Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950425 SITE VISIT -- 5:00 PM Aspen Center for Physics ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- AGE N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 25, 1995, Tuesday 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. COMMENTS ,.....- commissioners Planning Staff Public '-- II . MINUTES III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment, Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review, Kim Johnson (Tabled on April 4) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Boogies GMQS Exemption for Change in Use, Mary Lackner V. OLD BUSINESS A. Pitkin County Jail Expansion SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption, Mary Lackner (continued from 4/18) VI. ADJOURN ... MEMORANDUM e TO: Growth Management Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: Recommended Motion and Conditions of Approval for L'Auberge GMQS 1994 Tourist Allotments If the Commission finds that the application meets the minimum threshold scores, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and those amended during the public meeting with the Growth Management Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. Prior to allocation by City Council, the application shall conf irm with the Housing Authority the category of deed restriction for the affordable dwelling unit on -site. 3. Prior to allocation by City Council, the proposed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. 4. Prior to allocation by City Council, the applicant shall submit proposed sidewalk plan for Engineering review and approval. 5. Prior to allocation by City Council, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that is consistent with representations made at the Growth Management Commission review to include: a. eliminated curb cut; b. identification of woodstoves/fireplaces that will be eliminated; and C. demarcation of driveways, pedestrian ways, and landscaping with descriptions of material to be used. 6. Prior to allocation by City Council, the applicant shall provide written clarification regarding the number of bus passes that are issued to employees, the number of bicycles that will be reserved on -site, and a schedule for paving the alley. 7. Allocation of GMQS lodge allotments is specifically conditioned upon successful completion of the HPC final review of the site specific development plan and dimensional variance review from the Board of Adjustment. 8. Allocation of GMQS lodge allotments is specifically conditioned upon successful completion of the text amendment process that enables a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and conditional use review for the lodge. 9. The allocation of GMQS lodge allotments is specifically conditioned upon the site specific development plan that was presented and reviewed by the Growth Management Commission any change in use of the property or substantial amendment to the proposed site plan shall require a review and rescoring of the GMQS application. 10. Prior to allocation of GMQS lodge allotments, the applicant shall submit a mitigation plan to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department to determine that any increase in PM10 casued by the expansion of the project will be reduced by the proposed mitigation measures. K 0 pi •'�Ili) _�. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: April 18, 1995 Work Session with Council - April 17, 5:00 PM Small Lodges Overlay Committee - April 25, 4:00 PM Braden (AA) Longoria (AA) Farrish (KJ) Special Meeting - April 25, 5:00 PM Boogies GQMS Exemption for Change in Use (KJ) Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review (KJ) Regular Meeting - May 2 Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Review & GMQS Exemption (LL) Aspen Theatre in the Park Final SPA (KJ) Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL) Trueman Lot 1 SPA Use Variations & Conditional Use Review (KJ) Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review (ML) Moore Conditional Use Review for ADU & Stream Margin Review (LL) Water Place AH SPA Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review & Special Review KJ) Overlay Committee - May 3 Nichols (KJ) Hirschfield (KJ) Hirsch (LL) Special Meeting - May 9 Code Amendments re: FAR & Design Review (LL) GMQS Commission - May 16, 4:00 PM Water Place GMQS Exemption (KJ) Regular Meeting - May 16 Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL) Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL) Aspen School District Text Amendments (ML) Text Amendment for Temporary Sale Signs (KJ) Overlay Committee - May 30 Regular Meeting - June 6 Stauffer Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) Nichols Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Joint Growth Management Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: 1994 GMQS Tourist Accommodation - L'Auberge Lodge SUMMARY: The applicants, ALH Holding, are seeking twelve, 1994 GMQS Tourist accommodation units to expand the L'Auberge Lodge. Please review the submitted application in order to effectively score this proposal. The revised GMQS process requires the proposal to be scored by both the County and City Planning and Zoning Commissions acting as the Joint Growth Management Commission. The process prescribes that Community Development staff review the proposal and recommend a score for the proposal to the Commission. The Commission shall then hear presentation from the applicant and provide a final score for the application. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request 12 tourist/lodge accommodation units from the 1994 GMQS Lodge allotment. The applicants also propose to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and other dimensional requirement amendments, and conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The text amendment(s) and conditional use review will be performed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to GMQS scoring. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please review referral comments attached, Exhibit A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The lodge parcel is located in the Office zone district. The parcel is approximately 27,000 square feet and is bounded by Main street and a public alley to the north and south. Third and Fourth streets are on the east and west. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. The existing floor area on the parcel is 4,937 square feet, the proposal will add 4,244 square feet of floor area for a total of 9,181 square feet and floor area ratio of .34:1. (The allowable FAR in the office zone district is .75:1 which may be increased to 1:1 by special review.) In addition to upgrading the cabins and adding new cabins, the applicants propose to provide 24 on -site parking spaces and two hot tubs. The zone districts surrounding the lodge are: R-15 Moderate Density Residential on the other side of the alley, and Office to the north, east and west of the site. The site is relatively flat. Three curb cuts onto Main Street exist. The City just completed installing a new sidewalk the entire length of the property. Please review the attached application for a full statement of the proj ect . GMQS SCORING: The Community Development Department has reviewed the application and has scored the application. The revisions to the GMQS section of the Land Use Codes amended the available scores and created new criteria by which to score an application. Please review the first section of the attached land use application for the applicant's response to the scoring criteria. The scoring criteria are based on the visions and goals of Aspen area residents, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The criteria are universal in nature; they will be used in evaluating both residential and lodge development. It is recognized that different types of projects will be able to address the criteria in different ways, and that not all of the specific objectives and sample implementation methods are applicable to all types of development. Points shall be awarded for performance relative to each of the four scoring criteria. Possible scores for each criterion shall range from zero, the lowest possible score, to five, the highest possible score. It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage when scored against large-scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects be evaluated according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be accomplished given their size and scale. A score of zero shall be awarded to projects that, although they had the opportunity to comply with scoring criteria and had the ability to advance stated community goals, will. actually contribute nothing to implementation of the articulated vision and may, in fact, move the community further away from its stated goals. A score of three indicates that a project will move the community closer toward attainment of its stated visions and make a positive contribution toward the implementation of articulated goals. A score of five indicates that a project demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to the stated vision of the community and will result in significant movement toward implementation of those goals. Other scores along the continuum from zero to five will be awarded based on the degree to vlhich projects will implement stated goals. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria. Criteria. The four character -based scoring criteria described below are intended to encourage imaginative, innovative, and flexible approaches to advancing the visions of Aspen area residents. Each criterion is presented in the form of general background and vision statements. Examples of methods that might be used to implement the vision follow the background and vision statements. It is recognized that some statements may have no relevance to certain types of projects; projects will not be penalized by low scores when that is the case. 1. Revitalizing the permanent community. Residents of the Aspen area have long recognized the need to preserve the. community's character and identity as more than just a resort, a collection of second homes, and a tourist shopping mecca. They recognize that a "critical mass" of permanent residents and local serving -businesses is necessary to make any community function. They recognize, too, that the vitality brought to the Aspen area by full-time residents is being seriously diluted by the inability of working people to live in their own community. As a result of these concerns, one of the community's central goals is to create a community with a size, density, and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement, and vitality and one that provides opportunities for its workers to become a permanent part of the social fabric. RESPONSE: staff score 1 The applicant proposes to provide a $108,330 cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Fund to mitigate the additional employees generated. In addition, the applicant proposes to maintain the manager's residence as a free market unit but deed restrict the unit to provide for mitigation if the unit is sold and not used as a manager's resident. The applicant calculates that .68 employees will be generated as a result of the expanded lodge for a total of 1.83 full time employees. The Land Use Code establishes that an applicant be required to mitigate at least 60% of the employees generated. In the case of L'Auberge, this is only .4 employees. However, the 3 cash -in -lieu payment mitigates 1.57 employees almost 100% of the employees generated by the entire lodge operation. Although the applicant proposes to mitigate for a significant number of employees generated by the lodge, staff recommends a score of 1 for -this proposal. This first review criterion discusses the necessity to revitalize the permanent community. The AACP recommends as a goal that 60% of employees that work in Pitkin County also reside in Pitkin County. The scoring criteria also states that one of the community's central goals is to create a community with a size, density, and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement, and vitality for its workers to become a permanent part of the social fabric. In staffs opinion, this proposal does not move the community closer toward stated goals. No affordable housing is being provided on -site nor within the community such as a buy -down. There is no opportunity for employees of the lodge to reside near where they work or within the community. Although the resident manager may not qualify for category 1-4 deed restricted housing, and RO housing does not comply with mitigation requirements for GMQS, the Housing Office has used the special review process for small lodges to enable an owner/occupied manager's residence to be located on the site and become fully deed restricted. A score of zero would indicate that the applicant's proposal will move the community further away from the stated goals. It is because of the cash -in -lieu offer, which mitigates almost 100% of employees at the lodge, that staff did not score a 0 but scored a 1. Staff realizes that the applicants have attempted to provide a small scale improvement on the property. Nevertheless, with 9 small cabins and 12 new small cabins being proposed, the applicant had the ability to provide some level of housing for permanent/working residents. 2. Providing transportation alternatives. Residents recognize that reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. Their plan is so bold as to envision a time in the not -too -distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. They are seeking a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. RESPONSE: staff score 2 The application states that a fleet of bicycles will be provided for guests and a "curbside service" and courier service for guests that chose not to rent a car. The application also states that RFTA bus passes are provided for employees. The City has recently r11 installed a sidewalk along Main Street and a RFTA bus stop is located adjacent to the property. The Lodge provides a "funky" bench for bus patrons to use. The site plan indicates 24 parking spaces for 21 cabins and a 2- bedroom manager's residence. The application includes a request to vary the dimensions of four parking spaces. Staff recommends a score of 2 for this proposal for several reasons. The application responds to an example standard for criteria #2 - creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails, walkways... such as pedestrian/bikeway plan - by discussing the proximity of the project to the new sidewalk constructed by the City on Main Street and the location of the curb to enable the irrigation watercourse to exist along the frontage of the property. However, the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan of 1990 identifies both 3rd and 4th streets as pedestrian streets thus requiring complete sidewalks. The applicant does not offer to construct sidewalks on either 3rd or 4th streets. The applicant provided supplemental information calculating the amount of additional traffic that is to be generated by the expanded lodge. However, the applicant does not discuss what levels of traffic or actual PM-10 reductions are expected to occur with implementation of the auto -disincentives. Although the applicants believe that the lodge use generates .7 spaces/bedroom, one space per cabin is being provided. The site plan is very auto oriented. The proposal maintains the 3 existing curb cuts onto Main Street, rather than better utilizing the alley as access for more parking. Although the Office zone district does not allow lodges, the applicant is proposing a text amendment is for a lodge as a conditional use in the office zone district. The Office zone district allows parking to be reduced, by special review via a payment -in -lieu. This location and the type of use may warrant a special review for parking to reduce the amount of land devoted to the automobile and enhance the open space. In addition, the request to vary the dimension of 4 parking spaces will make those spaces very difficult to use due to the proximity to the driveway or the need to parallel park. The applicant has taken advantage of the location of the lodge on Main Street, a primary RFTA bus route with a stern directly adjacent to the property, and the City°s recent installation of the Main Street sidewalk. Staff finds that the applicant is doing very little on their own accord to reduce the auto dominance of the proposal, to enhance, expand, or improve pedestrian orientation of the parcel or the public right-of-ways. 3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development. 5 Residents of the Aspen area recognize that the natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets. As a result, they wish to allow only that development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes individually responsible, ecological lifestyles. The community seeks to foster a high level of consciousness relative to -resource conservation, wildlife protection and environmental sustainability. RESPONSE: staff score 2 The proposal includes a recycle area and a bicycle fleet for guests. The development represents a floor area ratio of .34. The development will preserve much of the existing vegetation on - site but 2 scotch- pines are proposed to be relocated. It is unclear from the site plan what vegetation is being preserved and what vegetation is being eliminated or relocated. A landscape plan was not submitted. The application also states that "grass-crete" will be used for driving and parking areas. As stated above, the proposal is very auto -oriented. However, staff commends the applicant for not using heated driveways. The cabins are proposed to be small with pedestrian walkways and view corridors laced throughout the project. No air conditioners are being provided. The 12 new cabins will have gas -log fireplaces. According to the records at the Environmental Health Department, there exist seven fireplaces on -site and one woodstove. The applicants do not propose to replace existing wood -burning fireplaces as part of the expansion or the minor upgrades made to these cabins. Primarily for this reason, staff recommends a score of 2 for this criterion. The applicant is not moving the community closer toward the attainment of its goals. The new cabins are required by current city legislation to provide only gas -log devices if any devices are proposed. The applicant is maintaining the status -quo on this project with respect to PM-10 and air pollution. As mentioned in the previous criterion, _the application does not calculate the reduction in PM-10 the would be realized by the proposed auto - disincentives or transit alternatives that are being provided. More information is required to evaluate if the traffic and PM-10 at}.ributed to this project as a whole will in fact be reduced or only the status -quo will be maintained on this parcel after the expansion. 4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character. Area residents recognize the importance of design within the larger historic setting of the community. It isa vital component of the community's economic well-being and cultural heritage. 