Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010116ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ............ ~ ............................ 2 HOTEL ASPEN - 10 ! WEST MAIN STREET - PUD and REZONING ............... 2 SAVANNAH (MINE DUMPS) PUD and REZONING ........................................... 5 CORBIN/BURROWS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION and CONDITIONAL USE - 610 SMUGGLER & 505 N: FIFTH STREET .................. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 Bob Blaich, chairman, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers with the following commissioners present Steven Buettow, Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen. Ron Erickson and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joycc Ohlson, Nick Lclack, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Steven Buettow questioned if he had a conflict of interest but he has not worked for Gibson & Reno for several years and never worked on this project. David Hoefer stated that for the record there was no conflict of interest and the applicant agreed. Mitch Haas requested that the Corbin/Burrows item be heard first since it was not of a complex nature. David Hoefer stated no objection. The commission agreed to leave the order of the heatings as posted because members of the public may attend the hearing later on. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: HOTELASPEN - 101 WEST MAIN STREET - PUD and REZONING Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on the Hotel Aspen Project. David Hoefer stated that for the record this was a continued public hearing; notice was previously provided. Joyce Ohlson stated the Hotel Aspen requested an additional 8 lodge units and 2 affordable housing units with 8 additional on site parking spaces. She noted the project was under the Lodge preservation program. She said there were 3 items for review: (~) Lodge Preservation Unit Growth Management Quota System Exemption (~) Lodge Preservation Affordable Housing Units (~) Overall recommendation on the minor PUD. Ohlson utilized maps and blue lines to illustrate the proposal to add a third floor to an existing building along the backside and an addition to the Bleeker frontage of the building. There were currently 45 rooms and 2 employee units on site. Ohlson said that the applicants have responded favorably to HPC requests. Ohlson stated that the proposed employee housing provided for 3.5 employees from the housing guidelines. She noted the parking was head-in parking on Garmish Street, which was public parking but supported the hotel use. Staff recommended the head-in parking be changed to parallel parking, which would be a reduction of 10 spaces. Ohlson stated that was an aesthetic improvement to the street with the addition of some type of landscaping as well as the safety issue of 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 backing out close to the intersection of Garmish and Main Streets. She said that a loading zone was proposed along Main Street. Ohlson said that a condition of approval was to dedicate 2 of the 8 new parking spaces for the employee units. One condition addressed the parallel parking. Roger Haneman required about the head-in parking requiring an encroachment license. Herb Klein, applicant attorney, replied that the encroachment was needed on Bleeker Street for parking. Augie Reno, applicant architect, noted that the existing building sat on 2 sites. Reno said that 7 units were proposed to be placed on the 3rd floor in the back of the front building and 1 hotel room unit and 2 affordable housing units added onto to the building with the 2 existing affordable units. Reno said there were currently 10 on site pa~king spaces; he stated the alley was vacated in 1984. He said they had meetings with HPC and the highest point of the building was now 30 feet 5 inches above grade. Reno stated that the walls were ungulated and new roof forms changed the look. He noted that from the street the main building was most seen with 3 large evergreen trees that obscure most of what will be added. Reno said the rear building would be connected with a two-level bridge. Herb Klein noted that it was suggested that category 2 was placed on the employee units but that the potential manager could make more than a category 2 income level. David Hoefer responded that issue was beyond the purview of the P&Z, although a recommendation could be made to City Council. Klein replied that he would appreciate a recommendation for the flexibility. Klein said the parking issue was important to the viability of the hotel; he said by converting the head-in parking spaces to parallel spaces, that ½ of the spaces would be lost. He noted the reality was that these were public spaces and the Orthopedic Associates also had head-in parking spaces across the street. Klein stated that the change in parking was purely aesthetic while most important to the hotel was parking for guests; there was no safety problem with the head-in parking. He noted that the parking on Garmish was in the city right-of-way and the city could change this parking at any time. Klein asked for the parking to remain status quo. He said the Hotel was providing free bicycles, instructing reservations that the Hotel was in town with a free bus and vouchers for taxis. Reno noted that there was an existing green strip and the parking was the only issue at this point. Haneman asked if the Hotel participated in the City Parking Permit Program. Bob Morris, applicant, responded that they did participate. