Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000215 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 WEST END TRAFFIC and TRANSIT STUDY ....................................................... 2 TRUSCOTT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD OVERVIEW PRESENTATION ...................................................................................................... 5 ULLR LODGE PUD ............................................................................. .................... 8 728 EAST HOPKINS SPECIAL REVIEW and DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCES I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting Room with Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman, Tim Mooney and Jasmine Tygre present. Bob Blaich was excused. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre noted that the Maroon Creek Club was advertising some sort of fractional membership and asked if this would require an amendment to the original PUD. David Hoefer responded that the issue has been brought forth in prior discussions and staffwill look into that issue. Joyce Ohlson said that the P&Z Commission had a joint meeting with City Council on 02/22/2000 regarding floor area ratio (FAR). She stated there would be a tour beginning at 4:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None were disclosed. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of February 1, 2000. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: WEST END TRAFFIC and TRANSIT STUDY Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer requested the notice of posting. Claude Morelli responded that he did not but stated that it was published in the Aspen Times. Hoefer stated that notice was required for all public hearings and that the notice needed to be in the City Clerk's office before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2000 otherwise the hearing would be null and void. The Deputy City Clerk received the notice prior to 9:00 a.m. on 02/16/2000 Exhibit 2. Claude Morelli stated this was a follow-up to the work session held on February 1st with City Council. Morelli distributed handouts from the summarization of that meeting. He noted that there was a work session with Council on 02/29/2000 about the funding. He introduced John Bockman and Harry Teague Architects, who would present the MAA parking proposal. Morelli presented the results of studies and discussions which would create a responsible plan (Exhibits 4a&b). He said that improvements, a marketing program and parking management were a system of components that make up this plan. Morelli stated that the Phase I 2 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 15, 2000 improvements for this summer were for the RFTA bus stop and parking lot at the tent. John Bockman provided drawings of the new parking lot with bus access from the. new 3rd Street extension with a designated exit lane yielding onto Gillespie Street. He noted that priority treatment was given to public transportation, dropping the people closest to the tent. Bockman said that handicap, special permit vehicles and hotel courtesy vans would also utilize the bus lanes. He said that the irrigation ditches would be maintained for the most part in the eXisting or same locations. Passenger cars would access off of 5th and 3rd Streets2 Bockman said there would be an additional walkway to Boetcher and improved walkway to the tent from the parking lots. Roger Hunt asked if the parking lot was road base or paved; he asked if the entrances were also exits. Bockman replied that it would continue to be road base, the same nature that it was now; the pathway to 4th Street would be concrete. He said that there would be 2 people at each entrance/exit at 3rd and 5th Streets to direct traffic. Hunt said that they might look into concrete or paving the bus drop- off and provide the pedestrian way a visible difference from the rest of the parking lot. Bockman responded that would be a good implementation with concern for snowplowing in the winter with the grade-differentials. Steven Buettow asked the number of parking spaces in the proposed lots. Brockman answered that the count was the same at 282; he said that was a count on paper for the existing lots. Tim Mooney asked about light at night and additional lighting coverage. Brockman replied that the fixture would be a lower type of lighting, which was recently used at the Basalt Fire Station. Jasmine opened public comments. Jan Collins, West End Resident, stated that they have been trying to resolve the West End Traffic problems with the MAA for some twenty years. She noted that this was the second time with a more united front to come before this board and the City Council. Mrs. Collins said that Charlier, City Staff and the neighborhood have been instrumental in helping to facilitate and arbitrate the problems. She asked for the Commission to support this Resolution tonight. George Vicenzi, West End Resident, stated that he echoed what Jan said that they have worked with the MAA in a cooperative manner. He said the paid parking issue was a consideration, which was in Phase II; he requested that they not get bogged-down with the paid parking issue at this time. He proposed that they w6uld consider paid parking after the data was analyzed. Vicenzi stated that tonight was the first time that they had seen the new parking lot configuration. 