6 They believe that public architecture should support and enhance community life. Their goal is to ensure the maintenance of community character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. RESPONSE: staff score 4 The applicants have proposed an expansion to their lodge operation that maintains the character of the existing lodge and preserves the quality of the small cabins with pedestrian walkways, view corridors and open space. The floor area on the 27,000 square foot parcel is only 9,181 square feet. The project was reviewed by the HPC because of its location on Main Street. The HPC approved conceptual review. There was much discussion about the reduced front yard setback verses the preservation of the interior space. The HPC supported the low floor area ratio of the site but recommended that the elevations and 1/2 story massing on Main Street be studied. A pedestrian feel along Main Street was encouraged. In addition an extensive landscape plan should be presented (no plan was included in the GMQS application). Although the existing cabins -are not historic in nature, the proposed new cabins support the character of the lodge which are small individual lodge units, a type of lodging that is being lost in the community. Although staff found that the project is supportive of the goals and recommendations of this section, staff also expressed concern that the walkways within the project seemed constrained. Moreover, the parking and the loop driveway cuts -off and infringes on the interior courtyard. The orientation of buildings could have been more varied if parking and driveways were reduced in extent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Growth Management Commission denial of this proposal as submitted finding that the project does not meet the minimum threshold score for criteria #1, #2, and #3. However, this is the first review and scoring of a proposal since the adoption of the revised GMQS section of the Land Use Code. There is new criteria that has shifted the emphasis by which an applications is scored. In addition, residential and lodge criteria have been combined into a single set of criterion that applies to all residential and lodge development applications. It is for these reasons that staff would recommend that the applicant, if they so choose, be allowed to present, to the Growth Commission, amendments to the proposal. EXHIBITS: A. Application B. Referral Comments 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street- L'Auberge, HPC review DATE: April 13, 1995 Overall, there was a lot of support for the design of the project and the applicant's effort to respect the scale of the existing cabins on the site. Some concerns were expressed about the project' s relationship to the street and the "interioriz ing" of the open space. Some members felt that there should be more of a linkage between the project and the streetscape. The landscape plan and significant amount of parking were also cited as issues to be discussed further. The conditions made at conceptual approval were: 1. That the cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. 2. That all new construction be differentiated in a very positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing structures. 3. That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with grass- crete or a similar porous and non -hard surface. 5. ' Study the Main Street elevations, especially the story and a half massing and looking at the opportunities for combining buildings. To: Leslie Lamont From: Bill Earley Date: 3/29/95 Subject: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS I have reviewed the submitted information and have the following comments; 1. No load information on the electric demand is provided so I cannot access the impacts on our system but I do not think it will be a problem. 2. We have three phase and single phase power available in the alley. There is an existing 25KVA single phase transformer in the alley that provides electric service to this block. We may have to up size this unit. This cost would be paid by the developer. 3. Streetlighting in this area is our standard design with doubles on Main St. and overheads at the intersections of Hopkins and 3rd and 4th. 2s�en �orzsol o�dfeo%�Q121fCZf10I2 �Isfrlcf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 r Sy Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly Albert Bishop • Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. April 6, 1995 ,Leslie Lamont, Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: L'Auberge GMQS Dear Leslie, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient wastewater treatment and collection system capacity to serve the proposed additional development on this property. Service for the project will be contingent, upon compliance with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications. Total connection costs as well as any impact fees for the project can be estimated once detailed plans have been made available to the District and a tap permit has been completed at the District office. Since this property has had historical problems with their sewer service lines, we would not recommend running additional sewer service lines throughout the property. The plan as provided in the referral shows gas, water and sewer lines running too close together. Shared service line agreements would need to be executed for the sewer service lines connecting free standing buildings. Sewer lines should not be routed under buildings. The Aspen Pitkin County Health Department will require the spas be connected to the sewer system. We will need to review drainage plans to assure clear water connections are not tied into the sanitary sewer system. Since most property owners do not want to own and maintain extensive sewer service line systems, the District would propose a new sewer line that could be deeded to the District for future ownership 'and maintenance as we have sketched on an enclosed drawing running through the middle of the property and connecting into the main line at the intersection of the alley and Third St. New individu�„ sewer service lines could then be run for the existing cabins as well. Easements on standard District form would need to executed for this installation. Please contact our .office if you have any questions. Sincerelya Tho as R.Collectionysemsuperintendent EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 . 1986 • 1990 Regional and National Memorandu To: Leslie Lamont, Planner CC: From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: L'Auberge, Parcel ID #2735-124-50-051 & 053 Leslie, April 3, 1995 I met with Dave Gibson and Gary Lyman re: L'Auberge fire protection. We concluded that the individual sprinkler systems in the units are not required due to their size. However, early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided. If you have any questions please contact me. Ed TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: * Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review We have reviewed the application submitted by ALH Holding Company and offer the following comments and concerns. In regards to the GMQS criteria, providing transportation alternatives (section 2 (i)), the applicant discusses the newly constructed sidewalk and ditch that parallel the property along Main St. The applicant should be requested to contribute to the cost of the sidewalk considering their development application is being submitted less than a year after the new sidewalk construction and the new sidewalk enhances their property development considerably due to the growth in services. The development should also construct sidewalk along 3rd and 4th Streets as identified in the Pedestrian Plan. The description of the ditch or watercourse described in section 2(i) states the Lodge maintains and irrigates this watercourse and greenway along the new public sidewalk". The ditch is a City ditch and if irrigating is proposed to be done from the ditch the Parks Department would need to see a plan prior to utilization of the water from this ditch. Additionally, if the ditch is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the new driveways, a 12 inch PVC pipe (,n� corrugated metal pipe) is required to be installed. The proposed relocation of two scotch pines need to be evaluated by an expert tree mover. The proposed re -locations may not work in the space provided. It is also inadvisable to propose to locate spas underneath coniferous trees. The fallen needles create problems for the spa mechanical systems and can be hazardous to bare feet. The number of Aspen trees proposed to be removed may require an extensive mitigation plan. The majority of the mitigation should take place on site. We would request the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan stating tree removals and a replacement plan. If the development cannot accommodate the total mitigation, then we would like to know what the applicant proposes, ie. if they would like to donate trees to the City of Aspen, etc. The final comment on the project is in regards to the trees in the Main St. right-of-way. These trees are not shown on the existing site plan and may be an over site, but should be noted that they are not to be removed or damaged by construction. a MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department Au Through: Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer (0 �_ASPEN • PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Date: April 4, 1995 Re: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID # 2735-124-50-051 & -053 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has , reviewed the L'Auberge land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has -the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 'It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of -any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device.' The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. - The applicant must provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, M' or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.' The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is -consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of. Aspen Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of service must be provided from the City of Aspen. Water Department documenting that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. 1 . 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5070 • FAx 303.920.5197 Printed on recycled paper WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 , 'For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from Injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the Incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies fctr a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted' This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 'it is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city...' The Land Use Regulations seek to 'lessen congestion' and 'avoid transportation demands that cannot be met' as well as to 'provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants'. The. major concern of this department is the impact- of increasing traffic in a hon- attainment . area designated by the EPA. To ensure that traffic and PM,, levels do not increase more than specified in the State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, and to be consistent with City policy any traffic generated by this development must be fully mitigated. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project, and the traffic decreased by each of the control measures. A condition of. approval should be that the applicant provide a mitigation plan that the Aspen/Pitkin 'Environmental Health Department determines is sufficient to offset any - increases in PM,, caused by the project. FIREPLACE NOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes this site may have two department certified devices and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of fireplace device. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 -The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels.' During .construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays. It is very likely that noise generated during the con: traction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. ... V:WP:LAND USE:273512450051.1AU 2 I►T�T�� :: ►1� lu To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: April 10, 1995 Re: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review (43 5 West Main Street, Lots 1 and 2, Perkins Subdivision - to be nullified and revert to Lots A -I, Block 38, Original Aspen Townsite) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Drainage - The application is not thorough concerning site drainage. If the project is approved, a storm runoff plan must be prepared by a registered engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Percolation into landscaped areas of flows from newly constructed impermeable surfaces may suffice, but the percolation rates and flow quantities must be verified. 2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - "Standard.• Facilitating and encouraging year round pedestrian transportation. " - During the past summer, the City constructed sidewalk along the Main Street frontage of the property. It is of course unfortunate that City funds were used instead of the applicant providing the sidewalk as other private property owners must do. In spite of complaints from City staff and from the public, proper snow removal was not performed on the sidewalk. Snow was not removed from the sidewalk consistently throughout this past winter, and snow from the driveways was piled up on the sidewalk at both corners creating a hazardous pedestrian situation and discouraging pedestrian use. Sidewalk also needs to be constructed on the property frontages on 3rd and 4th Streets. This is required by City Code for new construction and is also identified by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System" Plan. This should be a condition of approval for any development. The condition of the curb and gutter cannot be determined at this time due to snow. Any sections 1 needing replacement must be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Curb and gutter must be constructed on the Third Street frontage. 3. Mass Transit - The existing bus stop is rudimentary. Perhaps an easement should be provided for a bus shelter and a bus shelter pro,(ided as a site improvement. 4. Community Character - The lodge currently has posted a sign in the public right-of-way at the corner of Fourth and Main which has not been removed despite staff requests. 5. Access & Driveways - City Code prohibits driveways onto Highway 82. The property contains existing, non -conforming driveways. The application represents a proposed increase in use of the existing driveways with more vehicles per day entering and exiting Highway 82 at the location.. It is preferable to provide driveway access to the project from the alley. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to delete the Main Street curb cut to the manager's house. The new driveway off the alley will permit access to parking spaces 23 and 24. Access Widths - The accesses off Main Street are only drawn at 11.5' and 9.5' off the alley. The Fire Marshal should be specifically requested to approve those access widths, both at the curb and within the property. 6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The applicant must consult with the City Electric Superintendent prior to issuance of a building permit and provide electric load information in order to determine if a transformer easement is needed on the site. 7. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. The applications states that the recycling is currently practiced, which is commendable. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. The current trash area is not indicated on the site improvement survey and appears to be within the alley public right-of-way. It should be a condition of approval that a concrete pad be provided for the dumpsters in order to facilitate their storage on private property. 8. Parking - The application requests a variance for parking space dimensions, but no specific dimensions are requested. The plans scale off to 8.7'x14.8' for space #8, 8.2'x13.5' for space #9, 7.2'xl7' for space #11, and 1.3'xl8' for space #17. The proposed, scaled widths appear functional, however the length of space #9 is below the range of any but the shortest vehicles. It may be preferable to permit reductions in the number of parking spaces than to permit the undersizing of space #9. Prior to now, reductions in parking space sizes have been addressed by special review and not by the variance process. If the use of "grass-crete" is permitted, snow removal should be specifically required for maintaining the parking spaces in a usable condition. The "grass-crete" area, must include access 2 into spaces # 11 and # 17. No access is currently shown to those spaces, and a parallel parking space is 22' long in order to permit the parallel parking turning movements. It is recommended that if "grass-crete" is permitted, board, stone, paver or concrete tire tread "rails" some 16" in width be required to clearly define the intended parking space and the access. This would permit considerable "greening" versus a completely paved or surface parking space and access. This is a detail that the Engineering Department would support verbally at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. 9. Site DesiLyn - The new cabins will be a major change to the Main Street corridor by filling in an existing open space. It might be preferable to retain the open space and provide development of increased height and below grade at the existing footprints. 10. Street Lights The Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly concerned about the lack of street lighting in town, especially in lodging areas. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to install an antique light on Third Street at the alley. A street light is needed at the other end of the same alley, which the applicant also abuts, but the property owners across the alley would potentially be responsible for that light. 11. Bicycles - The applications discusses bicycle storage but is not specific as to the number of bicycles for which storage is provided. Sufficient storage for all bicycles of guests, visitors and employees should be provided. 12. Other Improvements - The applicant is not offering to pave the alley. Paving alleys is a current trend because of dust and mud reduction for adjacent properties. There is also a PM-10 benefit. 13. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. c. It is suggested that the applicant provide 2 sets of mylars, one for recording together with fees, of the approved development plan together with the existing conditions survey. For the applicant's protection, as well as any possible grantees, the survey should state that all easements of record as indicatt-d on Title Policy No. , dated , have been shown on the survey. 14. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of 3 development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 15. Code Amendment - There do not appear to be any adverse impacts of engineering concern for amending the Code to include "lodges" as a conditional use in the Main Street Office Zone District. There are sufficient utilities available to serve the proposed project. The impacts on services of a lodge are the same as "bed and breakfast" businesses. 