Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990713Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 Chairman Bob Blaich called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. at the Pitkin County Library with members Tim Semrau, Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman, Jasmine Tygre and present. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS 1. Joyce Ohlson, community development department, told the commissioner that the right-of-way work on Rio Grande and Spring street will be complete this week, The evaluation of intersection at Main and Spring for bus traffic will also be done this week. 2. Joyce Ohlson, community development department, said Tuesday July 27 will be a joint meeting with county P & Z on the Buttermilk Master Plan. The meeting will be at City Hall. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The only P & Z member with a conflict is Steve Buettow who is not present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN Chairman Blaich opened the public hearing. Joyce Ohlson, community development department, reminded P & Z the last time they met on this was June 29. There is an addendum to the staff memorandum dated July 13; there is also a summary of the issues raised at that meeting. Mitch Haas, city's consultant for Aspen Mountain PUD, told Council he, Ms. Ohlson, John Sarpa and Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, have gone over the conditions. Condition #1 does not preclude Council from considering the potential to convert residential with tourist accommodation credits if they chose. The condition states, "upon receipt of the necessary GMQS allotments" and does not necessarily mean through GMQS scoring procedures. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 Haas pointed out that condition #2 does not include the housing office recommendation regarding the Bavarian. Staff recommends leaving out the part about the Bavarian Inn, that the Council deal with this part. Condition #5 staff and the applicant feel should be left out until P & Z hears the presentation by the applicant's traffic consultant, which should be in August. Ms. Ohlson said staff feels it would be better to address traffic impacts during conceptual rather than later. Sunny Vann, representing Savanah Limited Parmership, said regarding condition #6, they will have one level of sub-grade parking underneath the lodge with 106 spaces, which meets the requirements of the code. Vann said the applicants feel this requirement is excessive and it is their intent within the 106 spaces to earmark spaces for the hotel. Varm said if the applicants are not able to use the Bavarian Inn for affordable housing credits, they will have to put housing on site and this may result in a reduction in hotel rooms. Vann said condition #6 said the 106 parking spaces should be augmented and the applicants are not in position to provide any more parking than 106 spaces. Vann said the code allows an applicant to cash out some of the parking for hotel rooms. John Sarpa, representing SLP, reiterated that whatever size the building is, there will be a block underneath; however, there is only so much space underneath and this will hold 106 spaces only. Mooney said there should be a conditional to address the Aspen Mountain drainage. Sarpa said this is more pertinent to Lot 3. Mooney said excavating the garage will disturb the water levels, Haas outlined lot 3, which is the upper portion of Top of Mill and is surrounded by multi-family structures like Mountain Queen and Fifth Avenue, and ski area. The total lot area is 242,810 square feet of land, a portion is in vacated Mill street; there is a portion of Summit street, both of which reduce lot area. In lot 3, 106,150 square feet is zoned conservation, which coincides with the 8040 greenline. There is also R15/PUD zoning and L/T/R zoning on the parcel. The proposal is for parcel #1 of lot 3 to have 6 free market dwelling units configured as 2 triplexes of 3 stories access off Summit Street; parcel #2 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 would have 2 deed restricted duplex structures; parcel #3, one free market duplex; parcels 4,5,6,7,8 are single family free market units. There is also an open space parcel A and B. A total of 17 residential units with 4 deed restricted units are proposed. There is a total of 73,100 square feet of FAR and a total 60,260 square feet of open space. Haas told P & Z lot 3 contains 3 different zone categories; conservation, R-15 and LTR. There is a section of the land use code that deals with properties with more than one underlying zone district. The code section states the dimensional requirements of each zone district have to be compared and that the most restrictive are to be used in the development. The code also states that the allowable density and floor area of a proposed development shall be based solely on the land area for the zone district in which the use is a permitted or conditional use. Haas noted the code states when a proposed development is not allowed in all of the underlying zone districts, the location of the use is limited to those portions of the parcel in which the proposed development is listed as either permitted or conditional use. Haas said a portion of parcel #1 is within the R-15 zone, multi-family residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-15 zone. SLP is requesting a rezoning, which would take the R-15 lands and rezone them LTR. The land above the 8040 like would remain conservation. If that rezoning were approved, parcels 2,3,4,5, and 8 would still be in 2 underlying zone districts; parcels 6 and 7 would be in the conservation zone district. For purposes of this application, SLP has assumed the rezoning will be approved and has based their proposal on dimensional requirements of the LTR district. The minimum lot area in LTR for single family residents is 6,000 square feet; in conservation zone, the minimum lot area is 10,000 for a single family residence. The code requires the most restrictive dimensional requirement is the one that governs; therefore these lots would have