3 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15~ 2000 Vicenzi said there was a concern for the consideration of the alternating bus streets, down 4th and 6th for rehearsal busses. He commented that they would like to reserve judgement on the plan to work with the new plan with the MAA. Robert Harth, MAA, noted that he was pleased with the constructive process that evolved in "round 5 or 6" for the Traffic Mitigation Plan. He said that he wanted to echo the paid parking concerns. He stated that one of the goals of the traffic mitigation plan was to reduce traffic by 50 %;the parking lot could accommodate 800 people. Harth said that every other element of the plan was supported but the paid parking needed more study before implementation. Shirley Henley said that if parking and busses were being cutting down; people would have to get to the tent somehow and would need somewhere to put their cars. She said if the plan was to have people take the bus, then they still have to put their cars somewhere in order to get to the bus. She stated that this would discourage people from going to the concerts. Morelli responded that issue was addressed in Phase II with increased transit service utilizing smaller more efficient vehicles. Morelli stated that about 74% of the concert attendees drive; the proposal was for a 50% drive rate. He said that with better transit, walking and biking routes the 24% difference would be achievable. He stated that, for example, SkiCo Skier Shuttles carried about 45% Buttermilk skiers. Henley noted it was difficult to walk with a lawn chair, picnic basket and blanket. Roger Hunt suggested that the studies on page 3 were to be considered along with paid parking. Morelli replied that the monitoring program intent was to provide a base and allow review for what happens after the Phase I improvements. Erickson noted the letter from a person in the west end regarding the amounts of traffic due to construction and seating changes at the music tent will cause more traffic. Morelli responded that they were measuring the peak outbound traffic to the round about construction; there really wasn't any change in impacts for travel time. Morelli suggested that maybe in the winter of 2002 was the deciding factor. David Hoefer said that after Phase I staff would evaluate the effectiveness of the transportation improvements marketing management plan to determine the impacts for Phase II. Erickson stated concern for public input prior to implementation. Erickson said that the west end parking was a border on the MAA parking. Jasmine Tygre said that there should be a mechanism for not locking into Phase II as planned but allow for the plan to be amended accordingly. The commissioners word-smithed the preamble statement to include at the end of Phase I the special provision to evaluate in the 2000 season for the effectiveness of physical improvements, transit service improvement, marketing and parking 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 management to determine impacts and possible changes to the Phase II implementation plan. This would be included in the Resolution. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-07 as amended and recommend City Council adopt a multi-year plan for traffic and parking mitigation in the West End related to the summer Music Festival Events. Ron Erickson seconded. R°ll Call vote: Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: TRUSCOTT AFFORDABLE ItOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD OVERVIEW PRESENTATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Truscott conceptual overview. David Hoefer stated that legal notice was provided; Chris Bendon tried to notify all of the people personally within the 300-foot radius plus 9 additional people. Hoefer stated that the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Tygre noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission would take no action tonight, just an overview would be provided and comments would be taken. Chris Bendon provided the memo, which was also sent out to the commission and public. The review would be combined so that all the issues associated with the plan could be reviewed. Bendon said that the primary purpose of conceptual PUD was to establish the intensities of the different land uses, the amount of residential and commercial square footages and the amount of parking. The threshold issues need to be resolved in the conceptual PUD: Intersection and site plan, Overall site plan, Internal circulation, Emergency access, Pedestrian connections, Parking, Residential, Tennis courts, Golf practice area, Outdoor spaces, Clubhouse, Restaurant, Accessory uses, Junior Golf facility, Administrative offices and Infrastructure. Bendon provided the Truscott Review Schedule for the next couple months, of meetings. Lee Novak stated that the project was very large and complex and the goal was to identify the issues. Laura Kirk, Landscape architect, stated that the goal for tonight was to provide history and background on the project; identify issues and concerns from P&Z and the public. The Truscott re-development included a new clubhouse to include golf, tennis and Nordic facilities; a new tennis facility and the affordable housing. Kirk 5 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY !5, 2000 stated that the project began life in 1998 with council requesting the maximizing of affordable housing density, improve site livability, improve the safety of Highway 82 intersection and segregate housing and golf uses, create an improved golf and Nordic clubhouse experience, improve the recreational opportunities and achieve all of these with a limited financial resource. The city already owned the land; there was