16. Encroachment Application - Encroachment applications relate to public property and public rights -of -way and are granted by the City Engineer. Encroachment licenses must be applied for through that office. An application has been mailed to the . applicant's representative. Encroachments are generally required to be removed at the time of redevelopment. This will be examined in depth at the time that an encroachment application is received. The application does not make reference to the fences that encroach into the Forth Street and alley rights -of -way. These fences may be included in the encroachment application, however it is likely that the fences will be required to be relocated onto private property at the time of any development or any future building permits for any work. 17. Vacation of Final Subdivision Plat - Since the word "vacation" applies to vacating public rights -of -way, the word "nullification" might avoid confusion. The Engineering Department has no objections to nullifying or voiding the subdivision plat of the Perkins Subdivision. cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer Dave Gibson Gideon Kaufinan M95.61 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: Apl-il 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-124-50-051 & -053 ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to add 12 guest cabins, a laundry/employee locker area, and a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, for a total of 4,534 gross square feet of new construction. The applicant presently has a two -bedroom manager's unit located within the residence. They are proposing that this remain in free-market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requires that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu fee of $108, 330 (1.57 X $69, 000) for the additional employees. The cash -in -lieu fee is presently in the process of being increased with the adoption of the 1995 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. This could go into effect as early as mid May, which would require the cash -in -lieu payment of $124,030. POINTS: Appendix 3 does seem in line with the FTE's required, which represents that the proposed development would increase FTE's by .68 (1.83 - 1.15) . The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu payment for 1.57 low income employees, which represents °a 100% housing mitigation. This results in a score in this category!"..of 11 points. ; The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On -site housing; 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu. The Housing Office recommends that the housing mitigation be met on -site. MANAGER'S UNIT: The applicant is requesting that the manager's unit remain in free-market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requests that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The Housing Office recommends deed restricting this manager's unit to Resident Occupied, which limits the unit to occupancy by qualified employees, but not as to price or income limitations. This would also restrict the use and occupancy of the unit to residents and Y MEMORANDUM TO: . Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: L'Auberge Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicants propose to expand their existing lodge operation and propose a text amendment to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district. In addition the applicants seek a conditional use review for the lodge. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. However, staff recommends tabling the conditional use for a lodge pending a revised utility/service plans, revisions to the site plan to either reduce the amount of parking or shift the parking in a manner that creates a useable parking space. The applicants are seeking several variance from the Board of Adjustment for the existing structures and the proposed cabins: Front Rear Side Between Bldgs. Existing Proposed 10 ft. 1.5 ft. 15 ft. 1.5 ft. 5 ft. 0 10 ft. 3 ft. A hearing date had not been established, however the applicant must complete final review at HPC before the BOA will review the proposals. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A text amendment to allow a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and conditional use review for the lodge. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments, exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: I. Text Amendment - A lodge is not a permitted or conditional use in the Office zone district. However, there are many lodges located along Main Street. Several are not zoned LP but enhance the character and mix of uses along Main Street. L'Auberge is zoned Office. Both a rezoning of the property to Lodge Preservation or amending the Office zone district were explored with the applicant. If L'Auberge were rezoned to LP, the lodge would be non -conforming with respect to the Internal floor area ratio. In the LP zone the maximum internal FAR rental space is 0.5:1 which can be increased to 0.75:1 if 33 1/3 % of the additional floor area is approved for affordable housing. With the expansion, 75% of the floor area is lodge rental space and 25% of the remaining floor area is accessory lodge uses including the manager's residence. Because L'Auberge is comprised of small cabins and guest amenities are external, there is little internal floor area that is not rental space. The AACP recommends that additional incentives be considered to preserve and enhance small lodges. The LP zone district is coming under heavy scrutiny by small lodge owners and they are also recommending flexibility. Therefore, the applicant has proposed a text amendment to the Office zone district to allow a lodge as a conditional use. There may be some concern that by not pursuing a rezoning of the lodge to LP, staff has left the door open for a conversion of the lodge. With the present zoning, Office, the applicant could convert the lodge at any point in time. However, the revisions to the GMQS section of the Land Use Code limit the number of conversions on an annual basis. There are two free-market residential exemptions in the metro -area for items such as conversions, lot splits, etc. In addition, if a lodge is reviewed as a conditional use and converts. to another use both the change in use review and potentially an amendment to the conditional use approval will be required. In addition to lodges as conditional uses in the Office zone district, the applicant requests that the lodge unit be able to provide a kitchen. Currently, only existing lodges within the LP zone are allowed to have kitchens. The definition of a lodge precludes kitchens. Recent discussions with small lodge owners have included the topic of kitchens within the rooms. Originally staff had discussed a PUD review process for this application in order to vary existing setback violations and to pursue an enhanced site design plan that was consistent with the existing facility. If the Board of Adjustment does not approve the variance requirements, staff supports a PUD review process. The ability to review the proposal as a PUD is a more comprehensive review rather than a BOA proceeding. The language of the text amendment is as proposed: Section 5-213. Office (0) 2 II. Conditional Use - Staff also recommends tabling conditional use review of the expansion of the lodge primarily due to the insufficient utility/services plan. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District does not accept the proposed sewer service proposal, specifically due to historical problems with existing service lines. The ACSD's revised plan would significantly alter the proposed site plan. In addition, because staff does not agree to the proposed text amendments a conditional use review at this point in the process would be inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a table of the land use application for the L'Auberge Lodge in order for the applicant to pursue either a PUD review or revise the site plan so new development complies with the dimensional requirements of the Office zone district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the text amendment for the Office zone district and the conditional use review for L'Auberge Lodge to May 16, 1995." ATTACHMENTS: A. Referral Comments B. Office Zone District 3 MEMORANDUM. TO: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street- L'Auberge, HPC review DATE: April 13, 1995 Overall, there was a lot of support for the design of the project and the applicant's effort to respect the scale of the existing cabins on the site. Some concerns were expressed about the project' s relationship to the street and the "interioriz ing" of the open space. Some members felt that there should be more of a linkage between the project and the streetscape. The landscape plan and significant amount of parking were also cited as issues to be discussed further. The conditions made at conceptual approval were: 1. That the cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. 2. That all new construction be differentiated in a very positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing structures. 3 That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with grass- crete or a similar porous and non -hard surface. 5. ' Study the Main Street elevations, especially the story and a half massing and looking at the opportunities for combining buildings. To: Leslie Lamont From: Bill Earley Date: 3/29/95 Subject: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS I have reviewed the submitted information and have the following comments; 1. No load information on the electric demand is provided so I cannot access the impacts on our system but I do not think it will be a problem. 2. We have three phase and single phase power available in the alley. There is an existing 25KVA single phase transformer in the alley that. provides electric service to this block. We may have to up size this unit. This cost would be paid by the developer. 3. Streetlighting in this area is our standard design with doubles on Main St. and overheads at the intersections of Hopkins and 3rd and 4th. Q vE1V�� ✓pen Consofda W6anifdfion AI XrIC'f 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly Albert Bishop Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. April 6, 1995 ,Leslie Lamont, Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: L'Auberge GMQS Dear Leslie, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient wastewater treatment and collection system capacity to serve the proposed additional development on this property. Service for the project will be contingent. upon compliance with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications. Total connection costs as well as any impact fees for the project can be estimated once detailed plans have been made available to the District and a tap permit has been completed at the District office. Since this property has had historical problems with their sewer service lines, we would not recommend running additional sewer service lines throughout the property. The plan as provided in the referral shows gas, water and sewer lines running too close together. Shared service line agreements would need to be executed for the sewer service lines connecting free standing buildings. Sewer lines should not be routed under buildings. The Aspen Pitkin County Health Department will require the spas be connected to the sewer system. We will need to review drainage plans to assure clear water connections are not tied into the sanitary sewer system. ` Since most property owners do not want to own and maintain extensive sewer service line systems, the District would propose a new sewer line that could be deeded to the District for future ownership *and maintenance as we have sketched on an enclosed drawing running through the middle of the property and connecting into the main line at the intersection of the alley and Third St. New individual sewer service lines could then }�e run for the existing cabins as well. Easements on standard District form would need to executed for this installation. Please contact our .office if you have any questions. Sincere.1y, Tho/as��R/. Br cewel Collection Systems Superintendent EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National Me orandu I To: Leslie Lamont, Planner ' CC: From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: L'Auberge, Parcel ID #2735-124-50-051 & 053 Leslie, April 3, 1995 I met with Dave Gibson and Gary Lyman re: L'Auberge fire protection. We concluded that the individual sprinkler systems in the units are not required due to their size. However, early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided. If you have any questions please contact me. Ed lui�lu • � : �1� lu TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROW Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review We have reviewed the application submitted by ALH Holding Company and offer the following comments and concerns. In regards to the GMQS criteria, providing transportation alternatives (section 2 (i)), the applicant discusses the newly constructed sidewalk and ditch that parallel the property along Main St. The applicant should be requested to contribute to the cost of the sidewalk considering their development application is being submitted less than a year after the new sidewalk construction and the new sidewalk enhances their property development considerably due to the growth in services. The development should also construct sidewalk along 3rd and 4th Streets as identified in the Pedestrian Plan. The description of the ditch or watercourse described in section 2(i) states the "Lodge maintains and irrigates this watercourse and greenway along the new public sidewalk". The ditch is a City ditch and if irrigating is proposed to be done from the ditch the Parks Department would need to see a plan prior to utilization of the water from this ditch. Additionally, if the ditch is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the new driveways, a 12 inch PVC pipe (.n� corrugated metal pipe) is required to be installed. The proposed relocation of two scotch pines need to be evaluated by an expert tree mover. The proposed re -locations may not work in the space provided. It is also inadvisable to propose to locate spas underneath coniferous trees. The fallen needles create problems for the spa mechanical systems and can be hazardous to bare feet. The number of Aspen trees proposed to be removed may require an extensive mitigation plan. The majority of the mitigation should take place on site. We would request the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan stating tree removals and a replacement plan. If the development cannot accommodate the total mitigation, then we would like to know what the applicant proposes, ie. if they would like to donate trees to the City of Aspen, etc. The final comment on the project is in regards to the trees in the Main St. right-of-way. These trees are not shown on the existing site plan and may be an over site, but should be noted that they are not to be removed or damaged by construction. MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department Au Through: Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer iCASPEN • PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Date: April 4, 1995 Re. L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID # 2735-124-50-051 & -053 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the L'Auberge land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has -the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 'ft shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device.' The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project -should be determined by the ACSD. - The applicant must provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.' The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of. Aspen Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of service must be provided from the City of Aspen Water Department documenting that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. 1 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET .ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5070 • FAx 303.920.5197 Prmt d on recycled paper . WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 , 'For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from Injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the Incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted.' This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality. , AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 'tt is the purpose of (the air qurjlity section of the Municipal Code) to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city...' The Land Use Regulations seek to 'lessen congestion* and 'avoid transportation demands that cannot be met` as well as to 'provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants'. The major concern of this department is the impact of increasing traffic in a non - attainment area designated by the EPA. To ensure that traffic and PM,o levels do not increase more than specified in the State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, and to be consistent with City policy any traffic generated by this development must be fully mitigated. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project, and the traffic decreased by each of the control measures. A condition of. approval should be that the applicant provide a mitigation plan that the Aspen/PiWn 'Environmental Health Department determines is sufficient to offset any increases in PM,o caused by the project. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes this site may have two department certified devices and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building.. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of fireplace device. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISEABATEMENT: Section 16-1 'The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels.' ti During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of* 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays. It is very likely that n ise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. ...V:WP:LAND USE:27351245005LLAU To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: April 10, 1995 Re: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review (435 West Main Street, Lots 1 and 2, Perkins Subdivision - to be nullified and revert to Lots A -I, Block 38, Original Aspen Townsite) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Drainage - The application is not thorough concerning site drainage. If the project is approved, a storm runoff plan must be prepared by a registered engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Percolation into landscaped areas of flows from newly constructed impermeable surfaces may suffice, but the percolation rates and flow quantities must be verified. 2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - "Standard.