to be 10,000 square feet and there is no FAR restriction on single family residential development in conservation zone. Haas noted more than 75 percent of lot 3 would continue to be zoned conservation and lot 3 contains less than 3 acres, the total development potential is one single family residence. This limitation would preclude SLP's ability to achieve Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 the development allotments agreed to in the PUD agreement, which is 47 residences between lots 3 and 5. Haas said the code amendment is to address lots with more than one underlying zone district. This proposed amendment would provide Council with discretion to determine which dimensional requirement applies when a parcel has more than one zone and when the application of the most restriction would be unreasonable. Council could only make that determination in PUDs. The applicant feels a portion of parcel 3 presently zoned R-15 would have to be zoned LTR to accommodate the proposed development. Haas said if lot 3 is granted conceptual PUD approval, it should be conditioned on the rezonlng hearings to accommodate such approvals being held. If the rezonlng request is denied, the applicant would have to come back through the conceptual process. Haas said staff suggests the rezoning deal just not with the area below the 8040 greenline but would rezone all the development parcels to LTR. This would rezone some conservation land to LTR. Haas said conservation land is zoned that only because it is above 8040 greenline not because it is sacred open space. Haas said this approach would eliminate the need for a code amendment and take away the contingencies in the proposal. Mooney asked why this should not be rezoned to AH, affordable housing. Haas said the rezonlng request came from SLP and this is staff's response to that request. Varm said the applicants have the right to build the units exempt from growth management because of their reconstruction credits. Vann noted that AH zone is used when a developer is trying to get an exemption from growth management. Vann said SLP has 47 reconstruction credits and believe they previously mitigated for housing. However, SLP has agreed to mitigate further under current regulations which is what the 4 affordable housing units are. Vann pointed out when the PUD agreement was signed, there was a conceptual approval in place for this parcel for 33 multi-family units. The language in the code restricting this parcel to a single family unit did not exist at that time. Vann said when the land use code was amended, no one discussed the effect of the amendment would be to invalidate the agreement between SLP and the city. Vann said the approach outlined by Haas is 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 another way to reach the same end. If staff feels this is more appropriate, it is all right with SLP. Vann said there is more than enough FAR in this parcel to accommodate -anything the applicants want to build. There is also more than enough density to accommodate when they want to build, Haas reminded the Board the PUD agreement calls for 50 hotel rooms on lot 5 and 47 residential units between 3 and 5. Vann said this 47 figure comes from 33 units conceptually approved plus units previously approved for lot 1. These 14 residential units were originally on the top of the Ritz hotel. Jack Stanford asked how many pillows the employee housing will accommodate. Haas said there would be a total of 7 bedrooms between two units. There are 2 two-car garages on each duplex. This meets the currem code requirement for parking. Stanford said the parking in this area is already overcrowded. Phil Rothman asked what the 8040 line signifies, what can and cannot be built above it. Haas said the 8040 greeniine was put in to address visual impacts and water pressure issues above 8040. Mooney said of the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for housing 60 percent of the work force up valley, and the AH zone allows for new subdivisions m comply. Mooney said if the city is being asked to rezone conservation land to LTR, the staff should look into compliance with the AACP. Haas said there are other reasons for the LTR zone category. Much of the lower surrounding land is zoned LTR. The applicant's position is that they owe no affordable housing for this development; that it is mitigated based on existing credits. The applicants have now said they will mitigate this development as if they had no housing credits. The applicants are proposing ADUs for the single family lots. Haas told the Commission the multi-family replacement program requires 50 percent of the bedrooms and floor areas, 50 percent above grade. This proposal on parcel 2 exceeds that requirement. The housing office has reviewed this and recommended approval. Haas noted if a proposal does not meet AACP rules, the housing office does not recommend approval of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 a housing mitigation plan. Haas said the recommended rezoning is based on adjacent areas not for needing an AH zone. Haas said each parcel would have a site specific building envelope. All of these meet dimensional requirements in terms of setbacks. Haas said the FARs are being worked out; the applicant will provide information showing the method of how they get to a proposed FAR and how to accommodate it; how to calculate the base number. Haas said the definition allows for the applicant m propose an alternative method of distributing some of the FAR. Haas summarized the housing proposed; 4 deed restricted duplex units will be 3 three-bedroom units and 1 four-bedroom unit. There are 6 ADUs proposed for lots 3,4,5,6,7,8, with the options of the owners of these lots requesting m pay the cash-in-lieu at the time of building pemsit issuance. The deed restricted housing is 13 bedrooms, approximately 6200 square feet of floor area. There will be one category 2 units; two category 3 units and the four-bedroom unit is proposed at category 4. The 6 ADUS will be deed restricted as ADUs are restricted. The housing office recommended approval of the