich mentioned that the hearing could be continued to a date certain or go to a vote tonight. Curtis replied they would like a vote tonight to try to achieve the construction season this year or bring the project to a close. Semrau said that a project of this magnitude needed to fit the criteria in order to be a benefit to the community. He commended the planner and architect in trying to solve all the problems and fit all of the things onto this site. He said the question of sprawl did not fit into the criteria of the urban growth boundaries. He stated there were so many problems inherent on this site and the unresolved problems of safety, noise and parking remained. Mooney stated there were many talented mitigation efforts to an inappropriate site for this mass and scale. He said the highway access, highway dependability, lack of defined determinations of how the highway will inter-work with this were unsolved. He stated it was sprawl and there were other sites. He said without it being owned by the applicant but rather a City owned property, which needed to be planned. Mooney said he was disappointed with the process; he did not feel it was in compliance with the AACP. He said the AACP asked to create affordable housing, which unites and integrates the community and this project doe not do that. Hunt said in spite of his reticence, he could be convinced to change his vote by details and criteria for the noise levels, shallower north berms and a parking plan that would work by placing the parking closer to the berm not withstanding the access problems being solved. He requested the hearing be continued to hammer out these problems because the project was going to happen regardless of this commissions approval or not. He asked to get the best project possible from this application and felt more information would help. Tygre stated there were many issues that were not discussed and was not sure if some of the details could ever be worked out to her satisfaction, but the level of scrutiny had not yet been achieved. Buettow stated it was a nice project but wished it were located somewhere else. He said the traffic access was a major concern; noise level and that there was no 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 15~ 1999 information on the project for 9 months out of the year were also conerns. He said that if the MAA were the 9 months a year residents, then the parking might work. Haneman said everything was good except the location and access. Blaich stated that he recognized the shortcomings and agrees with the access problems needing to be resolved. He said that everyone on the commission had a strong position for the need for more affordable housing. He said this was affordable housing based upon a real need and seemed to be doable. He strongly suggested that it be continued to possibly solve some of the issues and to bring a positive vote forward to council. Woods reiterated what Blaich said about the location issue, which should have been considered at conceptual. There were members of the commission that voiced concerns over the location previously. Woods stated that even though there was an urban growth boundary, there was a recommendation from the AACP that an affordable development be within ¼-½ mile walking distance. Bendon asked for a threshold position for information on the project. Blaich asked if the commission did not take a vote tonight, what would happen. Hunt stated that he would make a motion right now. Bendon stated it was a public hearing and the hearing would have to be continued or a vote taken. Hassig asked what commissioners would be able to vote any differently if the hearing were continued. Mooney responded that the access problems could not be solved and there were problems not knowing the City plans or the Zoline plans. He said the City should step-up and provide the plan to build real affordable housing, not seasonable, but develop the property with the best use for the dollars spent. Harth stated that they would go to council with or without the P&Z approval and without it they will not be able to build the project this year. He said they would be without 200 beds for next year and increased construction costs of $1,000,000. He said the threshold question is do you want 200 beds by next year or not. Harth said this has been over 2 years and tried to respond to every aspect from the Commission. Mooney asked if any of the issues could be answered by continuing the hearing. He said it was a transportation-orientated project without a transportation plan. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing, because many of the commissioners do not have sufficient information to support this project, to 3:00 p.m. June 22, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. Mooney, no; Semrau, no; Buettow, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, no. DENIED 5-2. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1999 Hunt said if conditions could be added to the motion he could vote in favor of the project. Hunt stated that they have not completed their job. Blaich urged the Commissioners to attend the City Council meeting to have their opinions heard by Council. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend City Council approve the Subdivision of Burlingame Ranch Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot/42 - the Seasonal Affordable Housing project, Rezoning of Lot/42 to the RMF-A Zone District, and approval of the Special Review for Parking with the conditions outlined by the Community Development Memo dated June 8, 1999. Ron Erickson second. Roll Call vote: Semrau, no; Tygre, no; Buettow, yes; Mooney, no; Erickson, no; Blaich, yes; Hunt, no. DENIED 5-2. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT~ MODIFICATION OF CONSERVATION {C} ZONE DISTRICT RELATED to FAR MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Code Amendment, Modification of Conservation (C) Zone District - FAR to July 6, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED %0. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD ................................................................................................................................... 2 BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL .............................................................................................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION OF CONSERVATION (C) ZONE DISTRICT RELATED TO FAR. .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 10