Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030204 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY~ FEBRUARY 18, 2003 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. OLD BUSINESS A. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD RESOLUTION REVIEW, Scott Wood ford V. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DANCING BEAR (411 S. MONARCH) LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE, James Lindt, continued from 2/4 (please bring staff memo and application materials from 2/4 meeting) B. PARCEL 4, TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DRAC VARIANCES, Scott Woodford C. TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISI[ON EXEMPTION. AND TIMESHARE EXEMPTION, Scott Woodford- continue to 3/4 if needed VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directox� FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planne RE: RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL, PUBLIC HEARING, CONCEPTUAL PUD, TIMESHARE AND SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. L1 , SERIES 2003 DATE: February 4, 2003 At the last meeting on January 21, 2003, there was a presentation by both staff and applicant on the remaining, yet to be discussed issues. There was also public comment and some brief discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission before the application was continued to the February 4, 2003 meeting. For this fourth meeting, discussion will - continue to focus on the following, remaining issues: • Growth Management Quota System allotments and exemptions • Affordable housing requirements and proposal for mitigation of those requirements • Rezoning • Timeshare • Special Planned Area Amendment • 8040 Greenline Review • Any other outstanding items To, accomplish this, staff proposes to begin with .a short, recap. presentation on these remaining issues followed by comments from the applicant. Then, after questions by the REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen Land Fund, LLC, requests Conceptual PUD and other appropriate land use approvals in order to demolish the existing Tipple Inn Condominiums, Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant, Tipple Lodge and two adjacent single-family residences and to redevelop the property with a 109,500 square foot, multi -story structure to consist of 30 timeshare units, 1 condominium unit, 4 affordable housing units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial and ancillary space and a 72 space sub -grade parking garage. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PUD, CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE, AND RECOMMENDATION: CONCEPTUAL SPA AMENDMENT, WITH CONDITIONS (SEE RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONS) RESTDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT X PAGE 1 P.&Z and public comment, the P&Z Commission, will have the opportunity to formulate its position on these items. Although discussion is encouraged on all remaining issues, the items that the P&Z is required to make a motion of approval or disapproval is with regard to PUD, Timeshare, and Special Planned Area Amendment. Findings for those required land use actions are found in Exhibit A, B and C. The following section of the staff report describes the remaining issues to be discussed and the staff position on each: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): The development rights for the proposed lodge on Lot 1 are to be derived from the Tippler Townhomes Subdivision's four unit residential GMQS allocation and the demolition and reconstruction of existing residential and lodge units and commercial square footage. The demolition and reconstruction is exempt from the GMGS subject to meeting.the requirements of the relevant GMQS exemptions, which are the conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Tourist Accommodation Units and for the Replacement. of Demolished ..Multi -Family Units. The applicant proposes to convert sixteen of the project site's eighteen existing residential dwelling units to forty-seven lodge units based on the applicable conversion rate of 2.95 lodge unit per residential unit (16 x 2.95 = 47) and then use .three of the Tippler Townhomes four residential units for an additional eight lodge units. With the ten reconstruction credits, the resulting total is 65 lodge development rights, which is adequate to cover the anticipated 60 keys or lock - off rooms. Staff finds the development , to be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the GMQS. Reconstruction of demolished commercial square footage is exempt from GMQS subject to the provision of parking and affordable housing. The previous comrnercial businesses contained around 13,200 sq. ft., while this development proposes --about 10,200 sq. ft. of commercial, so there is sufficient commercial reconstruction credit available._ Adequate parking and affordable housing mitigation is being proposed to meet the applicable criteria for an exemption. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AM REQUIREMENTS The affordable housing mitigation requirement for the proposed development is derived from four separate components: l.) the operation of the timeshare lodge; 2.) the project's proposed commercial space; 3.) the replacement provision of the Resident Multi -Family Replacement* Program (RMFRP); and 4.) the Tippler Townhome's previously approved housing mitigation (even though the applicant does not propose to construct the approved Tippler Townhomes Subdivision project, they are proposing to convert three of the four previously approved dwelling units into lodge units). The following chart. breaks down the requirement of each component. Lodge Operations (Employees) 11 38 Commercial Space (Employees) ..................... IF 50 RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 P3 P3 8,180 sq. ft. Restaurant/Bar Space @ 5.25 Employees/ 1,000 sq. ft...................... 43 2,020 sq. ft. retail space @3.5 Employees/1,000 sq. ft.............................................. 7 Total Lodge/Commercial Employees Generated F 88 (3 8+50) Lodge/Commercial Employees to be Housed @ 53 60% Employees Generated (88 x .60) IF Tippler Townhomes Mitigation Requirements 8 (Conversion of BR to # of Employees) 2-1 Bedroom Units ............................... 