mitigation. Haas reminded P & Z that in 1989 SLP contributed $250,000 to the city reward preparation and implementation of a comprehensive drainage master plan for the Aspen Mountain drainage basin. This effort has been lead by the city's engineering department who has completed phase I of the Aspen Mountain drainage master plan. Phase I was modeling of the area's drainage flow patterns. Phase II will set up review and mitigation criteria for any specific development proposals. Haas noted this work contains a lot of geologic study like soil boring and conditions. Haas said the PUD agreement stated, "lot 3 requires further geological study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration". Haas said further study has been done with geologic studies and when this language was drafted, there were 6 steps in the PUD process. This language would allow conceptual review and there has been conceptual approval of 33 units on lot 3. The engineering department recommends the same conditions carry forward to this conceptual review. 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 Haas said trails and easements are covered in exhibit C in the Commission's packet. The applicant has agreed to the condition to have them work with the parks department on relocation of trails or trail easements within the parcel. Haas told P & Z all units will have vehicular access from a public street. There will be a cul-de-sac private drive within the single-family lots and each unit will have its own driveway. The multi-family units will have access off Summit street each unit having its own garage and driveway. Haas noted Mill street is steep in this area, is a north facing street, and has gravel and debris running down into town. Haas recommended SLP be required to provide plans for how this issue will be addressed and mitigated with the final PUD application. Haas said there are sidewalks proposed for the west side of Mill street and in front of the triplexes. No sidewalks are proposed for the cul-de-sac. Staff feels there is a strong need for pedestrian facilities, which foster walking and reduce dependency on the automobile. Haas suggested a condition that SLP commits in the final PUD application to construct detached sidewalks along Mill street and one side of the cul-de-sac. There is a request in the conditions that a revised traffic study be prepared and the Commission should hold off on this until they hear a study from the applicant's traffic consultant. Haas requested alternate site designs surrounding the cul-de-sac prior to final presentation as there may be something more appropriate than a cul- de-sac at the base of the mountain. Haas noted the only comments on the architectural design is that staff would like to see the roof form on the free market duplex revised. Staff feels at full scale built, it will look like a lot of roof. Staff would like to see variation or some other roof form experimented with. Haas said in the last two pages of exhibit C there is a discussion of consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. John Sarpa, representing Savanah Limited Partnership, reminded the Board they applied for this project January 1996. Sarpa told the Commission that Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 the affordable housing portion of this proposed project did not exist in January 1996. The applicants felt the way the PUD agreement was written and what had been previously provided met it. Sarpa said in listening to staff, the applicants took a parcel and converted it to affordable housing. Drainage was a large issue and SLP has been busy with the city and the Ski Company working on this. The modeling, using this site, has given more specific information about drainage, water shed issues, and debris flows. The next step is to move to phase II to look at the data and get into mitigation issues and alternative. Sarpa said the applicants are taking the risk as they feel their engineering analysis shows that whatever drainage mitigation is required for the site will have a minimal impact on anything the applicant decides on the site. Sarpa said as the drainage issues become more clear, the alternatives, too, will become more clear. Sarpa said the direction seems not to get into retention ponds or dams but more how to get the water through the site. Sarpa said the applicants have met with the parks department, with the Ski Company and with the Nordic Club. The top of the slope is very steep and not appropriate for a trail. They are still working on a location for a trail through or around east/west. David Booth, Aspen Lodging Company, asked if the applicants have considered tying into the Durant trail. Sarpa said he walked it with the Alpine representatives, and they are still looking at all alternatives Bill Poss, architect for the project, showed computer images of the project looking up from town. Poss said they designed the cul-de-sac to take advantage of the topography, tucking the houses into the hillside, that one would not be able to see the houses from town. The hillside and planting would block the visual impact of the houses. Poss said it would be easy to accommodate a sidewalk in the cul-de-sac area. Poss showed computer imaging from the ski runs, or above the project. Poss said the design tries to relate to higher densities along the base of the mountain. There is green space as the project goes up the hill. Poss showed where the employee units would be located. Poss noted the original access was between the duplex units and Fifth Avenue Condominium to push the units farther south of the Fifth Avenue and let in 8 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13. 