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16~ 2001 Tim Semrau, public, stated that he lived across the street and he presented photos of the area. He said that when he redeveloped the property across the street, there was head-in parking on the lot and the city made them change it to the standard curb and gutter with parking off the street. Semrau said that every site in thc area was told upon redevelopment, that curb and gutter would be required, which was a big improvement. Klein responded that Tim Semrau's project required on-site parking because it was residential; he said that the Hotel project (under the current code exemptions) was not mandated to put 100% of the parking on site. He noted there were a different set of requirements for this project from Tim's project. Blaich stated that P&Z could make a recommendation on parking. David Hoefer noted that parking was not on the property and that was the subject of the application; he agreed that any recommendation could been made to City Council. Semrau stated that the City made his development pay for the parking redevelopment. Haneman asked how much of the parking at the Yellow Brick ~vas being elirr~nated. Joyce Ohlson answered that the parking was going to be parallel with a landscape of trees. Blaich stated concern for a loss of parking and said that the City should take a consistent position on parking. Steven Buettow agreed that was also his concern with the parking; that it was inconsistency from the City. Haneman stated that since so much of the parking in the area was being changed, what was the harm of leaving the parking "as is" for another year and see how it works out in the neighborhood. Cohen said that his question to Tim was that Tim was looking at it strictly from an aesthetic concern and why not look at it the other way, as taking away parking from the neighborhood. Semrau replied that it was ugly to have all the cars on the lot and he would rather have the neighborhood more beautiful and walk 20 more feet. Semrau said that Community Development told him that it was policy on this block for any redevelopment to pay for the parking in the area on site because the city would not have the money to do it. Semrau said that he was required to have on-site parking. Cohen noted there was a separation from the Medical building and the Hotel to Tim's building. Bob Morris stated that he was the manager of the hotel and the current numbers of spaces were needed before the expansion and eliminating these spaces would be a dis-service to the clinic and not really for the hotel. Haneman commented that the category 2 for the housing should remain because it was below the size requirements for a category 2 let alone category 3. Blaich said that was City Council's responsibility and the category could be excluded from the motion. Cohen inquired as to the size of the unit. Haneman responded that it was 489 square feet and the requirement for a category 2 was 600 square feet and for 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 category 3, it was 700 square feet. Blaich stated that he would prefer it be taken out of the P&Z motion. Blaich and Cohen stated that they wanted the parking issue to be decided by Council. Cohen and Buettow wanted the category issue to be with Council and Housing. Klein said that he did not want someone to lose their housing because they get a raise, they want to keep employees on site. MOTION: Steven Buettow moved to approve Resolution #01-02 approving the Lodge Preservation Expansion of the Hotel Aspen, 110 West Main Street, for 8 lodge units and 2 affordable housing units and recommend City Council approve the PUD with conditions and to recommend parking as it exists and that the category 2 remain. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/05/00): SAVANNAH (MINE DUMPS) PUD and REZONING Joyce Ohlson noted there were additional staffreports for members of the public prior to the hearing. Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Nick Lelack stated that there was a revised Exhibit A. Lelack said that they would focus on the key issues from the December 5th meeting. David Hoefer distributed the criteria review sheets. Lelack stated that there were 3 parcels. The one furthest up the mountain (south), Parcel 3, included the Mine Dump Apartments, which had 16 units and a separate duplex on that parcel (total of 18 units). Parcel 2 existing was the above grade parking spaces for the Aspen Skiing Company. Parcel 1 was located just up from Lift One and Timber Ridge Condos with a small residence on the western end of the site. Lelack stated that the Mine Dump Apartments and the small residence on parcel 2 were slated to be demolished. Lelack stated that 31 units were proposed across the 3 parcels under the proposed Lodge Tourist Residential (LTR); density could be increased from the proposed because there was more open space in the plan. Lelack stated that the project met all the design review criteria. Lelack stated that the project could generate 136 vehicle trips a day. The Environmental Health Department felt that a better traffic mitigation plan should be placed to further reduce traffic from this site. The Streets Department stated that there was a 15-year warranty on South Aspen Street that would be revoked by this project's traffic generation; the applicant would provide some type of letter of credit for mitigation but since many other projects were proposed in this area, this 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16~ 2001 applicant was not to bear the entire burden for the warranty. There was a public access easement for the 9 units on Parcel 1 shown on the maps and drawings. The Fire Marshall prior to final review would review the emergency access for the Parcel 1 and the entire project. Lelack stated that the applicant met the 58 parking spaces required. The mass, size and scale were within the allowed parameters and fit into the character of the neighborhood. There was a landscape plan in the packet protecting the significant trees with the addition of deciduous trees between Parcel 1 and Lift One Condominiums. The architectural style will break up the masses of the building, which meets the residential design standards with garages in the back. Sunny Vann stated that the application required no variances and the applicant accepted the conditions. Vann explained the Dean Street right-of-way and the Juan Street parking with access approaches; the plan would be submitted prior to the final review. John Sarpa utilized drawings to illustrate the plan. Augie Reno provided the elevations. Reno noted that there was a 6500-foot grade difference from the north property line of Parcel 1 to the south property line of Parcel 3. There was 63 feet from the Timber Ridge to the affordable housing units and on Parcel 1 there was about 43 feet from Lift One to the rear of the free-market units. The building was stepped towards Juan Street. The first ridge of Aspen Mountain was about 800 feet above the highest elevation on Parcel 3; the Shadow Mountain complex sat about 15-20 feet higher than the Parcel 3 unit. Reno said that the views of Aspen Mountain would still be visible. Eric Cohen asked about the affordable housing parking on Parcels 2 & 3; he noted 3 outdoor spots in front of Parcel 2. Sunny Vann responded that the rest of the parking was in the sub-grade garage with access to Juan Street. Cohen asked the number of parking spaces in the underground lot. Sarpa replied that there' were 33 altogether (3 for affordable housing and 30 for the SKICO). Vann said Parcel 2 would have 6 parking spaces,. 