3.5 2-2 Bedroom Units ............................... 4.5 Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program Tipple Inn Bedrooms ...................................... 11 Net Livable Area ............................. 4,011 sq. ft. Tipple Lodge Bedrooms ...................................... 1 Net Livable Area ............................... 458 sq. ft. F _?'otal.Employees to. be Moused ...:.. Lodge/Commercial Employees 53 Tippler Townhomes 8 TotalRe placement HP.uszngto. be;Provzded:=. Net Livable Area .................................. 4,469 sq. ft. LOCATION OF REOMRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) UNITS (ON -SITE): Per the above chart, a total of 61 employees are required to be housed in addition to providing 12 bedrooms. The applicant proposes to satisfy their affordable housing requirements by constructing housing both on and off -site. Four (4), 1 BR affordable housing units (this translates into 7 employees mitigated @ 1.75 employees per 1 BR unit) are planned on the first floor of the west side of the building. Staff has initial concerns with the proposed location of the housing next to the parking garage ramp. While it is recognized that, because of financial realities, these affordable housing units will never be located on slopeside of the building, we are somewhat concerned that the units will be located immediately adjacent to the ramp that leads down to the parking garage. With this location, it would be expected that the residents of such units will incur the constant sounds of vehicles accelerating up and breaking down the ramp, the exhaust emissions that could get trapped outside their unit, and possible headlight intrusion into their living and bedrooms. As this is still a conceptual stage, staff would encourage the applicant to consider trying to mitigate these impacts and/or finding a new location for the units. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 P4 LOCATION OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) UNITS (OFF -SITE); Once the four on -site units (7 employees mitigated) are accounted for, the remainder of the required affordable housing (53 employees and 12 bedrooms) is proposed to be located off -site.. An initial proposal to provide that housing on a 1.6 acre site in the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) has since fallen through. The applicant is now actively seeking alternative locations for the housing. Given the limited number of sites within the city boundaries, it is possible that the site they do find will be located in the County (but within the Urban Growth Boundary). If the site they find for the affordable housing is in the County it would be the first project to mitigate a portion of its affordable housing requirements outside of the City limits. The applicant understands that they must have an approval for the off -site affordable housing prior to the Final PUD for the Residences at Little Nell. In fact, the City will not schedule the final hearing for Residences at Little Nell until the applicant has this approval. Both the AACP and the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines prefer that required affordable housing mitigation occur on -site with off -site mitigation a second choice. Some of the policies and goals of the Housing Section of the AACP that support this notion include: ' INTEGRATE AH INTO THE FABRIC OF THE TOWN " EACH PROJECT SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO FURTHER A MIX OF INCOME RANGES TO AVOID SEGREGATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CLASSES BY PROJECT " EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON PROXMTY TO -TR.ANSIT, EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS ' DEVELOPMENT OF AH WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL "TOWNSTTE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PROTECT OPEN AND RURAL LANDS " GOAL: ENCOURAGE AH WITHIN THE ASPEN COMMUNITY GROWTH BOUNDARY The applicant's proposal of off -site mitigation somewhat conflicts with AACP policies that discourage segregated housing developments and those that are ..not located in the city and away from employment areas and social connections. Another (and somewhat contradicting) goal of the AACP, however, is to ensure that housing is merely located within the urban growth boundary, which is where their housing proposal would likely transpire. The Plan also encourages that .housing be located within the city to reduce environmental impacts. Sufficient land to mitigate a large redevelopment project is. difficult to find in the core of town, therefore, alternatives are necessary. In order to support positive redevelopment of antiquated portions of the city, as with this proposal,. staff supports the concept of off -site mitigation, as long as it, is located within the urban growth boundary. RESIDENT MULTI-FAMII,Y REPLACEMENT PROGRAM; A portion of the timeshare lodge units are exempt from the City's growth management quota system, subject to compliance with the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). One guideline of the program is that the multi -family replacement RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 Fa units be re -developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner demonstrates that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be difficult due to the site's physical constraints. As proposed, the required replacement housing will occur on a parcel of land at the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) that the applicant has under contract and which will be the subject of Pitkin County development application. Twelve (12) bedrooms, consisting of 4,469 square feet are the replacement -housing requirement. Based on initial review, it does not appear that there are any site constraints or adopted neighborhood plans that would necessitate the replacement units being built off -site. An interpretation can be made that the amount of required replacement housing is such that to replace it all on -site as well as accommodate a free market development would not be possible because the site and zone district would not support such building mass and parking. However, staff has always interpreted site constraints to be physical constraints, such as steep slopes, wetlands, extensive, mature vegetation, not financial constraints. At the same time,. staff questions how wise it would be to place all of the required replacement units within the new building, especially given the site's premier location and the desire to have a high number of `.