a good prOximity to downtown Aspen and existing transit and trails and paths in a beautiful setting for housing and recreation. Kirk provided several power point site plans and conceptual designs with parking under the tennis facility and the existing pro shop saved. There were 2 site plan alternatives proposed from the 1999 input. The nqw site plans would be derived from the best alternatives from the previous site plans. Kirk noted that the new housing was divided int° 3 phases: the dirt stockpile area, the eXisting tennis and golf cart storage area and the existing Red Roof Inn. Kirk said that parking was a critical part of the project and she explained the surface level, underground and intertwined parking for the project. Kirk spoke about the signalized intersection and underpass for pedestrian traffic along with an additional underpass for the bike/pedestrian trail. There were proposed site elevations for the clubhouse. Neil Ross, public, stated that the density was an issue for the people in the neighborhood most closely affected; he said that was probably a closed issue. Ross stated as a golfer he asked how the golf experience would be improved or diminished by the density of the housing; he said less dense the better the golf experience. Ross said that from the meeting across the hall with council and Mary Roberts the figure of over $300.00 a square foot for subsidy was given; he said that as a taxpayer he was outraged by those figures. Ross stated that when this project gets approved that the mitigation on the golf course was implicit that there was no construction on the golf course itself, it was the single profitable city resource owned. Ross stressed that nothing be placed on the golf course during construction. Reese Williams, public, stated that he was a resident of Maroon Creek Road; he stated concern for the intersection and site access with public safety foremost with the density as proposed. Williams stated that public safety was of utmost importance. Les Claun, public, stated that he was employed by Specialty Sports to run the operation. Claun said that the construction impacts to the leaseholders should be added to the threshold issues because during the construction periods they would be impacted greatly. 6 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Eve Homeyer, public, stated that she lived on Cemetery Lane and asked the final number of affordable housing units that would be added. Novak stated that there would be a total build out of 239 units. Homeyer noted that there would be more than one car per unit; she asked where would all of those cars be placed. Homeyer asked about the traffic plans. John Miller, public, stated that it was a nice job of planning except that the tennis courts would be noisy and would not be a first class tennis operation. Mary Woulfe, public, stated that she was a west end resident and that the revenue stream from the recreational uses were paramount to Specialty Sports being out there. Woulfe said that moving the pro shop to the new location doesn't affect the access but building it was key and essential for the guest experience for the golfer and the recreational uses. Howard DeLuca, public, stated that one of the major concerns were the visual impacts for the golfer because so many of the golf course views will be cut off; the experience for the golfer will be diminished. DeLuca asked for conceptual drawings of what the employee housing would look like and story poles for the height impacts and massing prior to the acceptance of the proposal. Reese Williams, public, stated that the threshold issues were critical; the access and egress should be planned and implemented before construction takes place. Williams stated that CDOT should have a plan for the Commission to consider prior to approval. Jennifer Keefe, public, stated that she lived at Truscott now and agreed that the first priority should be the highway crossing. Keefe said that the common grass areas were not as important as the parking. The commissioners' concerns were the timing of the construction impacts; costs of the project and how it would be funded (which would be a council issue); the highway access, light and intersection in place prior to construction; a construction management plan with time tables; a parking plan; phasing plan; more consideration for boulevard parking for resident consideration; circulation plan; the restaurant as a commercial entity; the use for the Junior Golf facility; commercial servicing vehicles circulation; trash plan; and public transportation. MOTION: ROger Hunt moved to continue the Truscott Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD to March 7, 2000; Tim Mooney seconded. APPROVED 5-0. 7 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: ULLR LODGE PUD ~ Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Ullr Lodge PUD. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Nick Lelack stated that P&Z Resolution#8 contain the conditions for the conversiOn of this existing lOdge to a multi-family residential building. Lelack explained that there were several requests within the application with a consolidated conceptual/final PUD; there Were a limited number of issues with the affordable housing. Lelack stated that the Second issue was a subdivision to create 27 dwelling units 'and the third was for a special review for parking. Lelack said the GMQS went through the Housing Board for the recommendation to Council. The commission questioned not being able to review the GMQS portion of the PUD. Chris Bendon responded that it was recent code amendment. Lelack stated that this was a Housing Authority initiative to create an employer's sponsored affordable project in the community in a way that the employers would either buy existing free-market units and deed-restrict them for their employee or build new units themselves. Ullr Lodge was currently free-market and was proposed by the Carbondale Affordable Housing FoUndation, Katherine Updike and Richard DeCampo, the architect. Lelack stated that the memo reflected the change in the proposal to remain 27 units. Lelack said the exterior of the facility would remain the same and requested that the existing dimensional requirements be accepted as part of the PUD dimensional requirements. 26 of the 27 units would be deed-restricted to affordable housing; specifically the Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation would sell the units to the employers throughout Aspen for the costs that they have incurred to create the units (purchase the building and upgrade the units with ADA requirements). Lelack said the code required 2 on-site parking spaces for on site multi-family units, which can be decreased to 1 space per unit for one bedrooms and studios. This required 36 parking spaces; currently there were 16 available parking spaces on site, which included parking in the alley and on Fifth Street, which was in the public right-of-way. Lelack said that the bUilding manager woul'd negotiate a lease with the city for those parking spaces in the public right-of-way. The parking could be established thrOugh the PUD; the applicant propoSed that the exiting on- site parking spaces be maintained. Lelack said that the parking disincentives were 8 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15~ 2000 renting to employees without cars, charge for parking for employees with cars, create attractive car rental rates for employees who do not own cars, subsidize transportation passes and give rental car preferences for those employees who rent without cars. Lelack stated that the number of residential parking passes for this building be limited to 36; the management would control the parking passes. Lelack stated some conditions of approval were that RFTA passes be mandatory for ali residents; engineering required a sidewalk be placed between Main Street and the alley on Fifth Street to improve pedestrian circulation in the area and accommodate parking on Fifth Street; Parks required that the trees not be impacted with tree wells created where necessary. Staff recommended approval because the city gained 27 affordable housing units, the location was ideal, the building would be upgraded for life/safety standards with minimal changes to the exteri°r of the building, a new sidewalk and the city would gain revenue from the lease of parking spaces. David Hoefer asked if the city provided approval for the lease of those parking spaces. Lelack replied that the management would work with Tim Ware in parking for the lease agreement on those spaces. Ron Erickson excused himself at 7:05. No public comments. Katie Updike stated that Molly Campbell and Ken Ryan from the Gant were present as part of the employers interested in this project along with Bill Poss, Alpine, Design Workshop, Aspen Group, Lenado and a few others; she said that this was a very good working group. The previous work session presented the general overview of the model. Updike said that it was the creation of raw housing to help alleviate the housing crunch. Updike said that besides the life/safety improvements that were being made to the building, most of the mechanical was being replaced and made the lodge setting into a residential setting. Updike said that the pool would be taken out and replaced with a courtyard for more green space. Richard DeCampo utilized a blueline map to illustrate the buildings adjacent to the pool that would be removed and replaced with a central courtyard; the trees will remain with the exception of one little pine tree. Updike said that the game room and the office area would be maintained as a living room library and game room space with a kitchen laundry facility off of that space. David Hoefer was questioned the actual number of parking spaces. DeCampo said that there were 6 on site spaces with 10 more within the right-of-way. Hoefer noted that there was concern about the parking in the right-of-way. 9 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15~ 2000 MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes; Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 5-1. Ohlson stated that there could be an amended PUD agreement later on if there was a noticeable decrease in the need for those parking spaces. Erickson asked about the free-market unit that was requested by housing. Updike stated to make that one unit work there were additional costs incurred that were layered onto the deed- restricted units and the only way to make that unit work was to keep it as a free- market unit to pay for it's own costs. Erickson stated that he did not think that this newly created free-market unit would work within the deed-restricted units. Updike responded that adding the 3 additional units further exasperated the need for additional parking; therefore turning those 3 units into one larger free-market unit balanced out the project. Mooney asked if housing had the purview to grant the GMQS exemption for that free-market unit. Lelack reSPonded that 1 was acceptable to the housing authority. Mooney asked how parking would be conveyed for that one unit. Lelack replied that the whole site parking