3 above and 3 below; Parcel 3 had 9 below grade parking spaces. Blaich asked about the large trees and parking. Vann said that currently the parking was at an angle to accommodate the landscaping. Blaich said that the parking was in the public right-of-way. Vann said that there was a right to park there but maybe not landscaped. Dave Ellis, public, stated that he was a 30-year resident/owner of Timber Ridge and president of the association. Ellis said that his major concerns were the neighborhood and Dean Avenue parking, the maintenance of Dean Avenue and 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 service and emergency access on Dean Avenue. Ellis said that the neighborhood was very dense and congested without adequate on-site parking. Ellis noted that Timber Ridge was under-parked under the current code; there were 21 units and it would require 34 parking spaces. Ellis said that there were currently 10 spaces on s~te on the Durant side of the building; there were 9 spaces that projected into the Garmish Street right-of-way and 10 spaces on the Dean Avenue side, which was a total of 29. Ellis stated that about 2/3 was long-term or permanent residents. Ellis said that the neighborhood had continuous curb cuts; he described the entire neighborhood-parking problem including the volleyball and new developments. Ellis stated that for 35 years the Timber Ridge has maintained right-of-way in terms of landscape, gravel, dust control, grading and snow removal; it functioned as a parking lot. Ellis asked if the city was prepared to take over the right-of-way; he said that the Timber Ridge did not consider this their private property. Ellis said that some site modification may have to happen with the parking and emergency vehicle access. Tammy Solans, public, stated that she was a Timber Ridge resident and agreed with Mr. Ellis. Solans asked about Dean Street being split between this project and Timber Ridge who would get those parking spaces. Vann replied that Dean Street would have to be vacated, then ½ would be deeded to Timber Ridge and ½ to Savannah: the city was not looking to vacate this right-of-way at this point. Solans stated concern for fire trucks being able to access their property and this property. Sarpa said that they would do whatever the Fire Marshall told them to do. Charles Wolf, public, stated that he represented his parents and supported everything that Dave Ellis said. Wolf noted that it was the city of Aspen that was losing 10 parking spaces; he suggested adding even more parking. The commissioners discussed the safety and emergency access problems that needed to be addressed. The applicant and commission amended the conditions in the motion as stated below. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for Savannah Barbee (Mine Dumps) PUD and Rezoning, with the following conditions: 1.) The Applicant shall provide a form of mitigation approved by the City of Aspen for increased traffic on South Aspen Street, causing a revocation of the road's 15-year pavement warranty. 2.) The Final Application shah include detailed utility, landscape, long-term hazard mitigation, PM10 mitigation, and drainage plans. 3.) The landscape plan shall indicate that the native areas will be treated with the Parks Department's recommended seed mix. 4.) The buildings shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system, approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. 5.) The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve emergency access to all buildings 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16~ 2001 and parcels within the PUD, including the parking structure. 6.) No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of the approved building envelope and access envelope. 7.) All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shah be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. 8.) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 9.) The applicant shah not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 10.) All uses and construction shall 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. 11.) The Applicant shall obtain 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. 12.) AIltap 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. 13.) 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. 14.) The maintenance of the alley between Parcels 2 and 3 shall be maintained by the owner. 15.) A variety of categories shall be represented in the affordable housing mix. 16.) The affordable housing units shall meet the minimum size requirements set forth in Part VII, Section 8 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The minimum square footage for a Category 2, 1-bedroom unit is 600, while the minimum square footage for a Category 2, 3-bedroom unit is 1,000. 17.) That the applicant shah be required to obtain flood insurance for all of the structures based on the bnilding's proposed orientation to the side of Aspen Mountain and the identification of potential flood zones. 