`hot beds" generating income to the community. It is always staff s position that having the replacement units built on the site where they were demolished is preferable to having them built off -site because in doing so maintains a healthy mix of socio-economic groups, allows occupants of affordable housing to retain access to established neighborhoods, creates more vitality by having year around residents in these "in -town" locations, and reduces pollution by allowing residents to walk or bike to major activity centers. such as downtown and the ski area. Staff would encourage the applicant to try and replace as many of the demolished units on -site as possible, while accommodating the highest permissible number of lodge units. REZONE: A rezone of proposed lot containing the timeshare lodge (Lot 1) from existing L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) to CL Commercial Lodge is proposed to 1.) accommodate, the commercial uses in the proposed lodge (L/TR does not allow commercial uses) and 2.) attain the desired density (L/TR allows 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) while the CL allows a 2:1 FAR). Staff finds the rezoning to be appropriate because it complies with a number of goals and policies of the AACP, including the Future Land Use Map, which designates this site as Lodging. Being that the site is directly adjacent to the gondola - the most important interface between the ski area and the town — and to other relatively dense and large, tourist oriented buildings, it is vital that what is built here is a dynamic, mixed use, and larger structure that provides a strong presence. To meet these goals, would be difficult and/or impossible under the current L/TR zoning. The following are AACP policies that support the rezone request: • COMPACT MIXED USE DEV. THAT ENABLE TRAVEL BY FOOT, BIKE, AND BUS • PRIVATE SECTOR PROVISION OF AH HOUSING • MAINTAIN A HEALTHY, VIBRANT AND DIVERSIFIED YEAR AROUND ECONOMY RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE S P6 ENHANCE THE WEALTH GENERATING CAPCACITY OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY A rezone of the parcel to be acquired from the Aspen Skiing Company from C (Conservation) to CL (Commercial Lodge) is also proposed. Staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning against the standards for an amendment to the Land Use Code in Section 26.310.040 and finds it to be generally in compliance with the standards. Two of the standards, however, have come into question by some members of the public, specifically whether the rezone is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and whether there has been a changed condition affecting the parcel that supports the amendment. First, staff believes that the proposed rezone is consistent with nearly all aspects of the AACP, including allowing for the revitalization of a portion of the base of the ski area with a well designed, mixed use, infill project that includes both . on and off -site affordable housing and public amenities. Without the rezone of. this . portion, the proposed uses would not be permitted and. the proposed size of building - allowing for a.. critical mass of lodge units (and hot beds), space for commercial uses, mitigation of a portion of the affordable housing requirements and provision of public amenities - would not be possible. An area of the AACP that the proposed rezone is not clearly supported, is with regard to the Future Land Use Map (the "Map"). This Map shows the parcel to be Existing Open Space as a future land use, whereas the applicant proposes to use the space for outdoor deck and a portion of the structure. According to the AACP, the Map was developed primarily from existing zoning and generalized to reflect expected future land use. Staff feels that, in this situation, there are circumstances that warrant flexibility with regard to. applying this map. First, when viewed on -site, the subject parcel appears to be part of the larger development site for the Residences at Little Nell and not part of the ski area because,of how it is separated by a small ridge. The parcel in question does not appear to be'connected with the ski area, which comprises the majority of the Existing Open Space as designated on the Map. In addition, and more importantly, because the project complies with the all of the AACP policies and will achieve larger community goals, we find the discrepancy with the Map to be outweighed. Secondly, staff believes that there have been changed conditions that support the proposed zoning map amendment. Over the last several years, there has been considerable community discussion about the need to revitalize the town with measures to promote economic stability and to interject more vitality into the downtown area. The Infill Guidelines, which seek to facilitate new redevelopment and infill, are a response to those goals. In the case of this development, the proposal is for a larger, mixed use, timeshare development that aims to bring additional excitement and vitality to the ski area base and to encourage the more efficient use of residential units so that there are more visitors in the community. contributing to the sales tax base. Because this key redevelopment site is fairly narrow, it is difficult to redevelop at any feasible scale befitting