was established through the PUD. Updike responded that was on the assumption that there would not be dedicated spaces for that unit and the assumption that it would be a second home that would not have the need for parking on a full time basis. Updike stated that the employers were buying deed-restricted units; if sold the next employer would have to agree to the deed-restriction and the covenants including maximum rent, salaries and appreciation. Roger Hunt asked if it was legally enforceable that the units could only be sold to businesses. David Hoefer replied that it probably was legal but he could not be definitive about it. Bendon answered that the typical deed-restriction was that it was a local employee and this could be a variation of that with a local employee. Hunt asked if the existing curb cut would be filled in since it would not be used. Ohlson asked if that could be left up to the discretion of the city engineer. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Ullr PUD, Subdivision and Special Review for Parking to convert the lodge into a multi-family residential building with 26 deed-restricted affordable units and 1 free- market unit at 520 West Main Street and forward onto Council P&Z Resolution #00-08 finding that the criteria have been met striking condition #22, the bus pass condition. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.; Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 4-1. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: 728 EAST HOPKINS SPECIAL REVIEW and DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 728 East Hopkins Special Review and Design Review Variances. David Hoefer noted that mailing lists were to be provided tomorrow to the city clerks. The mailing lists were provided to the Deputy City Clerk at 10.'00 a.m. on Wednesday, 02/16/00. Nick Lelack stated that the special review was to increase the floOr area ratio to a 1 to 1, special review for parking and 2 design review variances (secOndary mass and lightwell). Lelack stated that the purpose of the application was to create a 4-unit multi-family residential building that contained 2 affordabl~ ho~sing units ~d2 · free-market units. Lelack explained that currently there was a 3-unit plus a bandit unit structure on this site, which would be demolished and replaced With the new multi-family building. There currently was 3,335 square feet of floor area available with 5 bedrooms on that site; the code required that 50% of that floor area be replaced with affordable housing (1066 square feet must be deed'reStricted affordable housing on site; 50% must be above grade affordable housing). Lelack stated that this proposal created 2 free-market units with 2 affordable units; one 2-bedroom 1000 square foot category 4 unit and the other one-bedroom unit was 667 square feet, category 3 or 2 (to be decided by the Housing Authority). Lelack said that the special review to increase the FAR 1 to 1, which would increase that square footage to 6,000 square feet; 4400 square feet would be for the 2 free-market units provided. Lelack introduced Buzz Dopkin, the applicant; the free-market units were 2300 square feet each. Lelack said that the next request was for a parking variance. The parking could be established for the affordable housing but nOt free-market units. Dopkin proposed 2 2-car garages for the free-market units and no parking for the affordable units on site. Lelack said that the current site Was a mess with parking in the public right- of-way; this application would bring all of the site's features into compliance with the land use code and complete the cUrb sidewalk and gutter on Original Streets and Highway 82. Lelack stated that because there was more affordable housing provided above grade therefore staff supported the special review for parking. Lelack stated that the secondary mass required 10% detached subordinate connecting element with 3 review criteria (I) greater compliance with the AACP (2) a more effective method of addressing the standard in question or (3) was clearly necessary for site constraints. Lelack stated that there was a different 11 I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15~ 2000 recessed architectural element between the buildings and the height was lower than the roof of the 2 main residences; it clearly broke up the mass. Lelack said the second request was for a light well could not have any of the criteria met and staff recommended denial. Buzz Dopkin stated that he felt it would be better for the city to have 2 units rather than 1 employee unit. Dopkin stated that he wanted employee housing that everyone could be proud of; he said that the setback would be enlarged to comply with everything. Dopkins said that the Parks Department was excited about the landscaping of this area. Dopkin said that the lightwells were required and they were as small as they could by code. No public comments. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting to 7:45 p.m. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 5-0. Mooney stated that he felt that the DRAC variances were warranted. Hunt asked for clarification of the window well placement. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend approval of the special review to increase the FAR, the special review for parking, the approval of the DRAC variance for the secondary mass standard, and approval of the DRAC variance for the window and lightwell Standard With the conditions included in P&Z Resolution #00-09 for 728 East Hopkins. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12