18.) The Final PUD should be based on a proposed rezoning to the L/TR with a PUD overlay. If the rezoning is not approved as part of the Final application, this PUD shall be rendered null and void. 19.) If the units are rental, the following conditions shall apply: a.) The deed restrictions on the 17 affordable housing units shall be in perpetuity to the rental price terms as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of ]Final Plan approval of this proposed application, b.) The unit rental prices shall be no greater than allowed under the Affordable Housing Guidelines that are in affect at the time of Final Plan Approval. c.) The Housing Office shah qualify all tenants under the Affordable Housing Guidelines. d.) The ownership interest in the 17 affordable housing units conveyed to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shah be in their entirety (not 1/10 of one-percent). However, Savannah Limited Partnership shall maintain control of the operations and finances of the affordable housing units. The 1/10 of one-percent ownership interest may be allowed if approved by the City Attorney. e.) The applicant shah ensure that the Mine Dump Apartment residents who are displaced at the time of Final Plan approval are granted first priority through an internal lottery of both the rental and/or sale units at the time of initial rental and sale of the deed restricted, affordable housing units. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll Call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: EriC Cohen moved to extend the meeting for another fifteen minutes. Steven Buettow seconded. APPROVED 4-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16~ 2001 PUBLIC HEAPING: CORBIN/BURROWS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION and CONDITIONAL USE - 610 SMUGGLER & 505 N. FIFTH STREET Bob Blalch opened the public hearing for the Corbin/Burrow Landmark Designation and Conditional use. David Hoefer stated that the notice met the jurisdictional requirements. Fred Jarman stated that the conditional use would allow 2 single-family dwellings on a 6,000 square foot lot. There was a historic designation on the structure; the request was for the entire parcel to be landmarked. Jarman said that 100 years ago the town site of Aspen was 3 times denser than it was today. Jarman stated that the project met 3 out of the 5 criteria for Landmark Designation. The question before the commission was the conditional use for either 2 single- family residences or a duplex with a maximum FAR of 3240 total. Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, said that the allowed use of a single family was still available but this conditional use with the landmark designation and would allow for more density but not more square footage. No public comments. Bob Blaich stated the only concern was that little pan abode would be the last one like it left in the neighborhood. MOTION: Roger Itaneman recommended the City Council approve the Historic Landmark designation, and approves a Conditional Use for a property located at 610 West Smuggler and 505 North Fifth Streets, with the following conditions: 1.) At present, there is a fencing encroachment into the public right-of-way on West Smuggler Street and a trash shed encroachment into the alley for Block 20 on the north side of Lot Q. The applicant must either 1) remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary Revocable Encroachment License from the City Engineering Department allowing these encroachments to exist prior to the recording of the final plat; 2.) That the applicant shall submit and record a subdivision plat which meets the terms of Chapter 26.480 and conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals: 3.) That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split resulting in one 3,000 square foot lot (Lot Q) and one 6,000 square foot lot (Lots R~S) contains a maximum potential build out not to exceed three (3) principal dwelling units which may be comprised of a duplex and a single-family home pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2)(g) for the three lots combined. In addition, the applicant may be able to place two single-family homes on the 6,000 square foot lot if approved as a conditional use by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 4.) Any future development on the newly created lots shall be required to mitigate for their impact pursuant to Chapter 26.470 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2001 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as required; 5.) A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: 6.) Contain a plat note stating that development of Lots "R-S' shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B) of the Municipal Code for any future development; 7.) Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.480 and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 8.) Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except for variances approved by an entity having the authority to do so; 9.) That Lots Q, R, and S are designated as historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code; 10.) Contain a plat note stating the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot. In addition, the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and aH applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "Q" receiving 3,000 square feet and Lots "R-S" receiving 6,000 square feet in size. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "Q" will be 1,340 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 3,240 square feet of floor area on Lots "R-S.' The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included On the plat, as a plat note; 11.) At a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E); 12.) Any further development for the historic structure or on the lots created by this lot split shall be subject to further review as required by Section 26.415 of the Aspen Land Use Code; 13.) That the applicants preserve the "monument" on the south east corner of Lot S as required by the City of Aspen Engineering Department; 14.) That the applicants shall ensure that each structure on the newly created lots maintain their separate and individual meter boxes; and 15.) That the applicant agrees that they shall be required to place street trees as a result of any future development to reflect the traditional cottonwood street tree pattern currently lining West Smuggler and North Fifth Street as required by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Cohen, yes; Haneman yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adjourned. a kie Lot i , Deputy City Clerk 10