of its locale. In order to redevelop the site properly- to be able to provide a critical mass of units, the apres ski outdoor decks, the commercial units, and the on -site RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 PP�1 provision of some of the affordable housing unit — additional site area is necessary. Then, to accommodate the proposed uses, it is necessary that the parcel be rezoned to Commercial Lodge. TIMESHARE: The sale of fractional interests in the thirty lodge units to be developed is proposed. Each purchaser of a fractional interest in the timeshare lodge will own an undivided 1/7 th interest in a specific unit, which will result in 210 timeshare estates (30 units x 7 estates/unit=210 estates). Each room will have lock -off capability for an actual total of 60 possible rooms. The proposed use plan will guarantee each timeshare estate owner use of a unit a maximum of four weeks a year — two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer. All days not accounted for, as ,part of this system will be made available. to the general public for rental and to the owners, subject to certain limitations. Details regarding this aspect are still in the conceptual stage and more detail will be provided with the final plan. A full complement of amenities will be contained within the facility, including two pools, living and fitness rooms, a business center, and a bar and restaurants. In addition, the lodge will contain a fully staffed, on -site front desk to provide guest registration and reservation services, including late check in and other off hour owner and guest needs. Timeshare development provides benefits not only to the developers and owners of such development, but also to the community. The primary benefit of a timeshare development -on this site is that there will be more of a turnover in the units with seven different owners rather than one owner with a traditional condominium arrangement. More people in the beds of the lodge translate into more sales tax collected for the community both directly from rentals of the units and from money guests spend around the community. Real Estate Transfer Taxes will also be paid on each sale of each interest and benefit the community. The alternative to the timeshare concept is the traditional, undivided condominium unit that may only be occupied several times a year generating little benefit to the community in terms of sales tax. SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved Little Nell Subdivision SPA in order to subdivide a portion of this property and convey it to this development parcel. Because the to -be -subdivided parcel is already non -conforming with respect to minimum lot size and because the Code does not allow the subdivision process to create or extend a non -conformity, the applicant proposes amending the SPA which governs Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Nell Subdivision to reduce the size of Lot 2. The proposed reduction in the size of Lot 2 will have no adverse regulatory impact as the approved floor area for -the SPA is based on the portion of the SPA zoned CC, Commercial Core. Staff supports the amendment. Staff findings are contained in Exhibit C. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies RESIDENCES AT LTTTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 pe With certain environmental protection requirements (See Exhibit D for specific staff comments on this review). Although no formal action is required by the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time, staff decided it would be helpful to offer some conceptual comments on this issue. A more thorough review of the 8040 Greenline Review will occur with the Final PUD review stage where there will be more detailed information available. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2002, for a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell" ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: PUD — STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT B: TIMESHARE — STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT C: SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT — STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT D: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW — STAFF COMMENTS EXHIBIT E: REZONING: STANDARDS FOR REVIEW EXHIBIT F: P&Z MINUTES (12/3/0211/7/03 AND 1/21/03) RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 RESOLUTION NO. , (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE, AND A CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-96033 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated 'Waste District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual. PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the Residences at Little Nell; and WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the -9- P10 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directp FROM: James Lindt, Plarmer:Z11 RE: Dancing Bear Lodge Rezoning, Lodge Preservation GMQS Exemption, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Mountain View Plane Review- Public Hearing DATE:' February 4, 2003 PROJECT h DAN AR Q C7�tG $ L GE RED REQUEST: REQUEST: The Applicant is -requesting appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the Dancing Bear Lodge (formerly Aspen Manor) which would include 1) a full demolition of the existing structure, 2) replacement with a timeshare lodge consisting of ten three -bedroom units. PROPOSED ZONING: Lodge/Tourist Residential with a Lodge Preservation (LP) and PUD Overlay LAND USE GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation, Minor Planned Unit REQUESTS: Development, Timeshare, Subdivision, and Mountain View Plane Review STAFF Staff requests that the applicant restudy and_ reduce the height of the RECOMMENDATION: proposal and employ architectural methods of more significantly reducing the perceived massing of the proposal. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant, MSE Aspen Holdings, Inc., represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC., is requesting the appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the twenty-three (23) room Dancing Bear Lodge (formerly Imow as the Aspen Manor). Specifically, the Applicant is requesting the ability to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a structure containing ten (10) three -bedroom units. LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED: The Applicant is requesting the following land use actions to redevelop the property located on the northwest corner of East Durant Avenue and South Monarch Street: • A GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation • Minor Planned Unit Development . • Subdivision • Timeshare • Mountain View Plane Review The applicant has requested that the Community Development Director combine the review of the aforementioned land use requests pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1). Staff believes that the combination of reviews will reduce duplication in the amount of review time and will ensure the clarity of the final decision. Therefore, the Community Development Director has consented to allow for the consolidation of reviews on this particular proposal. Thus, City Council will be the final decision- making authority on all of the land use requests associated with this proposal after considering recom111endatlons from the Housing Board, Planning and Zoning ConuTlission, and the Community Development Director. BACKGROUND: The site is located at 411 S. Monarch Street and is currently zoned L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential). The property is comprised of Lots P-S, Block 77, of the original Townsite and contains approximately 11,957 square feet. In addition, the site currently contains a twenty-three room lodge that was formerly known as the Aspen Manor. Also contained within the property's boundaries are four (4) onsite parking spaces and a raised swimming pool. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is proposing a full demolition of the existing structure that has not been open as a lodge, for approximately four (4) years. In place of the current structure the applicant is proposing to construct a timeshare lodge containing ten (10) three -bedroom units. In each of the proposed units, one of three bedrooms is proposed as a lock -off bedroom. In addition to the lodge units, the applicant is proposing a lobby with a front desk, and a lounge/bar and grill on the first floor. The applicant is proposing to excavate down and construct three sub -grade levels that would include a floor for guest and service facilities (i.e. computer/library room, a theater, television and game rooms, restrooms, an office, a housekeeping staging area, and various storage facilities), a floor of parking, and a floor of storage with a conference room. The second, third, and fourth floors above grade are each proposed to include three (3) three -bedroom units that each will contain a one -bedroom lock -off. The roof is to contain a roof -top gazebo structure, a pool and hot tub, and an exercise room. The tenth (10) three bedroom unit is proposed to be located on the ground floor adjacent to the lobby and lounge. The proposed dimensional requirements of the timeshare lodge are as follows (Dimensional Requirements required to be varied through PUD process are shaded): -2- Dimensional Proposed Existing Dimensions Underlying Zone Requirement Dimensional District Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF 11,957 SF 6,000 SF YMinmuix� Lot urea One bedroom :per 39S One lodgenit(bedroonl= n OneK. bedraorn per 1,000 pel dwe11>ng unit' S0 of lot area per 5 l� SF of lot area SF of lot area Maximum Density One bedroom per 395 One lodge unit/bedroom No Requirement SF of lot area per Minimum Lot Width]60 Feet 120 Feet (E. Durant) 60 Feet Maximum Site I N/A I Undetermined I N/A Coverage Minimum Off -Street .8 Spaces per bedroom .17 Spaces per bedroom .7 Parking -Spaces per Parking (24 spaces for 30 (Four (4) spaces for 23 bedroom, of which .2 bedrooms.) one -bedroom units.) spaces may be provided via payment -in -lieu Discussion Issues and Staff Analysis: HEIGHT AND USE: Staff feels that this site is an excellent candidate for infill development and that a timeshare lodge use is appropriate for the site. However believes that the proposal is too tall for the "transition lodging area" in which it is located. The application contends that the proposal will better define the edge of the commercial core and the start of the Aspen Mountain base area neighborhood lodging district. Conversely, staff believes that two distinct lodging districts exist in the area, the Aspen Mountain base lodging district and a "transition lodging area". The current lodging facilities that are located mainly on the northern side of Durant Avenue are quite different in height, character and massing than those that exist and are approved for development on the south side of Durant Avenue. The lodging facilities and multi -family structures south of Durant Avenue are generally larger in scale and - J - g�} contain more mass than those that exist on the north side of Durant Avenue. Staff feels that the properties that are located just north of Durant Avenue provide a "transition lodging area" into the lodging facilities that are located at the base of Aspen Mountain. This transition area contains the property on which the Dancing Bear Lodge is proposed and it also includes the Limelite Lodge, .the Snowflake Inn, the Hotel Durant, the former Pines Lodge, and several existing condominium projects that consist of at most two (2) to three (3) stories above grade. Staff acknowledges that several of the properties in this immediate vicinity are likely candidates to be redeveloped in the fixture and will likely not be redeveloped with two (2) story structures ' as they currently exist. Therefore, the proposed Dancing Bear Lodge is a proposal that will likely set the precedent for the surrounding properties in regards to height. With that being said, staff feels that the height of the proposed structure is too extreme. The proposed