1999 more light and green space. Poss told P & Z the homeowners requested the access be moved to the south of the duplex units, which was done. Poss said this will make the duplex units more in the view of Fifth Avenue; however, this redesign was done at the request of the neighbors. Kim Weil said the design will work either way. Erickson said he. would like to see. computer imaging of the view from the mountain with snow and without the trees in leave. Poss said they can do that. Vann said the crux of this is whether or not development should occur at this site. Vann said the issues related to drainage can be mitigated. The issue is what and how much development is appropriate. Vann said one could argue with the changes in the Code that what is allowed is one single family residence. Vann said the applicants will argue that the city cannot give them development rights and then take them away. Vann said the complexity of amendments surrounding this application is designed to accommodate what is agreed to in the PUD agreement. Vann said the applicants have started with the premise that it was not the city's intent to give units and take them away with a minor change in code. Vann said if the city only allows one house on site, there will be no hotel at the Grand Aspen site; there will be no housing at the Bavarian. vann said there was a time when the city agreed that the bulk of units for this development would be developed on the Top of Mill site. The applicant chose not to pursue the alternative of 30 multifamily units, which was conceptually approved. The applicants felt a less dense, less visible project was more appropriate. Erickson asked how this proposal encourages businesses that serve the local community. Haas reiterated this project is being mitigated for housing as if there were never any credits, as if they were starting from scratch. The replacement program is met with the 4 deed restricted units on parcel 2, and the reconstruction of the single family is met with ADUs or cash-in-lieu for those parcels. The housing does meet local-serving needs. Vann said this part of the development is the only portion of the project that provides the economic wherewithal for the other parts. 9 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13, 1999 ~Sarpa said the city and the developer have a contract and the idea is to figure out how to meet that contract. Vann noted P & Z supported the application for 30 residential units on lot 5. Council said they will not support residential units on lot 5 but will support a hotel. Vann said they are housing more people than any other development, even though the applicant feels they had credits for the employees. Mooney asked why this is not contract zoning. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer said there was an agreement dated 1988 and this is the end of a process working under that agreement. Haas said this area was zoned differently when the agreement was signed. The land was zoned something that no longer exists. Varm said Council has been quite clear that they will not approve a residential project on lot 5, so the applicants cannot put any of the 47 approved units on lots 5. Blaich said the P & Z has to do the best job examining the criteria for this project; however, Council is going to make the decision on the proposal within the contract and with legal advice. Vann said the applicants have the. right to develop up to 47 residential units subject to receiving the appropriate land use approvals in some combinations on lots 3 and 5. The original proposal was 30 residential units on lot 5 and 17 residential units on lot 3. Council made it clear that no number of residential units on lot 5 was appropriate. Council directed staff to find a way to make a hotel work on lot 5 that is big enough to work for the applicants and yet will not be a high end hotel. This left the applicants with 47 residential credits. Vann said the applicants agreed that 47 units on lot 3 is not appropriate. Vann said with his proposal, the applicants are only using 13 of their credits. This project is also mitigating all of the multi-family units demolished throughout the entire Aspen Mountain PUD under current regulations, even though only 6 are being reconstructed. Haas said the rezoning issue will come up at final stage and will be reviewed under the criteria for rezoning. Haas said approving conceptual with conditions does not imply they will grant the rezoning request. Hunt said this overall proposal is very much improved. Hunt said he did not like residential units on lot 5. Hunt said this plan fits more with the 10 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 13, 1999 zoning and with the community plan. If the applicant can take care of the technical issues, this is a reasonable approach to the problem. Anne Murchison, Fifth Avenue, said she would like the ski trail easemem from the west developed; her main objection is a lack of ski access. Vann said the applicants have agreed to cooperate with the parks department to locate the trails so they will be most usable. Vann said there are physical limitations to trails on this site. David Booth, Aspen Lodging, said when Galena street was improved, storm sewers were installed. Booth said there are no storm sewers on Mill street and perhaps these could be incorporated when this project is built. Booth asked how high the triplexes will be. Vann said there are no height variances requested in lot 3. Booth said during construction, his properties will be greatly affected by the construction, and he would like to know how everyone will work together. Vann said as part of the approval, the applicants will be required to submit a construction management plan. Jack Crawford asked about relocating the garage entrance on Galena street. Sarpa said the applicants have been looking at this and agree to an additional condition that they are working on an alternative. The applicant did not have time to come up with a design. The applicants feel there is merit to relocating the entrance to the garage on lot 5. Crawford brought up the ice rink parking. Vann noted this is covered in the conditions and the applicant will come back with a parking layout as the project evolves. Erickson said he would like to discuss the single family homes, how large they will be, how they will be sited. Sarpa said they will review this at the next meeting. Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to August 10; seconded by Ms. Tygre. The Commission left the meeting at 6:55 p:m. All in favor, motion carried. 11