Dancing Bear Lodge would contain a full four (4) stories above grade, as well as, a roof top gazebo structure (partial fifth floor) and would range in height throughout the structure between forty-eight (48) feet and approximately sixty-two (62) feet in height above grade (depending on where the height is measured from on the site). Current zoning allows for a height of twenty-eight (28) feet. Staff feels that an infill project of three floors above grade with a partial fourth floor would be more appropriate for the above -mentioned "transition lodging area" that the property is located within and would be more in keeping with proposed infill height recommendations. The infill code amendments propose allowing a height of 42 feet for three floors above grade with the possibility of obtaining approval of a 52-foot height limit for a partial fourth floor that does not exceed a floor area equivalent to half of the lot. Thus, staff recommends that the applicant restudy and reduce the height of the structure to a height more in line with the height limitations that are proposed in the infill legislation that is currently being reviewed by City Council. MASSING: In addition to the height issue that was expressed above, staff does not feel that the proposed massing is compatible with the rest of the structures in the "transition lodging area" as defined above. Staff does not believe that the design of the structure is sufficiently "broken tip" to reduce the mass of the proposed development. Staff would recommend that the applicant utilize more differentiation in the roof -line, as well as, step back the portions of the upper floors to further break up the mass. Breaking up the massing of the structure is very important on a building that encompasses almost the entire lot such as the proposed Dancing Bear would. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant restudy and employ methods to more significantly break up the mass of the proposed structure. OPEN SPACE: The applicant is proposing to leave nine (9) percent of the property as open space as is defined by the City Land Use Code. According to the calculations of the applicant, the site currently only contains approximately nine (9) percent open space. Therefore, the applicant is not decreasing the amount of open space on the parcel through the proposed redevelopment. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to require that the applicant -4- LOS provide more open space on the property than is currently proposed because Wagner Park and the Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall are located directly across the street from the site. Wagner Park and the Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall provide visitors and the general public with many opportunities to interact with the natural environment within the setting of the downtown area. Moreover, the applicant has proposed and will be required to upgrade the public right-of-way surrounding the site with landscaping as is deemed appropriate by the City Parks Department. WHEELER VIEW PLANE: Staff believes that the proposed development is located within the designated Wheeler View Plane. However, staff feels that the Wheeler View Plane has already been infringed upon by the St. Regis Hotel that is located southeast of the proposed development. Staff does not believe that the proposal will further impede on the designated view plane because the Dancing Bear Project is proposed on a site that is lower in elevation than that of the St. Regis. In addition, staff does not anticipate that the St. Regis site will be redeveloped with a smaller building any time soon. GMQS IMPLICATIONS: The applicant is proposing to increase the number of lodging bedrooms and the amount of accessory commercial square footage on the site. Therefore, the applicant is required to obtain a GMQS exemption for lodge preservation to do so pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(M). Staff feels that the proposed increase in lodging bedrooms and accessory commercial square footage will generate full-time employees. Thus, staff has recommended that the applicant be required to mitigate for the anticipated amount of employees generated as is detailed below. EMPLOYEE GENERATION MITIGATION: The proposed application would reduce the number of lodge units on the site from twenty-three (23) to ten (10) units. However, the twenty-three (23) existing. units only contain one (1) bedroom each. The ten (10) proposed units would contain three (3) bedrooms each, one of which will be a lock -off bedroom. In reviewing the Boomerang Lodge expansion, -the Housing Office considered each chalet unit as two lodge units in determining the theoretical employee generation because the chalet units were approximately twice the size of a typical lodge unit. It would be consistent to use similar logic in determining the.einploy.ee generation of the Dancing Bear proposal by utilizing the increase in lodge bedrooms rather than units due to the fact that the proposed timeshare lodge units are considerably larger than the existing lodge units. Therefore, staff believes that the applicant should be required to mitigate for the employees generated based on the addition of lodging bedrooms rather than the addition of lodging units as is typically done. In reviewing previously proposed lodge developments, the Housing Office has used an employee generation factor of between 0.245 and .4 employees per additional lodge room to evaluate the expected employees generated by a lodge expansion, and thus have required that 60% of the employees generated be mitigated for pursuant to the . Aspen Area Community Plan Housing Goals. Therefore, the projected employee generation range for the Dancing Bear would be between 1.03 and 1.68 employees for the increase -5- of seven (7) lodge bedrooms. Within the aforementioned range, the Housing Board recorlunended that the applicant be required to mitigate in the middle for the generation of 1.34 full time employees. In addition to the net increase in lodge rooms, the lounge and grill area will include approximately 2,100 square feet of new accessory net leasable space. The Code does not contain an employee generation factor specific to commercial net leasable space in the L/TR zone, but states that 3.5 employees are expected to be generated for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable space in the Commercial Lodge (CL) and other zone districts. The Housing Board recommends that the applicant be required to mitigate for the proposed accessory commercial space in addition to the lodge room employee generation that was detailed above. The Housing Board recommends that the applicant provide mitigation for the proposed accessory commercial space as is detailed below: 2,100 square feet of new net leasable square feet divided by 1,000 square feet = 2.1,; 2.1 multiplied by 3.5 employees = 7.35 employees generated; 735 multiplied by 60% = 4.41 employees .io be housed In total, the Housing Board recommended that the applicant be required to mitigate for the generation of 5.75 (4.41 employees for the accessory conunercial space plus 1.34 employees for the'increase in lodging bedrooms) full-time employees by either providing off -site housing, a payment of a fee -in -lieu, or a combination of the two methods as is proposed in the application. The applicant would prefer to accomplish all,or the majority of mitigation in the form of buy -down units located within the City limits. The application explains that the main reasons for proposing the satisfaction of any housing requirements through buy -down units is a means of trying to avoid: a) the otherwise inevitable placement of the deed restricted units below grade, b) the necessity of tying tenancy of the deed restricted units to employment, and c) potential compatibility issues with the guest accommodations use of the property. The Housing Board felt -that the applicant's proposed method of providing affordable housing mitigation is appropriate in this situation. REZONING TO LODGE PRESERVATION: Staff believes that the proposed timeshare lodge use is consistent with the intent of the Lodge Preservation Zone District in that the intent statement allows for the redevelopment of properties that have traditionally been used for lodging accommodations as has the subject property. In addition, the subject property is located within an area of town that has historically contained lodge uses. The Dancing Bear site is currently surrounded by lodges such as the Limelite Lodge, the Snowflake Inn, and the Deep Powder. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed rezolung of the subject property to include a Lodge Preservation Overlay is appropriate. FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to divide each of the lodge units into 1/8 interests, which will create eight (8) estates per unit. With there being ten (10) units in the proposed development, a total of eighty (80) separate estates are proposed within the development. The applicant expects to sell each of the estates for between $400,000 and $900,000 -6- P54 based on the amenities (location, views, size, orientation, etc.) that are provided by the different units. A system to manage the occupancy of the units is proposed to be established so that an owner of an estate will have access to a unit for approximately two weeks during the winter and two weeks during the summer. It would also allow for an estate owner to occupy a unit for approximately fourteen (14) days in the shoulder seasons of the fall and the spring. This would leave the remaining twenty nine (29) days that each unit is not occupied for maintenance operations. The proposed system would offer units for rent to the general public on a per diem basis if any owner declines to use a unit during a specific time period. In addition, the applicant is proposing to allow the owners of the eighty (80) estates to exchange their privileges with other properties, clubs, and entities that are affiliated with a registry that is run by Abercrombie & Kent (A & K) Group of travel and tour companies. This exchange registry would allow for owners of estates to exchange their use and privileges of an estate in the Dancing Bear with owners of properties in other resorts that are registered with the A & K Registry. Staff has analyzed the application's compliance with the required timeshare elements below. City Council will review the tax implications of the proposed timeshare development and consider comments from the City Finance Director regarding the Financial Impact Analysis that was provided by the applicant. The timeshare regulations that were approved and enacted late last year established that City Council, at its sole discretion, would determine whether the fiscal impacts of a timeshare project would necessitate mitigation for a loss in sales tax revenues to the City. Therefore, the timeshare aspect of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be focused around the proj ect's compliance with the mandatory physical elements that are required in all timeshare projects rather than the fiscal impacts of the proposal. STAFF ANALYSIS OF TIMESHARE ASPECTS OF PROPOSAL: MandatorT Physical Ele»Zents _ Staff believes that the applicant has provided all -of the mandatory physical elements for a timeshare development that are required by Land Use Code Section 26.590.060(A). The proposal includes a staffed, on -site front desk that will be open during regular business hours and provide full-time registration and reservation services. And, according to the application, the desk will also make arrangements for late - check -ins and will accommodate walk-in rentals if a unit is available. Furthermore, staff believes the proposed timeshare lodge contains an adequate amount of recreational facilities and other amenities. to .serve the occupants of the units. The proposal includes a meeting room and a games and recreation area that is slated to have pool and ping-pong tables. The proposal also includes a private media theatre and a lounge with a bar and dining services. In addition, the roof is proposed to contain a patio/garden, a pool and.spa, and an exercise room. -7- niw The applicant has only proposed to divide the units lllto 1/8 interests, which is slightly lower than the 1 / 10 interests that have been established as the preferred minimum in the optional timeshare elements. However, the applicants have argued that they are trying to fill a niche' in the timeshare market by providing larger, high end units that have not been provided thus far in the previous timeshare proposals that have been reviewed. Nonetheless, the minimum 1/10 interest is only an optional timeshare element in the Land Use Code and thus is not required to be met. SUBDIVISION: In this case, the sole purpose of subdivision request is to allow for the site to be condominiumized and placed in a fractional form of ownership. Staff believes that the proposal meets the review standards for subdivision. Staff feels that the proposed fractional lodge use is appropriate for the site and is compatible with the surrounding uses as was discussed previously in this memo. Moreover, staff believes that fractionalizing the property is consistent with many of the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan as was also detailed earlier in the staff memo. REFERRAL AGENCY ISSUES: The proposed application was referred to the City Engineering Department, Parks Department, Water Department, Electric Department, Environmental Health Department, Building Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and Aspen Fire Protection District for comments on technical issues. The Community Development Engineer expressed concerns about the width of the circulation aisles in the parking garage. It appears that some of the parking aisles are proposed at approximately eighteen (18) feet wide and the Institute of Transportation Engineers m recomends that a minimum width of twenty-one (21) feet be provided. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant study ways to increase the internal aisle width of the parking garage to obtain a minimum width of twenty-one (21) feet. The other referral agency comments have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval as appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It has been generally accepted that timeshare projects such as this .proposal provide increased occupancy rates in relation to regular lodge units. Therefore, staff has no indication that the proposal would not benefit the community by 1) providing additional Hot (occupied lodging) beds, and 2) increasing the number of people in town during the off-season to economically support the town's businesses. Staff also feels that the amenities of the proposed restaurant/bar, recreational facilities, and parking facilities provide for a duality lodging atmosphere. However, staff is concerned about the proposed height and mass of the structure in relation to the rest of the neighborhood as was detailed earlier in this memo. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public bearing to a date to be determined and direct the applicant to restudy the height and mass of the structure in an effort to increase the proposal's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. -8- P56 Staff also recommends that the applicant find a method of increasing the internal aisle width within the parking garage to at least twenty-one (21) feet for safety purposes. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is inclined to vote on the proposal without revisions, staff has provided an attached resolution that proposes conditions of approval that staff . feels will minimally mitigate the concerns of the referral agencies. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing on this application and request that the applicant restudy reducing the proposed height and mass of the structure and address the parking aisle width." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Dancing Bear Timeshare Lodge Minor PUD, which includes approval for a Minor PUD, Subdivision, Timeshare, Mountain View Plane, and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions (GMQS) for Lodge Preservation." ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A — REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT B — APPLICATION EXHIBIT C — REFERRAL COMMENTS -9- .3 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DANCING BEAR LODGE PRESERVATION MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDING SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION . (GMQS) FOR LODGE PRESERVATION ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS P, Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel No. 2735-182-19-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from MSE Aspen Holdings, Inc; owner, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting approval of a Lodge Preservation Minor Planned Unit Development including Subdivision, Timeshare, Mountain View Plane, and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions. (GMQS) for Lodge Preservation on the property described as Lots P. Q, R. and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, I'N'HEREAS, the subject property is approximately 11,957 square feet, and is located in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B), Combined Reviews, the Community Development Director in consultation with the applicant have concluded that a combined review of the land use requests associated with this application would reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense, and clarity; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Map and Text Amendinents; Section 26.435, Mountain View Plane; Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System; Section 26.480, Subdivision; and, Section 26.590, Timeshare, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land use requests made by the applicant during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 4, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a to (_-� vote, recommending that City Council approve the Dancing Bear Minor PUD and its associated land use requests; and, Me