• Facilitating and encouraging year round pedestrian transportation. " - During the past summer, the City constructed sidewalk along the Main Street frontage of the property. It is of course unfortunate that City funds were used instead of the applicant providing the sidewalk as other private property owners must do. In spite of complaints from City staff and from the public, proper snow removal was not performed on the sidewalk. Snow was not removed from the sidewalk consistently throughout this past winter, and snow from the driveways was piled up on the sidewalk at both comers creating a hazardous pedestrian situation and discouraging pedestrian use. Sidewalk also needs to be constructed on the property frontages on 3rd and 4th Streets. This is required by City Code for new construction and is also identified by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System" Plan. This should be a condition of approval for any development. The condition of the curb and gutter cannot be determined at this time due to snow. Any sections ii needing replacement must be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Curb and gutter must be constructed on the Third Street frontage. 3. Mass Transit - The existing bus stop is rudimentary. Perhaps an easement should be provided for a bus shelter and a bus shelter provided as a site improvement. 4. Community Character - The lodge currently has posted a sign in the public right-of-way at the corner of Fourth and Main which has not been removed despite staff requests. 5. Access & Driveways - City Code prohibits driveways onto Highway 82. The property contains existing, non -conforming driveways. The application represents a proposed increase in use of the existing driveways with more vehicles per day, entering and exiting Highway 82 at the location. It is preferable to provide driveway access to the project from the alley. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to delete the Main Street curb cut to the manager's house. The new driveway off the alley will permit access to parking spaces 23 and 24. Access Widths - The accesses off Main Street are only drawn at 11.5' and 9.5' off the alley. The Fire Marshal should be specifically requested to approve those access widths, both at the curb and within the property. 6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The applicant must consult with the City Electric Superintendent prior to issuance of a building permit and provide electric load information in order to determine if a transformer easement is needed on the site. 7. Trash & Utili , Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. The applications states that the recycling is currently practiced, which is commendable. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. The current trash area is not indicated on the site improvement survey and appears to be within the alley public right-of-way. It should be a condition of approval that a concrete pad be provided for the dumpsters in order to facilitate their storage on private property. 8. Parking - The application requests a variance for parking space dimensions, but no specific dimensions are requested. The plans scale off to 8.7'xl4.8' for space #8, 8.2'xl3.5' for space #9, 7.2'xl7' for space #11, and 7.3'xi 8' for space #17. The proposed, scaled widths appear functional, however the length of space #9 is below the range of any but the shortest vehicles. It may be preferable to permit reductions in the number of parking spaces than to permit the undersizing of space #9. Prior to now, reductions in parking space sizes have been addressed by special review and not by the variance process. If the use of "grass-crete" is permitted, snow removal should be specifically required for maintaining the parking spaces in a usable condition. The "grass-crete" area, must include access 2 into spaces # 11 and # 17. No access is currently shown to those spaces, and a parallel parking space is 22' long in order to permit the parallel parking turning movements. It is recommended that if "grass-crete" is permitted, board, stone, paver or concrete tire tread "rails" some 16" in width be required to clearly define the intended parking space and the access. This would permit considerable "greening" versus a completely paved or surface parking space and access. This is a detail that the Engineering Department would support verbally at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. 9. Site Design - The new cabins will be a major change to the Main Street corridor by filling in an existing open space. It might be preferable to retain the open- space and provide development of increased height and below grade at the existing footprints. 10. Street Lights - The Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly concerned about the lack of street lighting in town, especially in lodging areas. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to install an antique light on Third Street at the alley. A street light is needed at the other end of the same alley, which the applicant also abuts, but the property owners across the alley would potentially be responsible for that light. 11. Bicycles - The applications discusses bicycle storage but is not specific as to the number of bicycles for which storage is provided. Sufficient storage for all bicycles of guests, visitors and employees should be provided. 12. Other Improvements - The applicant is not offering to pave the alley. Paving alleys is a current trend because of dust and mud reduction for adjacent properties. There is also a PM-10 benefit. 13. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. c. It is suggested that the applicant provide 2 sets of mylars, one for recording together with fees, of the approved development plan together with the existing conditions survey. For the applicant's protection, as well as any possible grantees, the survey should state that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated , have been shown on the survey. 14. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of 3 development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for m vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 15. Code Amendment - There do not appear to be any adverse impacts of engineering concern for amending the Code to include "lodges" as a conditional use in the Main Street Office Zone District. There are sufficient utilities available to serve the proposed project. The impacts on services of a lodge are the same as "bed and breakfast" businesses. 16. Encroachment Application - Encroachment applications relate to public property and public rights -of -way and are granted by the City Engineer. Encroachment licenses must be applied for through that office. An application has been mailed to the applicant's representative. Encroachments are generally required to be removed at the time of redevelopment. This will be examined in depth at the time that an encroachment application is received. The application does not make reference to the fences that encroach into the Forth Street and alley rights -of -way. These fences may be included in the encroachment application, however it is likely that the fences will be required to be relocated onto private property at the time of any development or any future building permits for any work. 17. Vacation of Final Subdivision Plat - Since the word "vacation" applies to vacating public rights -of -way, the word "nullification" might avoid confusion. The Engineering Department has no objections to nullifying or voiding the subdivision plat of the Perkins Subdivision. cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer Dave Gibson Gideon Kaufman M95.61 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-124-50-051 & -053 ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to add 12 guest cabins, a laundry/employee locker area, and a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, for a total of 4,534 gross square feet of new construction. The applicant presently has a two -bedroom manager's unit located within the residence. They are proposing that this remain in free-market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requires that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu fee of $108, 330 (1.57 X $69, 000) for the additional employees. The cash -in -lieu fee is presently in the process of being increased with the adoption of the 1995 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. This could go into effect as early as mid May, which -would require the cash -in -lieu payment of $124,030. POINT'S: Appendix 3 does seem in line with the FTE's required, which represents that the proposed development would increase FTE's by .68 (1.83 - 1.15). The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu payment for 1.57 low income employees, which represents -a 1000 housing mitigation. This results in a score in this category' of 11 points. The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On -site housing; 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu. The Housing Office recommends that the housing mitigation be met on -site. MANAGER'S UNIT: The applicant is requesting that the manager's unit remain in free-market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requests that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The Housing Office recommends deed restricting this manager's unit to Resident Occupied, which limits the unit to occupancy by qualified employees, but not as to price or income limitations. This would also restrict the use and occupancy of the unit to residents and their families who are either employed by the owner or who are residents of Pitkin County and fall within the Housing Authority qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. a If approved as requested and prior to building permit approval, the Housing Office will require the net liveable square footage calculation for the unit, a copy of the floor plans of this unit, and a recorded deed restriction. The Deed Restriction should be obtained from the Housing Office. \word\referral\lauberg.gmq 2 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-213 3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area. (Ord. No. 47-1988, § 8) Sec. 5-213. Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas -that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B.. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwellings and multi -family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed -use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3 of this chapter. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for. the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft in- dustry, visual arts gallery, and provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off-street par -king is pro- vided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be Supp. No. 3 1649 § 5-213 ASPEN CODE restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprvffe a minimum of one-third (I/3) of the total floor area*of the two (2) dwellings. In. the alternative, both may be free market units .if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Day care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street .parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Satellite dish antennae; 7. Reserved; and 8. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5-510. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling. 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 per unit 3 For multi -family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, the fol- lowing square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 2 bedroom: 2,000 3 bedroom: 3,000 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. For multi -family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. Supp. No. 3 1650 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-213 For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 1 bedroom: 600 2 bedroom: 1,000 3 bedroom: 1,500 Units with more -than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when one hun- dred percent (100%) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply. Studio: 300 1 bedroom: 400 2 bedroom: 800 3 bedroom: 1,200 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60 4. Minimum front yard (feet): Principal building: 10 Accessory building: 10 5. Minimum side yard (feet): 5 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal building: 15 Accessory building: 15 7. Maximum height (feet): Principal building: 25 Accessory building: 21 on front 2/3's of lot, 25 on rear I/3 of lot 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Supp. No. 3 1651 § 5-213 ASPEN CODE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Lot Size Allowable . (Square Feet) Square Feet 0-3 000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of floor area. 3,000-6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area; up to a maximum. of 3,240 square feet of floor area. 6,000-9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, plus 14 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,660 square feet of floor area. 9,000-15,000 3,660 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,020 square feet of floor area. 157000-50,000 4,020 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 square feet of floor area. 501000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0-3,000 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area.. 3,000-6,000 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 ' square feet of floor area. 6,000-9,000 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet .)f floor area for each additional 100 square feet. in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. Supp. No. 3 .1652 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-214 Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 9,000-15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area; plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor area. 15,000-50,000 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a° maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor area. 501,000 .1 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. All uses other than detached residential and duplex dwellings: 0.75:1; however, the 0.75:1 external floor area ratio may be increased to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 11. Internal floor area ratio: 0.75:1, increasable to 1:1; however, if the external floor area ratio is increased by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, then sixty (60) s percent of the additional floor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom, fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, for historic landmarks only. 2. Lodge uses: N/A 3. All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area; these spaces may be mitigated via a paym6nt in lieu of off -site parking that is approved by the commission by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. (Ord. No. 47-1988, §§ 2, 5, 7, 16; Ord. No. 6-1989, § 4; Ord. No. 7-1989, § 1; Ord. No. 17-1989, § 2; Ord. No. 35-1992, § 1; Ord. No. 60-1992, § 1) Sec. 5.214. Lodge/tourist Residential (L/TR). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is to en- courage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi -family residential dwell- ings. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Lodge/Tounst Residential (L/TR) zone district. 1. Lodge units; Supp. No. 3 1652.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: Office Zone Text Amendment, Staff Initiated - Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 1995 SUMMARY: Staff recommends to amend the Office zone district to enable retail as a conditional use in Historic Landmarks. STAFF COMMENTS: As part of the recommendation for the AACP and in response to HPC and several property owners along Main Street, staff proposes to amend the Office zone district to enable retail as a conditional use in Historic Landmarks. I. Proposed Text Amendment - Section 24-5-213 Office (0). C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, retail commercial establishment, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery,........ II. Review Criteria - Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment to the text of Chapter 24 are as follows: a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The Historic Preservation program offers many incentives for the restoration and preservation of Historic Landmarks. This text amendment would expand the conditional uses allowed in Historic Landmarks in the Office zone. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The proposal is consistent with the goals identified within the policy in the Design Quality and Historic Preservation 1 section of the AACP: Retain and encourage eclectic and varied businesses along Main Street to maintain and enhance the special character of the historic district. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of land uses. The conditional uses for a Historic Landmark in the office zone district are: antique store, art studio, bakery, bcd and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual -arts gallery,... d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The conditional use review process should address any increase in traffic or parking requirements of the use or change in use that would occur in the Historic Landmark. e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: Specific review of the land use proposal as a conditional use will assess any of these public facility needs. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: N/A g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The AACP recommends the preservation of the diversity of uses on Main Street. In addition, the Historic Preservation Program is an incentive based program to encourage preservation of Historic Landmarks. Enabling a variety of uses within Historic Landmarks provides property owners more economic muscle when considering a costly preservation/restoration program for their structures. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support 2 M the proposed amendment. Response: The AACP has recognized the varied nature of uses along Main Street and the need to strengthen the Main Street business district. In addition, the parking permit program discourages patrons from parking in adjacent residential neighborhoods which was problematic when considering expanded business use of the Main Street. The parking lot shuttle (free every 10 mins.) and further auto disincentives such as enhanced sidewalks on Main Street should encourage more pedestrian use of Main Street. i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in'conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The amendment is consistent with established public policy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to allow a retail commercial establishment as a conditional use in a Historic Landmark in the Office zone district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council approval of the proposed text amendments to allow a retail commercial establishment as a conditional use in a Historic Landmark in the Office zone district. EXHIBITS: A. Office Zone Districtl 3 _-Ev',- -Iq . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: Pitkin County Jail Expansion Final SPA Review and GMQS Exemption FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed Final SPA Development Plan and recommends that an employee mitigation plan be provided prior to review by City Council. APPLICANT: - Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, represented by Temple Glassier. LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 1 of the Pitkin County Center Subdivision is a 1.437 acre parcel which contains the Pitkin County Courthouse and jail facilities. The subject parcel has an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay and is zoned PUB (Public). REQUEST: The applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,500 square feet onto the Pitkin County Jail to provide more space for the Communication and Police Departments, and to add handicapped access to the jail facility. The addition is proposed as a one- story structure attached to the jail, between the jail and the courthouse. Review of the building plans indicate that the Communications Center and three offices will be located in this new area in addition to a small records area. Please see the attached application for proposed site plan and building details that are included in Exhibit "A". PROCESS: This project is being reviewed through the Final SPA review process, since the addition generally complies with the Conceptual SPA plan that was approved in 1982, as permitted by Section 24-7-804 (E) (2) of the Aspen Municipal Code. The applicant is also seeking GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 24-8- 104(C)(1)(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to City Council for the Final SPA Plan and GMQS Exemption for essential public facilities. BACKGROUND: The 1982 Pitkin County Center Subdivision SPA Plan is attached to the memorandum. There were no conditions or representations indicated on the plat or in the project files. E� The 1982 approvals essentially provided for the construction of the jail facility that was finally completed in November 1983. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached to this memo as the following exhibits. Exhibit "B" Engineering Exhibit "C" Housing Office Exhibit "D" Parks The Historic Preservation Officer and Zoning Enforcement Officer indicated they do not have any concerns with this project and have not submitted written comments. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The 1982 Pitkin County Center Subdivision SPA Plan did not address specific enlargement of the jail facility. This proposal is considered a substantial SPA amendment. Substantial amendments to an SPA are accomplished by a review of the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation to City Council through the Final SPA process. It should be noted that all dimensional requirements of the PUB zone district are set by the adoption of the conceptual and final development plans. As stated previously, these items were not called out on the Final SPA Plan or in the record of the original approvals in 1982. The applicant has not proposed to decrease setbacks or increase parking, however, usable open space will be decreased. Specially Planned Area Review Criteria: The following review standards are set forth in Section 24-7-804(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Response: The architecture of the proposed addition will be similar to that of the existing jail structure. The public nature of the land use is compatible with the surrounding public' uses. The addition is proposed to be approximately 15 feet high, whereas the existing jail is about 24 feet high. The total building coverage of this parcel will increase approximately 2.5%. There are presently 24 parking spaces on the property and the applicant is not proposing to add any additional parking. Staff recommends that a bicycle parking area with racks be provided on 2 site to encourage the use of alternative transportation. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: Public facilities and roads are adequate in the vicinity. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: No hazards exist for'the proposed addition, as it is located in a gently sloping area between two existing structures. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Response: There is a trail connection and easement on this property that will not be impacted. The addition is being located in the most usable open space on the parcel. The applicant has not proposed to replace this open space elsewhere on the property. Staff recommends that approximately 1,500 square feet of usable open space be provided elsewhere on the parcel. There will be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this development. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not make specific recommendations regarding a project of this type. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surround- ing neighborhood. Response: Pitkin County will be using public funds to construct the addition. One result of the project will be to bring the Pitkin County Jail into conformance of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing a handicap access ramp to the entrance. The City Parks Department has recommended that the County take over the landscape maintenance responsibilities around the jail. This is recommended as a condition of approval. 3 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 7-903 (B) (2) (b) . Response: All development is proposed on slopes of less than 20%. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: GMQS exemption is sought for this application. Staff has reviewed this in the following section and recommends that an employee mitigation plan be submitted prior to review by City Council. GMQS Exemption for Construction of essential public facilities: This provision of the Aspen Municipal Code is an exemption before City Council. Staff has included it in this memo to provide the applicant with issues that will be raised at the Council meeting, and also to provide the Commission with an understanding of how GMQS is addressed. The criteria for Section 24-8-104 (C) (1) (b) follows: (ii) Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands of growth,, -is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the city. It shall also be taken into consideration whether the development is a not-for=prof it .venture. This exemption shall not be applied to commercial or lodge development,. Response: The Communication Department and the jail are clearly public facilities for the benefit of City and County residents. (ii) A development applicant shall demonstrate that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit services, and the need for basic services including but not limited to water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and .police protection, and solid waste disposal. It shall also be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources, and is visually compatible with surrounding areas. Response: The Communication Department has increased from 12 employees in 1988 to 14 employees in 1995. The applicant has 4 indicated that no new employees are generated by this request for additional space and is therefore not proposing any employee mitigation. The City has consistently applied the housing mitigation requirements to all private developers within the City of Aspen based on the new square footage generated. Based on the requirements of Section 24-8-104 (C) (b) (ii) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following standard shall be used to calculate the number of full-time equivalent employees are generated by the proposed development: Office (0) : 3.00 employees/1,000 sq.ft. (net leasable) The applicant is proposing 1,500 sq.ft. which would generate 4.5 employees. The Code requires that 60% of employees generated by' mitigated by providing any of the following: on -site housing, off - site housing including the buydown concept, cash -in -lieu, or land - in -lieu. This addition requires 2.7 employees to be mitigated. The applicant has not proposed any additional parking spaces with the new development, although there are 18 outdoor and 6 indoor spaces on the property. A 1,500 sq.ft. addition in the O (Office) zone district would require 4.5 parking spaces to be provided on - site or mitigated at $15,000 per space. Dimensional requirements are determined in the Final SPA plan. The Planning Commission should made a specific recommendation to City Council on the provision of off-street parking spaces for this project. Staff believes that the applicant should also provide a bicycle parking area for use by the public and employees of the courthouse and jail facility. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed SPA amendment to add approximately 1500 square feet of space to the jail subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall replace the approximately 1,500 square feet of lost usable open space on another portion of the property. 2. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the SPA Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be required before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. This plan shall identify the new addition, delineate existing parking spaces, shall show trash, recycle and utility areas, and bicycle parking areas. This plan shall be approved by the 5 City Engineer and Planning Office. Y 3. The architectural plans dated March 1, 1995 by Caudill Gustafson & Associates Architects indicate the location, size, and height of the proposed addition, and shall be used to t determine the dimensional requirements of this request. Any changes to these plans will be subject to Section 24-7-804(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code. 4. Snow must not be plowed into the park area north of the jail as this pushes road gravel into the park and breaks the sprinkler heads. 5. The County shall take over maintenance of landscape and irrigation of all property around the jail, including the triangle to the north. Parks will facilitate the switchover of this obligation. 6. Prior to 1st reading by City Council, the applicant shall submit a housing mitigation plan to be reviewed by Planning and the Housing office. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a storm runoff plan prepared by a registered engineer must be submitted to the City Engineer. This plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site as provided for in Section 24-7-1004 (C) (4) (f) of the City Code. 8. The applicant shall consult with the City Electric Superintendent prior to the issuance of a building permit and provide electric load information in order to determine if a transformer easement is need on the site. 9. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for construction of right-of- way improvements. 10. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 11. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. 6 Attachments: blue print drawings of proposed addition Exhibits: ."A" Application and maps "B" Engineering "C" Housing Office "D" Parks 7 Exhibit A icing a/r Ila � \ z, it .� � N"'V I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no J V1, N rr ---, C! 1. N L/I v/. � �� � ', �j � aCl� .�; .��. i „��`�� %.< \•�.r'` •Y '�•� �� /* 4-j N .7 ST CO3 -Z-j. , J -jr, L cot, —.j V ;;Z-4 f 7 Of L---7 C00,P18 It 6- -40 Lj a, �; s % March 7, 1995 Aspen/Pitkin County 130 S . Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Planning Office Pitkin County RE: PITKIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION SPA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter as Pitkin County's formal submission materials for the Addition to the Pitkin County Jail to be constructed this year. APPROVAL PROCESS AND SUBMISSION CONTENTS Pitkin County, as developer of the project, is required to submit the project to review in accordance with the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 8-104 (C)(1)(b), 7-903 (B) and SPA Development Application. The project can be summarized as follows: 1) PITKIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION: Pitkin County proposes to add 1500 additional square feet to the existing Pitkin County Jail to provide' more space for the Communication and Police Record Departments and for handicap access to the Pitkin County Jail. Attached as Exhibit A is a more detailed description of the proposed improvements. COMPLIANCE WITH POLICIES AND GENERAL REGULATIONS The following is a description of how the project complies with the policies and general regulations of the Land Use Code: 8-104 (C) (1) (b) Exemption by city council - Construction of essential public facility The Pitkin County Jail, 515 E Bleeker, currently houses three public departments; Aspen/Pitkin County Communications, Aspen/Pitkin County Police Records and the Pitkin County Jail. These departments are essential to Pitkin County and the City of Aspen. These departments serve the needs of the City of Aspen for emergency response and public safety of the general public. This development is not associated with growth of employees but with growth of services. The current communication department is housed in 456 square feet in the middle of the jail. This is not adequate space for the equipment and people to perform the duties that Communications is currently performing for Pitkin County, the City of Aspen and other entities within the Roaring Fork Valley. This development will not generate the need for additional parking, road and transit services, or basic service needs. The addition will be visually compatible with the surrounding Courthouse Campus. Administration 530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5200 FAX 920-5198 County Commissioners Suite B 506 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5150 County Attorney Suite 1 530 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5190 Personnel and Finance Suite F 530 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5220 Transportation Facilities 76 Service Center Road Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5390 ea printed on recycled paper 7-903 (B) Construction of essential public facilities: The development is for growth of the Communication Department in a matter of equipment and handicap accessibility. The Communications department serves the public as an information and emergency response center. This addition will be constructed due to the growth in the equipment needed to run this facility and the need for handicap accessibility to the Pitkin County Jail. There will not be an increase in the employee base, therefore no need for additional parking, road and transit services. The Pitkin County Jail fits the -description of an essential public facility, as it is used to provide services essential to the health, safety an welfare of the residents and visitors of Pitkin County. SPA Development Application - Attachment 4 1. The proposed development is compatible with the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk architecture, landscaping and open space. This is only an addition to the current Pitkin County Jail which is part of the Courthouse campus. All the buildings around the Jail are public facilities. The height, bulk and architecture will be the exact replica of the existing building. Landscaping will be preformed to put the Jail yard back the way it currently is. 2. The facility will use the public facilities and roads that currently exist. All are sufficient for this relatively small addition. 3. The proposed development is on a parcel with less than 20 % slope. There will not be the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche danger and flood hazards. 4. The proposed development is a small addition that fills in a corner of the existing Jail. There will not be an impact on view plans or an adverse environmental impact. There is be a minimal impact on open space. 5. The proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. There is not any designated open space within the Courthouse Campus. This addition to the Jail will not disturb the special character of the historic district. The Aspen Area Community Plan doesn't specifically address public facilities. 6. This proposed development will not require excessive public funds but will provide a public facility that will conform to the physical requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . Currently, public access to the Pitkin County Jail does not conform to the ADA requirements. 7. The parcel on which the development will be happening is less that 20 % slope so maximum density is allowed. 8. The project proposes to be exempt from the GMQS allotment requirements because: N a) it is planned to be a public facility owned and operated by Pitkin County, Colorado, a public entity; b) no new employees will be added to the Communications department because of this project. The improvements are being done to adequately house the existing equipment and to conform with the requirements of the ADA. This concludes the application submission for this project. Thank you for accepting this application. If you have any questions concerning the application, or require further information, please contact me at 920-5211. Sincerely, PITKIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY Temple L. G1asgt r, roject Manager 3 ATIACHME NT 1 ZAND USE AP TCATION F1CW 1) Project. Name_ PITKIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION:/'% 2) Project Iocation 515 E BLEEKER;. ASPEN CO BLOCK:JA 7 LOT 1 ( indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning SPA 4) Iot Size 1. 4 4 ACRES 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ebcne # PITKIN COUNTY, 530 E MAIN, 3RD ASPEN CO 81611 920-5211 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # TEMPLE GLASSIER, 530 E MAIN 3RD FL, ASPEN CO 81611 920-5211 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use X . Conceptual SPA Cam eptzial Hist '-ox. i_c De•r... Special Review 8040- Greenl.ine • Mountain View Plane dominimization ?port Split/1-at Lim Adjusbw-nt X Final SPA Conoeptial PUD Final PUD Subdivision Tlext/Map Final Historic `3i ev. Minor.Iii.storic ..;&v. Historic, Demolition HistcriC Designati cn• e GMSAllotment 8) Description of Uses (rimber. and' type. of eDdztincj 5tmct�m� • •"• •! tl • s• III • - of 1 O•t • • Ii.. -any previous• • • • . • G• • •'• - P tkfih":•County Jail is one building that houses 24 inmates. 12 '.Detention officer, 16 Dispatchers, and 3 Police records people.. There are beds for the inmates. square feet 9) Description of. Development Application Requesting approval for a -1500 .square foot addition to house the Communicdtions department acid to make the Pitkin County Jail handicap accessible for the public and the staff that works there. Response to At-tacbment 2, Mininum Submission Contents x Response to ttadmient 3, Specific Submission Cmtents X Response to Attacbment 4,, Review Standards for Your Application 77, vy y ti+ ► �yr .<r ri e t • e vr; J�nl� i.t . i i- - At cz.. A 3i�k f I 9 ir•d«r • raof ' '• � I . so 9 P • I �� � i �� � A I - -1 - - - ------------ �':•a � - ----- E' F• d� I o a or-- -- —L tl i o' a ~ Ph i / ills 133lJ1S �-�13'I�D � I • Exhibit B To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Cl� Date: April 12, 1995 Re: Pitkin County Jail Addition SPA Development Review (515 East Bleeker Street, Lot 2, Pitkin County Center Subdivision) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Drainage - The application does not discuss site drainage. If the project is approved, a storm runoff plan must be prepared by a registered engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site as provided for in Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f of the City Code. 2. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The applicant must consult with the City Electric. Superintendent prior to issuance of a building permit and provide electric load information in order to determine if a transformer easement is needed on the site. 3. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 4. Parking - The application does not state how many employees currently work in the Communication and Records Departments. A statement in writing should be required in order to track the representation about not increasing employee numbers. A condition of approval should be that if additional employees are added to the space in the future that parking will be provided for or a cash -in -lieu provided. J 5. Site Design - The City and the County have been working together for some time regarding land ownerships in the vicinity and deed exchanges, including the library, the parking garage, and the Youth Center. There is a parcel of City property behind the jail which would be a preferable location for the proposed addition. The proposed addition would greatly detract from the quality of the existing open space that is an important part of the ambiance of the library, parking plaza., Youth Center, jail and Courthouse. It is recommended that the land exchange be completed and the addition constructed on the back side, the Rio Grande Place side of the jail. The application does not propose subgrade development which would also help in reducing above grade impacts and bulk. Subgrade spaces are especially suitable for storage. 6. Bike Racks - These are not discussed and perhaps should be required. 7. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. 8. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Cris Caruso John Worcester Temple Glassier M95.90 2 0 APR W " S5 07 - ;37NM ASPEN HOUSING CIF C: P.I Exhibit. C TO: Mary Lackner, Planning office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 7, 1995 RE: Pitkin Couaty Fail, A44ition Conceptual SPA Review Parcel TIC No. 2737-075-47-551 Z TZ .- The County is proposing to add 1,500 additional square feet to the existing Pitkin County Jiil to provide more space for the Communication and Police Record ljppart.ments and to provide handicap access per the American Did abilities Act ( ) . BACKGROUND:, The jail would be blassified as an essential public facilities. Pursuant to Section 8-104► C, b, Ui) ; A development applimnt stall demonstrate the impacts of the essential public 'facility will be mitigated, including those assuelateo with the generation of additional employers, the demand far parking, road and transit services, arrd the need for basic services including but not limited to water supply, j;wage treatment, drainage control, fire and policy protection, and solid waste disposal, It shall be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources, and is visually compatible with surrounding areas. REEaten though the j ail is an essential public facility, according to Scotian 8•-104, C, b, (ii) , the County still has to mitigate for housing- The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development; Office (0) ; 3.00 81#playeas/1, 000 square feet. (net leasable) 3 : 1F 000 X 1,500 square felt 4.5 employeas that need to be mitigated The Housing Board has establis ed priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines re ardidq mitigating affordable housing impacts . The priorities are as follows 1. On -site housing 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu. ref erral\ j a.i 1. mit APR .12 ' 95 2 : 53FT1 P.I Exhibit D MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner, Planning ()Tlce FROM. Toni RuWl, Irrigation Coordinator DATE: April 12, 1995 RE; Pid n Comty Bait Addition Conceptual SPA Rcviow The Parks Mpa hmnt has rcvit�%ved the plans for the Pitkin County tail Addition and leas tho follovaing concerns: 1) Povislion needs w be m4do for piles of straw from plowhig. Snow must nQt be plowed into ft perk arca north of tfte jail as this pusks road gravel into the park and breaks the sprinkler head. 2) The County needs to take, over maintcwmof4arKiscape aril. irrigation of au pm' aq around the jail, including twiangle to the north.. PKks wili f at, to the mittchover of this obligation. 1 tot D A PLACE PURPOO WMA ol I I up :! .16� L�U BE 01' AY P M N ti �mc At, Iod.' April 4, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I certify that as of this date, the below item was mailed to the individuals (surrounding the subject property) on the up -dated list (March 26, 1995) provided to this office by Pitkin County Title. PUBLIC NOTICE ZE: 1994 METRO AREA TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (GM S) ALLOTMENTS DAVI D GIBSON. AIA AUGUST RENO, AIA SCOTT SMITH. AIA �.•,411�I dllllllll I�I�I�; .��:,�rx'r��b,�9 :fUOTA 40TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on L'uesday, April 18, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 P.M. before 210 E. HYMAN hE .)int Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission, 2nd lc Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to N°2o2 ;on5lder the following application submitted for 1994 GMQS ASPEN allotments for tourist accommodations in the Metro area. 1. ADO L'AUBERGE LODGE: ALH Holding Company is requesting GMQS coLOR allotments for tourist accomodations to add twelve new guest 81611 cabins on the property. The applicants are also requesting the following: amendments to Section 24-5-213 (C) of the City 303.925.5968 of Aspen Municipal Code to include "lodge" as a conditional use in the Office zone district and also to allow retail use FACSIMILE in historic landmarks as a conditional use in the office zone 303.925.5993 district; and conditional use review approval for a lodge in the Office zone district. The property is located at 435 W. Main St.; Lots A - I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin �.o.8 �ommunity Development Department, 130 S. Galena 117NWILLOW ILL St. Aspen, CO No 2 920-5101 s/Bruce Kerr & Jody Edwards, Chairs Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission TELLURIDE ORADO Published in the Aspen Times on April 1, 1995 co881435 435 City of Aspen Account 303.728.6607 Z //4 FACSIMILE Notary 303.728.6658 MY COMMISSION EXPIRFS- June 24, 1998 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CITY/COUNTY JOINT GROWTH APRIL 18, 1995 MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr. Answering roll call for the City were Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, and Steve Buettow. Jasmine Tygre, Robert Blaich, and Marta Chaikovska were excused. Answering roll call for the County were Suzanne Caskey, George Krazoff, David Guthrie, Shellie Harper, G. Steve Whipple, and Cathy Tripodi. Excused were Jack Hatfield and Jake Vickery and Ben Dorman. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. 1994 GM_S TOURIST ACCOMMODATION - L'AUBERGE LODGE Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing and requested Leslie Lamont to proceed. Leslie Lamont: There is one item on the agenda for the joint Growth Management Commission to review and score. The application is requesting a 1994 lodge allocation, and they are requesting 12 lodges. She submitted for public record to the clerk, Affidavit and Proof of Public Noticing (attached in record) . Lamont said that there was a possibility that applicant will be making amendments to their applicant and would come forth in their presentation to the commissions. However, she said she would make her presentation based upon the application submitted. In presentation, she stated the applicant is requesting 12 lodge units and there are currently 9 cabins on site, with 1 manager's residence. There are fireplaces and wood stoves in the cabins and in the manager's residence. The applicant is proposing to expand their lodge use within the office zone district. Right now, a lodge is not an allowed use in the office zone district, and as part of further review of this application by the City P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18. 1995 Commission, the applicant will be pursuing a text amendment to allow lodge use in the office zone district. They will also be seeking a Conditional Use Review by the P&Z Commission for the lodge. Lamont said the criteria to be scored is: 1. Revitalizing the permanent community. A strong emphasis is placed on family -oriented housing. The application, when submitted, proposed a cash -in -lieu payment to mitigate their employee housing needs. Their cash -in -lieu payment far exceeded the minimum requirement of providing housing for the increase in employees. It was nearly 100 per cent. 2. Providing transportation alternatives. Applicants have stated will provide a fleet of bicycles for guest residents and employees, and a "curbside service" for guests, so that guests do not have to rent a car, they will provide bus passes for employees, and the applicant's prime location on Main Street is the primary bus route from the City and the County and there is currently a RFTA bus stop on the site. Applicant has provided a nice little bench at the bus stop. It is proposed by applicant to provide on parking space per cabin. 3. Promoting an environmentally sustainable development. Applicant included materials that would be used in construction and feels are environmentally sensitive. Applicant is not proposing the heat any of the parking pads or driveways, and will not install air conditioners. Applicant has emphasized they will have bicycles, new cabins will be installed with gas log fireplaces. There is one wood stove, 7 wood -burning fireplaces on the property in individual cabins. The application, as proposed, does not change what presently exists in regard to the wood -burning in the present units, only in the new units. 4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and Community character. This site is on -Main Street, and is considered an historic district, and has been reviewed by the HPC. The character is very pedestrian -friendly, the site plan has small cottages and compatiable with historic setting. Lamont said that in three of the four categories, staff scored applicant less than threshold. Presentation was then made by Gideon Kaufman, attorney, presenting 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 the applicants, ALH Holding. Kaufman introduced Dave Gibson, architect on the project, Jay Hammond, who has worked on the engineering, Tracy and Michael, managers of the Lodge, and Audrey, the owner. Kaufman said that this project was slightly different from what one is used to seeing. It was a project to preserve cabins, vintage 1950's, and incorporate design and structure around the cabins. Emphasis on preserving the small lodge and uniqueness qualities were pointed out. Dave Gibson, architect, also made presentation to give physical understanding of what was being done architecturally in terms of construction on the site. He pointed out some of the character of the Lodge such as: small seating areas and flower boxes in windows, small-scale architecture, preservation of mature aspens, cottonwoods, pines and lilacs, parking spaces allow the grass to come through, gardens and walkways. Spacing between buildings was pointed out -open space vistas. The Site Plan was viewed, as well as other architectural maps in summary. Kaufman went over criteria 1 as first issue. He stressed the fact that applicant mitigated almost 100 per cent of cash -in lieu, and applicant is willing to take one of the units and convert to affordable housing and did not meet threshold with staff scoring. The second issue of providing transportation alternatives, Kaufman added that the lodge is willing to provide sidewalks on both sides of the site. The applicant chose to ask for one parking space per cabin next to each cabin. Kaufman went to criteria 3, promoting environmentally sustainable development. Again, he pointed out also the applicant will pave the alleys and eliminate the tremendous amount of dirt at the site. One of the criticisms of the project has to do with the fireplaces that the applicant is not proposing to eliminate, and Kaufman defended the fact that one does not want take away those amenities that make a small lodge desirable; wood -burning fireplaces being one of those amenities. Chairman Kerr: What is the heat source in both the old cabins and the new cabins? Is there heat available in each of the units beyond the wood -burning fireplaces? Gibson: Natural gas. In terms of criteria 4, maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character, Kaufman stated discussion was open before scoring. 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18. 1995 Harper asked what would happen with the manager's residence. Kaufman stated that the manager's residence is on one portion of separate property and the lodge is on the other. What the applicant is doing is combining the two together, but wishes to reserve the option to sell the manager's residence as a house in the future. Kaufman stated also that the applicant is eliminating one of the three existing curb -cuts and will grass it over, reducing by 33 per cent, the amount of curb -cuts that exist onto Main Street. Mooney asked if the applicant intended to condominiumize the project and sell individually. Kaufman did say at one time the owners looked at the option before this application, but determined not to do so. Mooney expressed concern regarding the environment, nature of the design, and made it very clear that if the design was going to stand with him, it would have to remain and long° -range qualities maintained. Kaufman defended applicant stating that all the applicant was trying to do was keep flexibility and preserve options in the future should the City decide to offer such options. It is not part of the applicant proposal at this time to condominiumize. Lamont stated that any substantial changes in the use of the site would open it up for re -scoring and/or amendment for conditional use review. Chairman Kerr asked applicant and staff, what kind of buildings could we be potentially looking at on this site if property was redeveloped as office? Kaufman: It is a .75 in the 0 office zone, up to one to one, so you could have a 27,000 sq. ft. building on this property, instead you are ending up with .34. You are ending up with a third of what would be appropriate. Lamont added that in addition the maximum height in the office zone district is 25 ft. and another important aspect is there is no open space requirement. Chairman Kerr asked what were the setback requirements. Lamont answered the minimum front yard is 10 ft. The applicant is requesting a variance to the Board of Adjustment of 1-1/2 ft. Chairman Kerr asked how to insure the shuttle service would continue in the future. Kaufman thought it would be a condition of approval that the shuttle would stand. Harper suggested that a free taxi to and from the airport for guests might be a cheaper solution; she felt committed that people have free transportation to the lodge. Caskey stated concern regarding the wood -burning fireplaces in the 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 present units and asked if gas appliances could replace them; Kaufman stated that the applicant did not want to lose the nature of what brings people to the lodge - the wood -burning fireplaces. At this particular time to commit to eliminating the fireplaces was not feasible, but perhaps sometime in the future. Chairman Kerr opened public comment and Lisa York, and 5 month resident of Aspen who resided at the lodge, spoke in support of the expansion of the lodge. Steve Goldenberg, a neighbor of the lodge, also spoke and was supportive of the lodge and the transportation issues. He felt the project represented the community and was pleasant. Doug ( ? ), a businessman in Aspen, has brought several large groups into Aspen to stay at the L'Auberge. Recently, the lodge has not had the capacity to hold. the groups and he was in favor of the expansion. Chairman Kerr then closed the public hearing. Kaufman went through areas where the applicant is amending the application and requested flexibility in decisions of scoring. First area the applicant is amending has to do with affordable housing. There is a proposal for cash -in -lieu for about 100 per cent of the employees. Second, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the curb -cut, add sidewalks, in addition to the bicycles, curb -side service and a streetlight. Third, applicant proposes to pave the alley and pave and eliminate the dust problem that now exists. Last, applicant is willing to eliminate one fireplace. Scoring commensed by paper. Whipple chose not to vote. Buettow chose not to vote due to conflict of interest, for the -record. Five county members and four city members voted, totaling nine. Lamont did scoring count and passed to Chairman Kerr. The applicant made above threshold in all categories; 3.7, 3.5, 3.7, 4.4. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend to City Council application has met threshold in all four of its categories and recommends a 1994 Lodge Allocation from City Council for 11 units. Guthrie seconded, roll call vote was unanimous, motion carried. MOTION Caskey moved to eliminate Conditions of Planning Office memorandum dated April 18, 1995 as purpose of meeting was to score, that was done, applicant already made representations and amendments and is expected to adhere to those. Tripodi seconded, vote was unamimous, motion carried. 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Hunt moved to recommend to City Council to decide regarding on site housing versus and/or cash -in -lieu, and if decision is that housing shall not be placed on the property and City Council accepts cash - in -lieu instead, that one unit be allocated from the 1995 Lodge Growth Management Allocation. This Commission recognizes that this is a small lodge project and is at a disadvantage with the present growth management quota system; so, therefore, it would be very burdensome for this applicant to have to return to compete. Tripodi seconded, vote commensed, eight favored, Krazoff opposed, motion carried. 10i7000iN� Guthrie moved to recommend to City Council to not accept cash -in - lieu, but that they decide to convert housing; recommends Category 2 or 3 also, and accept an on -site unit number 7 as mitigation. Krazoff seconded. Roll call vote commensed; motion was split, 4 approved, 4 opposed (Caskey, Tripodi, Hunt, Mooney), with one abstention (Harper). Motion failed to carry. Chairman Kerr adjourned the first meeting of the Joint Growth Management Commission. Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr. In attendance were: Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney and Steve Buettow. Excused were Jasmine Tygre, Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. There were none. There were no comments. There were none. STAFF COMMENTS; PUBLIC COMMENTS %ff1rrrrrmV0 L'AUBERGE TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Leslie Lamont, Staff Planning Office, made presentation. The applicants are partially zoned office, and are proposing to keep the property zoned office, however, they are proposing a text amendment to the office zone district to allow a lodge as a conditional use on Main Street. Lamont stated her memorandum had two sections: a Text Amendment for lodge as a conditional use and also the Conditional Use Review, and recommends approval of the text amendment, but recommends tabling the Conditional Use Review. Chairman Kerr asked why not table the whole proposal as he was reluctant to draft text amendments on :this one particular lodge when it may effect other lodges. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated the importance of the approved text amendment and Conditional Use Review in terms of the time element and the goal to start construction before next year. Garton and Mooney voiced concern about more kitchens in the new units and Lamont informed Garton decisions would come under Conditional Use Review. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Chairman Kerr asked for any public comment in regard to amending the land use code to allow lodges as a conditional use in the office zone district. There were no comments; Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. Mr)rr T r)WT Garton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the text amendment, amending Section 24-5-213, to allow a lodge, and a lodge unit with kitchens as a Conditional Use Review in the Office Zone District. Hunt seconded, roll call vote commenced; vote was split 2 approved, 2 opposed (Kerr and Mooney). Motion not carried. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the text amendment, amending Section 24-5-213, to allow a lodge as a Conditional Use Review in the Office Zone District. Mooney seconded, roll call vote commenced; 3 approved, l opposed (Kerr). Motion carried. Chairman Kerr brought forth item of Conditional Use and Lamont recommended tabling as she has not seen, nor has the engineering department, the revised site plan for the project. The applicant is proposing to reduce one of the parking spaces on site and that needs to be addressed with some form of special review. Neither Lamont or the parks department has seen a landscape plan, and Lamont felt the project has been very rushed and to approve as a conditional use, she reiterated tabling. MOTION Hunt moved to table action on the L'Auberge Conditional Use Review to May 9th, hopefully at the beginning of the agenda, to allow applicant and staff to work out solutions to the application; to continue the public hearing. Garton seconded, vote commensed and was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Stan Clauson presented staff initiated text amendment. Clauson recommended to amend the office zone district to expanding retail as a conditional use in Historic Landmarks. Mooney voiced opposition to the proposal stating he was concerned about losing 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 1995 the historic value as "retail" is so wide open. Garton asked if there were any other areas other than Main Street that have historic landmarks in the office zone district. Lamont answered that the majority of the historic landmarks were in the C-1 zone district. Parking issues, foot -traffic along Main Street, were also concerns of the commission. Buettow questioned if the commission should be placed in position to judge this application, and Hunt stated their were difficulities, and sited Pierre Famille Jewelry as inappropriate for C-1 zoning, as an example. Hunt felt it was becoming more difficult to. deny such applications for the commission. Mooney stated he felt that the application was pushing growth into an area where it is not needed and not in the best interest of the community. Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. INMU"•" Mooney moved to recommend to City Council that we deny the proposed text to allow retail commercial establishments, and as an amendment to allow retail commercial establishments as a conditional use in historic landmark and office zone district. Buettow seconded, vote commenced, 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Motion did not carry. MOTION Hunt moved to forward the office zone text amendment forward to City Council with a recommendation that in Paragraph IC-1, instead of retail commercial establishments being a separate enity in that group of established commercial activities, that it be placed at the end after visual arts gallery and similar retail establishments. It was not seconded. Motion did not carry. PITKIN COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION FINAL SPA REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION Mary Lackner, Planning Office, presented. Temple Glassier represented the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. The applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,500 square feet onto the Pitkin County Jail to provide more space for the communication and police departments. The Commission viewed the Site Plan and Hunt agreed that the communications space is definitely cramped and an absolute essential for expansion, with currently only 456 square feet. Hunt felt his only problem with the application was the flat roof with no depression with three major air handling units there. He felt that would be very unsitely and recommended blending the roof treatment into the new building and it would also create screening 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 1995 of all the equipment on top of the roof. Garton agreed, but voiced concerns on possible spoiling of the "plaza experience", and how close it would be to the Courthouse. Glassier stated that the site was the only feasible place to put the addition to the jail. Buettow stated he felt the addition was poorly thought out and being next to the Library, Courthouse, it needed more work. MOTION Buettow moved to table the application until the earliest date possible, when the commission can view some thorough drawings of the adjacent buildings and if the proposal would fit into that entire plaza area. Garton seconded, vote commensed, all were in favor; motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 4 SITE VISIT 5:00 PM Aspen Center for Physics ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- A G E N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 25, 1995, Tuesday 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment, Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review, Kim Johnson (Tabled on April 4) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Boogies GMQS Exemption for Change in Use, Mary Lackner V. OLD BUSINESS A. Pitkin County Jail Expansion SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption, Mary Lackner (continued from 4/18) VI. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: April 25, 1995 Regular Meeting - May 2 Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Review & GMQS Exemption (LL) Aspen Theatre in the Park Final SPA (KJ) Trueman Lot 1 SPA Use Variations & Conditional Use Review (KJ) Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review (ML) Moore Conditional Use Review for ADU & Stream Margin Review (LL) Water Place AH SPA Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review & Special Review (KJ) Overlay Committee - May 3 Nichols (KJ) Hirschfield (KJ) Hirsch (LL) special Meeting - May 9 Code Amendments re: FAR & Design Review (LL) L'Auberge Conditional Use Review (LL) Water Place (continued PH if. needed) (KJ) GMQS Commission - May 16, 4:OO PM Water Place GMQS Exemption (KJ) Regular Meeting - May 16, 5:00 PM Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL) Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL) Aspen School District Text Amendments (ML) Text Amendment for Temporary Sale Signs (KJ) Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL) Overlay Committee - May 30 Regular Meeting - June 6 Stauffer Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) Nichols Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: April 25, 1995 Re: Aspen Center for Physics - Continued Public Hearing: Final SPA Development Plan and Amendment of the Aspen Meadows SPA, Growth Management Exemption, and Special Review for Parking in the Academic Zone SITE VISIT FOR THIS PROJECT ON TUESDAY, APRIL 25. VAN POOL LEAVES CITY HALL ALLEY PROMPTLY AT 5:00. UPDATE: When this item was first presented to the P&Z on April 4, 1995, Planning staff did not support the building and site design as presented. The primary issues were: - The proposed structure was incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood because of its length, linearity and repetition of windows and materials. The proximity of the new building to the adjacent single family lot and the zero side yard setback was incompatible. - The proposed trail and ditch location along the west side of the building did not provide adequate width for a reasonable trail experience or ditch function/maintenance . In addition, staff believed that the applicant should develop a traffic mitigation plan similar to that implemented by the Institute and MAA. It should also address construction traffic mitigation. On April 12, Brad Zeigel presented six additional design schemes to the HPC. These designs, including the original plan, are attached to this memo as Exhibit "A". The HPC discussed the various concepts with wide ranging comments. The commissioners passed a motion reflecting that: 1. The existing path from Gillespie to the Race Track should be retained in an open condition. 2. The P&Z should review the proposal in light of and in the spirit of the Neighborhood Character Guidelines, particularly that new buildings should be similar in scale to those in the establiF,hed neighborhood, set the greater mass back from the street to reduce its perceived scale, and divide larger projects into modules. 1 3. The landscaping plan is very important to the project and neighborhood. The HPC did not make a recommendation on a specific alternative to P&Z. Harry Teague and Brad Zeigel then met with staff on April 14 to seek input on which alternative would be most supported by Planning. They explained that the Aspen Center for Physics still strongly desired the original plan "A", but if forced to rank the other plans, they would chose plans "B" and "C" as second and third choices. Both "B" and "C" will be staked with story poles for the Commission's site visit. The applicant's believe that these two plans preserve a desired building entry area relative to the street. Plan "B" reflects the same layout and location, but is reduced in width by 20 feet. This reduction is pulled from the western edge of the site and would allow for more room for the ditch and pathway. The building would still be 227 feet long. Staff is concerned that this length is still very long and does not relate well to the residential neighborhood across the street. Plan "C" shows the structure separated into three buildings. The center building would move toward North Street approximately 25 feet. This may be a concern to the neighbors across North Street. Mr. Teague and staff recognize that the western building would have to move further from the property line to accommodate the trail and ditch. The applicants do not strongly desire this option because it physically divides the buildings and allows penetration of the "circle of serenity" between the structures. Additionally, the current project is intended to be a replacement for Hilbert Hall facilities. However, the Master Plan states in the "Facilities Programs" section for the Center for Physics: "Hold out possibility for development of NASA or other scientific Research Facility." They feel that the multiple structures with plan "C" may preclude future addition of a building(s) as discussed in the Meadows Master Plan. Regarding the traffic mitigation plan, Mr. Teague explained in further detail the bicycle program, and information distributed to the program's participants. This will be presented at the meeting. SUMMARY: Subject to a final determination based on the site visit, the Planning Office supports approval of Scheme "B" or "C", and prefers Scheme "C" above the other alternatives. Recommended conditions of approval are: 1. The six space parking area in the Sixth Street right-of-way shall be eliminated. 2,1 2. The 20 space parking area shall be improved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Recycled asphalted gravel or similar low -dust material shall be used. At least one handicap accessible parking space should be provided in this lot. 3. Any increase in storm run-off must be contained on the property. 4. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for construction. of right-of- way improvements. 5. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall sign a curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement and provide recording fees for the agreement. 7. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or similar equipment must be installed on an easement on the property, not in the public right-of-way. 8. Trash/recycle areas must be shown on the final development plan. These areas cannot block access to utility meters or equipment. 9. Bike racks shall be shown on the final development plan. 10. The revised SPA Plan must include a signature block for the Sanitation District approving the sewer relocation. 11. No digging shall occur within the driplines of the existing trees. Barricades must be erected prior to any construction activity on the site. The applicant must work closely with Parks staff during construction to implement tree protection measures. 12. The project representative shall contact the Sanitation District to review abandonment requirements for the Hilbert Hall service lines. 13. Fees for Sanitation District reviews and construction observation must be submitted well in advance of building permit issuance to insure adequate review time and observation scheduling. 14. The ditches need a separate minimum easement width of three 3 feet. There shall be at least 15 feet between the building and the property line to comfortably accommodate both a trail and ditch. 15. The trail at Sixth Street needs to be extended northeast to Gillespie Avenue for connection to the MAA area. 16. Any trees within the construction area must be protected with barricades at the driplines. Any exposed roots must be protected during construction per Parks staff direction. 17. The ditch/berm conflict shown in the open space on the south side of the building must be resolved. 18. The applicant must verify that the proposed pond is acceptable per the District Water Commissioner. 19. The proposed spruce trees in the Gillespie right-of-way must be eliminated or replaced with deciduous species. 20. The applicant shall present a traffic mitigation plan (including construction related traffic) to the Community Development Office and Planning and Zoning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of any building permits for this site. 21. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 22. The amended SPA Development Plan shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the amended SPA Development Plan within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be required before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Aspen Center for Physics' Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan shown in Scheme "C", with the conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated 4/25/94. I also move to approve Growth Management Exemption and Special Review for Parking in the Academic Zone." Exhibit "A" - Design Schemes A-G 4 CC 'n Z O / cn �, •�py .., co t,.. C1 R n��tttt j' � .r,.l�l;-•f:'�i� l.. L (;r:V .•� .., ...J :..••:` I � � � iP � �-.-.,� � �, ,,-� _ �.. �t � � • �= '�-, ` 111 t- • / // /it cl � \ i'' -- .. �� � 'i ��-A- _...- �! '.�• "i\-=vt �R�.-_ \� �,,= y,�_ �i, •� 1 .••d'I `� ' t`t��` t\�t II �, .i tll '/''' ��/ .. � � '�..J"' r� oyM^�T � i �1 �•tt ti +\'r lJ' t,,`�y/% ; li � �'•f '. till cw� )� Jew \ �� r ;t'�! t'`: �'"' - �_'' ''• / f , Ill PHI /10 �� //. �j.�i;�•t, �/ ice\ •- \`--i' 1 J�\� ��/ ��.i � _,.r-••• �t r i I �I � i %, ,, �� �� /t/II//�✓/%� ��' `��- �\\ / � f'c 1 `, - ,C/• `�-''S q.t•• '7'�.I � j �/ rl r da,E �� 1, •f � I , t I1�I II,IIII � �II � J M �, off/ 1, \�-� ` ti� \�� • I ( `/' C a r. V-1 N n o s w 0 ow CIJ V La CD r ` -/' .. f�", _ r, � � \ _ \•�}� �1�} � 5 JIB � . /• / ' ,_. _--.__—._....—__ 1.�...\ \�` • :O�\ l�' ��' / j / ,�yy--�� \'sir t��,.,�. •ir,� i ' I' �� 1/1 � j .., � � �/'•`•,�.1� ip, \•_ice-•�'•\�\ ✓ �.f/_,,. �� �`._t`, '�1�1 �,1 11 � } � t'I 't• � % ��•/'� J �^-� "!. �' � ti. i.1 '`...\.S � _•f y• '~ � ICI \ �" ,. , _ .•�, �--- , � �" •,1: '��`; `,�';, �//�' ` Ili I''1 \ >\ % � _ :' . � � ,. \\;_,, � • / . ,��. ,• .,,��. Ili 1 , ��.. I i 1 z \\ A �iil I II�II 1 � � _ .• � '� (�^' \ %�, :r i �\ ' err F .,� • � j r O Ottaj' N \ _ ti /lN-'''��� `\ Y� 1/`•t'r \i ' l , j• C;l 1ji1 - 'O- ti d t A R.Za. co LU a. ����r�c nvco s .-` . . � `r���\.>f�i �.. —�x\' G •..\�,.: i... `�•�. � ..ti, . �. ; ; • • i I I \, ` •�. OM 71 Ile fill ss=�` / �� JY _ �f �.� s�i {� ;. I ''�S l.._s.Y \• I , ,• `I i ;, I ;' . - xOv% err .vi Jh, r � > r i / r,,, � �® /� III (I •\ , . • \\ C �x rr �•. •:7 `IV, illy" �"- C' \C• \ _ r�\ �I)I I j 1 /// / / � �•�_ '�_.. _I I // /.. / as f/..>.' v 1 / 1 \` //ice\ '`�_ ,�-.� \ - � / � �J('F, �) ,�, ,,,,,� •n."� I , i i I� � as � I ji li _'- -,.. O.-ter+.•-a0 _— O � s0 ': � s i •s � � , �•f' /� �f ..:.. Alsi;i cl: ,� 4� ���\ • l� � =i4 ram.•.•' / (Y) / .—._ ♦ / l \..i ..`) `�%/ J ram` . cn ter / .i co .� .» l Q w �.:.. ! i + V�ll 177- rl lei I kk �� \Y • � �\\ o \t.-ten �v `': .../ r4 '� `' , �I�f •-la •�`,\I. `•\ `\\\\�^ �l, �t'b'\y � �� �� Ott 't i ,r;.\ ` Y• �: 1 �jll� ;, 1, (`, ?, yt' ice' +� �• �+ r ` ` Kr \\ y ,�` ��.._.._.` jam"- •!/ 1V • S� / • I , 1 , / .� as I1 1 j cr- O Ij Z El La =o -` ~ �✓J� �� /t��.,• \ \ �� ,\� \ �- ;f US t 31I Off` 9 i'� ..ii `,..s's.,• :. , ,�• �..\ ,� :•,: � /� � � �' ! :� 1 - r '. i •� III :',� i IL VIA Of lit AA / \ �\ _ •.i // .. �•cKn,L y '�.' � � ate• /� (({(' � � � ` J_//ice\ � � U /�'�\ \�; - _ � � ,{• •,� l�,F , ,�` �....'n' / I . t / , • \\\ r \��-�-._.._ram-.`\ Y1 ��t'�^ � �, 1 , ! I OIOZ f III \ i t I; I i •\ , /0 k LLI mow,/ i a to \ - ' �� / ��� _ �------- � � �-�'• Ln Ln 4 n� �p4� : � • ' Imo• '�:f.J r� r ,�",,C�� �%•l�-' � • :/. `�' ' ; - • ; I ; �� �- :: •'' . i '�\ Y � \\fit I• r,. � ,�, : — :,: .�' , � /)III• r `\�� \ 4 i /� � _�f'1� r � \��rCJ-"_�- � •'� �`„'.+o '�-. ��- "„�v,�'�E..-: ,�'t, � •I � ,•,y l: \'�� `\�1't '' � r7\ v'• s '11, f'•• ' t III % /' - . +` f el i • \ \ \\ �..--t� •• - �; !-:,,���i=� • .r W +.,,•,''-yy�T�•�•�0.},j�,'C \ ,\ � • < f � �I) ' ,1 r ,4 F f n:• i 'S !•\r•r :'fir\% ;�v �J r•••ti �•� '•� � R / � i / . ? 1 l V 1 i MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Boogies Diner GMQS Exemption - Change in Use DATE: April 25, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to expand the kitchen area of the Boogies Diner by 249 net leasable square feet and convert a two -bedroom employee dwelling unit into a one -bedroom unit. No f loor area is being added to the building as the net leasable square footage is being taken out of the existing employee unit. A copy of the application is included as Exhibit "A". To accommodate this request, the applicant has addressed Section 24-8-204 (B) (1) (b) for GMQS Exemption Change in Use which enables this request to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPLICANT: Lenny Weinglass, represented by Kim Weil from Bill Poss & Associates. LOCATION: 534 E. Cooper Street, Lots R and S, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC (Commercial Core) zone.district with Historic District Overlay. PROCESS: The Planning Commission will review the applicant's request for the GMQS Exemption at a public meeting. The Commission makes the final decision on this GMQS application. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received referral comments from the Housing Office. This referral memo is attached to the packet in Exhibit "B" . STAFF COMMENTS: The 6, 000 sq. ft. parcel is presently improved with an approximately 13,234 sq.ft. structure which contains retail space, a restaurant, storage area, and an employee dwelling unit. Section 24-8-204 (B) (1) (b) states: Change in use. Any change in use of an existing (structure between the residential, commercial/office, and tourist accommodations categories for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, provided that it can be demonstrated that the change in use will have minimal impact upon the city. A determination of minimal impact IL shall require a demonstration that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and that employee housing will be provided for the additional employees generated; that a minimal amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be provided; that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from the change in use; and that minimal demand will be placed on the city's public facilities from the change in use. Response: The applicant is proposing to increase the net leasable area of the building by 249 sq. ft. The Housing Office has calculated that the increase in net leasable space generates 1.3 employees and 60o mitigation equates to .78 employees, based on 5.25 employees per 1,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to pay cash -in -lieu at the Category 2 level for mitigation of the employees generated. The reconfigured employee dwelling unit will need to have a new deed restriction filed, reflecting the change in size and bedrooms. This deed restriction shall be filed with the Housing Office prior to the issuance of any building permits. Section 24-5-209(E)(3) requires that 2 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft net leasable area be provided in the CC zone district. This project therefore generates 0.5 parking spaces. The applicant may pay cash -in -lieu for the mitigation of the parking requirement, which is $15,000 per space. This project requires a mitigation of $7,500 for 0.5 parking spaces. The proposed change in use does not affect the exterior of the structure, therefore no visual impacts are anticipated. The City's public facilities are in place to the parcel, however the applicant will be responsible for additional tap fee's that may be assessed due to the increased kitchen size. ISSUE: Staff has some concern that one bedroom of the employee dwelling unit is being removed in order to increase the net leasable area of the building. Although the City has a multi- family housing replacement program that limits the amount of affordable housing that can be removed from the redevelopment of multi -family project, it does not address the removal of single units or bedrooms from the affordable housing inventory. Due to the fact this unit was originally provided on a voluntary basis and deed restricted to affordable housing, staff can support the removal of one bedroom. Staff would not support the removal of the unit entirely from the project. SUMMARY: Staff believes that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. 2 13 r RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record a new deed restriction on the newly defined remodeled one -bedroom unit to a fully -deed restricted Category 2 unit. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall pay the $39,999.30 cash -in -lieu for mitigation of the employee generation. If this balance is not paid by May 22, 1995 the fee will increase to $50,195.20. 3. The applicant shall pay the parking cash -in -lieu mitigation of $7,500, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Boogies Diner GMQS Exemption for a change in use that adds 249 sq.ft. of net leasable area, subject to the conditions recommended in the April 25, 1995 Planning Office memorandum." EXHIBITS: "A" - Application Information "B" - Housing Office referral comments (11 I L/ Exhibit A 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 3031925-4 755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 March 16, 1995 Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: BOOGIES DINER KITCHEN EXPANSION Dear Kim, Please consider this letter and the accompanying information a formal request for a GMQS exemption by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This request is being made under Section 8-104.B.1.b, change in use, provisions of the Land Use Code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Boogies Diner was constructed during the summer of 1987. It received a Certificate of Occupancy in November, 1987. The project was a reconstruction of The Shaft restaurant. As part of the reconstruction, a voluntary employee unit was created. This unit contained two bedrooms and 1 bath in 991 net livable square feet. Over the years, both bedrooms have rarely been occupied. Presently, the unit is occupied by the store manager and only one bedroom is utilized. At the same time, the restaurant portion of the operation has enjoyed great popularity. The success of this restaurant has caused it to out grow its present kitchen. Therefore, we are proposing to reconfigure the space at the north end of the second level. When completed, the remaining employee unit will contain approximately 715 s.f. net livable area with 1 bedroom and 1 bath. The restaurant kitchen area will expand by 249 net eascable square feet. !t is important to note that no new restaurant staff will be required. Rather, the new space will allow the existing staff to spread out and work more c efficiently, and safer. BOOGIES DINER KITCHEN EXPANSION March 16, 1995 REVIEW STANDARDS. , . 1. Employee Housing. Since the existing employee unit was provided on a volunteer basis, we feel converting the unit from two bedrooms to one bedroom is appropriate, particularly since, as stated previously, only a one bedroom unit is needed on site. With respect to the newly created commercial space, the existing building configuration and the small size of the expansion make more on site housing impractical. Therefore the owner will make a cash payment to offset 60% of the employees generated by the expansion (again, please keep in mind that there will be no increase in staff as a result.of this expansion). The amount of cash required by the code is variable, but we propose four (4) employees per 1,000 square feet at a Category 2 level. 2. On Site Parking. In this case, we feel we are swapping a bedroom with commercial space and not creating any additional floor area or parking demands. Therefore, we would request that no parking mitigation be required. 3. Visual Impact. Since this is an interior remodel, there should be no visual impact to the city. 4. Impact on Public Services. The impact on public services will be very minimal. The new space will be used primarily for storage and prep work. The owner will pay all required water and sewer tap fees. CONCLUSION. We feel this request for change in use meets the requirements of the Land Use Code. Please schedule a hearing before the Commission on their earliest available agenda. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kim Weil Project Manager r. 1� Existing Floor Plari P5 P-00M F I tA- PIAZ 7t e ry _\N riew \/tjzlrlr TFf1,b WALL ty. <Pczc�w p .OV 49" r-jr4. T Ito'- 0' IFJ A O — ---------- -------------- 61&HT r^t4SL, 01 Mm rS ......... 10 11 3"Lt (-7 EXISTING Kl-r' f �,15TIN& Lf!,/ATC� LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project Name: Boogies Diner Kitchen Expansion 2. Project Location: 534 E. Cooper Street; Lots R, S and east 2-1/2' of Lot Q, Block 95 (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate) 3. Present Zoning: cc 4. Lot Size: 6,250 s.f. 5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.: Leonard Weingiass, 534 E. Cooper St., Aspen, CO 81611, (303) 925-6111 6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone No.: Bill Poss & Associates, 605 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611, (303) 925-4755 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Mtn. View Plane Condominiumization Conceptual SPA Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final PUD Subdivision Text/Map Amendment Conceptual Historic Development Final Historic Dev. Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Historic Designation GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption by Adjustment Planning Dir. X7 GMQS Exemption rl-a 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;- approximate, square feet; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property): 1 - 8,500 s.f. mixed use building containing retail, restaurant, r storage, and employee housing space. 9. Description of Development Application: Conversion of a portion of the existing deed restricted employee unit to commercial kitchen space. 10. Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents W is APR 18 '95 10:5 AM ASPEN HOUSING OFG P.1 Exhibit B c►�A�t�t TO: Mary Lackner, Pl�nninq Of f ice FROM: Cinder Christensen, Housing office DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: Boogie's Diner GMQS Exemption for Change in Use Parcel. ID No. 27�7--182-,24-048 ZA The applicant is propooing to expand the kitchen area by 249 net leasable square feet aild convert a two -bedroom employee unit to a one -bedroom employee unit BA=M_ i Section 8-IG4 . , 13, 1, b, Change in Use states! Any chwge kr um of an exis ft shatum boon the mWontlai, oam4wcWWm@ $nd Wrist axwmxdaffans categories for which a mrfficafe of �Pwupargy has fman muod far at Wst h4o (2) years and vw Wah is i ded to be ► wood pfovkbd ftt k can be dem nsGvtaca( OW ft charm In use wlff have mk*rml r'hwed upon the W A defer inatbn of rr0 l kroxt wN rsmAte a damenatradW that a mirnmal number of addlbbnal smpk as MR he genemted , by the tttenge hi use and that enyoyeo howfng MY be ptv/c$ad forffre addifi nel emptayees generated; that a n* t17ai smamt of ad:lfbnal pa*4V spaces wX be daimnded by the chance to use and that p&kn g VWV be pmvi kit, that Metre wN be m(nh m1 visual impact an Un naighbwhwd ftm the cwrgo kr use end Mat mkftai demand wN be pfawd on Um a&'s pubft faalhtlas the dove in use_ The applicant is pioopoaing to convert the existing two -bedroom employee unit (provided voluntarily in 1987) to a one bedroom unit and make a. cash payment to offset 60!� of the employees generated by the expansion. gQMATXQN: The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priarities are as fellows: 1, can --site housing; 2. Cuff -site housing, including rundown concept; 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.. In calculating the payment -in -lieu fee, staff recommends using the high end of 5.25 employees/1, 000 square feet, therefore, the payment -in -lieu fee would 'calculate out to be 5.25 s 1,000 X 249 added square feet X 60k X $51, 000 Category 2 payment -in -lieu fee = S39,.999.30. This amount is under the Amended 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Ass of May 22, 1995, this amount will go up to 5.25 + 11000 X 249 X 60 X �641000 = $Sa, 195,_2a. Before building permit approval,, the Housing Office recommends payment of the above amount, and record a new employee dwelling unit deed reetrict icon on the newly defined remodeled one -bedroom unit to a fully -dead restricted dategory 2 unit. Id MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Pitkin County Jail Expansion - Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption DATE: April 25, 1995 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this request the April 18th meeting. The applicant has submitted a new site plan which illustrates the jail addition in relation to the courthouse, which is attached to this memo. The applicant will bring the new roof plan to the meeting. The addition has been staked and will remain staked until after the April 25th Planning commission meeting. zz 2) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Farish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review DATE: April 25, 1995 This review was conducted on March 7, 1995 and approved with conditions. On April 5, the project was reviewed by the FAR Overlay Committee. At this hearing, Committee members from the P&Z became aware that certain information included in the application for the FAR Overlay review was not presented at the P&Z review for Hallam Lake ESA compliance. Specifically, the FAR review application noted that the building would be virtually demolished, with only a portion of the foundation remaining. To those P&Z Commissioners present, this demolition factor might have changed the outcome of the ESA review the month earlier. The FAR review was tabled to April 25, 1995. Staff has discussed the matter with City Attorney John Worcester. He indicated that the P&Z may want to consider a motion to void the original approval and reconsider the ESA review based on more accurate information regarding the project. As the ESA approval was unanimous, any member who voted in the March 7 hearing could initiate the motion. If this were to happen, staff would reschedule another Hallam Lake Bluff ESA review for the Farish project as early as an agenda could accommodate the item. Regarding the FAR Overlay review, staff is recommending approval of the new structure based on the Neighborhood Guidelines applicable to the project. This recommendation and any findings of the FAR Committee is not binding on any past or future P&Z action on the site. _....—+-.... _. _..� Y..x .....c........—�—.....i...,._ n'.•1...�_' _ ..... .w �41..+: �.r.�..o ..�r..._�_�+ — :sue._ �. _ _ __�_ .. _ _ _ .. i �.�•f ` e Wilk RESIDENTIAL DESIGN ASPEN, COLORADO S Q L o M O N ARCHITECTURE & URE AN DESICN paniel Solonsan 17Ai!dl%S EO*d TZ6-62t7G0Z60L6T 01 WOzU t :9 S66T-LT-Ndb CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATION'S 1. OVERVIEW Tbrou h our visits to Aspen,, convereadons with Staff and citizens, and review of exisfog do=u nts, we have ide7dified sev= uaban design issues rdatiag to " to dentfill dedgn in Aspea. To address these topics we propose the Mowing design sUmdards and nwdifimtsorns to the mod by which PAR is calculated for vesidential buBdings.. We believe that the difficulties related to inariate residential design in Aspen can be entixeV addressed by these succinct and relatively simple nwdificatio= to the eod$ftS plate framework Problem Standards In=sistetnt Street Frontage Binding Oxon + &Wd To Lines Problem Standards Erosion of Pedestrian Scale • Street -Oda ted Entries • Street -Facing principal Window • Oft -Story Str� Facing Mement RA:R. Madifiui m Mmamrage Pie, and iaggias Problem Dominant Garages Problem Confl"ng Sole: Ne-w Buildings and Nelgbbors Problem Awkward Areaways and Lightwells Standards • Width of Douse Greater than Width of Garage Street Padng Guage) Garage Recessed Belted Font Farad, Na Below Cmde Driveways min Front Sedm& F.A.R. Modi f odian Revised Caragae FAR c'ak-Watkm Standard trtfiecdon of New Beriieiings to EaCisbng Buildings Standard • No ,Areaways and Lightw+ Ma at Street Frontage 20 ' d tc6-G2t S0z601-GT 01 W01d tom' :9t S66 T-LT-ddU r Z- SUGGESTED CASE STUDYBS For zarling cUmpries It6. R.15/R1SA,1VJ55 aryd RIB, wz rsoazntanxi aging egg 4 case studies as follows: LLMP Lot Saun Lot Existing F.AR System . • Down=ned FAR S9 (.M of Alkn"We Max.) �► Revised FAX System Dawn=ied Revised FAR Syst= (.85% of Allowabbe Max.) - • It is our that the revi, d syst3eot with cat FAR. wM address aU urban design problem area. i) E' --6 4r,�Qs� . S0'd t36-6ZbSOZ602,6T 01 W08j�"3L_, S66t-LT-?add Aspen's Residential Design Stundards mar uttimately take the form of a stand-alone document. The Design Standards w bich follow are presorted as revisions to Asp mt s land U3e Regulations. We have described them in this mu» to make clear their fticatio�t of ©dating code Sea 5-200-L All Dlshictsc Melon of Baddbigs to S&eets. A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards are to pneserv+e established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and reeighborhoods are public places conducive to wa lldng. B. Background. Front facades and their relratiortship to the street establish the darac tr of a neighborhood. The area surround a home's front door creates a transttifln between the private life of a dwelling and the public realm. A one story ateldtectvral projection emphasizing the " pmvides an appropriate donwstic scale for a private residence. Street facing porches, loggias, and balconies provide auttloor luring spaces further ating the streetscape. Windows establish a hierarchy of spaces withizt--larger, formal windows denoting pubic areas, smaller ones suggesting private space. CwWstent f me setbacks debne the space of the street. C Standards 1~ Building QIentation titThe pai Orientation. of all moldings must be paraEW to the street eY b. AU single family homes, townhouses and duplexes must have a< Street - oriented entrance and have a sheet facing principal window, except townhouses and accessory units facing courtgar& or garders, where entries and principal windows should fam flume features. c. For single family homes and duplexes with amched garages or carports, the width of the home must be at least five feet greater than the width of ttbe garage along its sheet facing frontage. The gauge must be set bad at least 10 feet fm1her from the street than the house. d. Multiple unit residential buildings must have at least am street-odexte�d1 entrance for every four units. Front units mu3t have a street facing pnncdpaZ window. 2. wilding Elements a. All reesideRtial buildings must have a One-story street Exing eemesnt whose width comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. [Test with case studies] -1 90 ' d t?6-62bS30EGO?.6S 0i WOdd S-12 : 9 Z S66 Z-ZZ-8JU Problem Omrscaled ftkM gs Problem Overscaled Entries Standard a Revised Hight Calodation F.A.R. Madifimtio»s Revised Lot Area Cal !"a t8%s on � Sk►Pes? ' caimiaflon Acm=y Dwelling UrAts amd Lh**d PAvftr* F.A.R. Mo ficalion Revised Volmne FAIL ta►lcu n tr0'd 01 WWJ 3. Build To Lines a. If 75% of the residestitial 'buikttngs are the bbddace where a project is to be located are within 2 feet of a common hwt setback fire, a gun of 60% 01 a proposed pTOs front facade must also be within 2 feet of that front suck- b. On corner sites wbere less than 75% of the buildings on the blockfaee am I mted within 2 feet of a em mort setback line, a ntirnim= of 60% of at least ome of the street frontages of a proposed pmjeces from facade must be located within 5 feet of the mininw= setbaGc3c. 4. Pr nary Maas a. A prinuuy mass is a building Anne for wrhwh two of fibs following three dtara ft=t= do not vary: plate berg!*, ridge height, wall plane. rae floor area of a primary nubs in excess Of 71D% of total allowable FAA shall be multiplied by 1.2,�5. 5. Diflection a. If the street frontage of an adjacerd struacture is ow story in height for a distance mare tfhan twelve feet on the side facing the proposed big, them the adjacent portion of the proposed building must: also be one stony in height for a distarwe of twelve feet. Sec 3-10L Sued Reviaious io'Text p. 1582, 3-1013 Dads, &&wtus pomhhes, to „g " and stairways. The ealaulation aE the floor arresaa of a build - or a portion thereof shall, not include decks, baloonies, d urways, terraces p nebes, and similar features, tmlCss the area Of sao%, these features is greater than flibeeft-twenty-five pit of the maxhavnt allowable hoar area of the building. Loggias, Meaning an area under a rood, over a living space and open on at kit am side to the out&x= shall be calculated as .5 FAR , 'calnxlat OrM ♦♦Carages 4nd =rporfs. and storage areas For the purpose of calc:2tatmg floor Brea rafio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, garages OW carports ,and stao<age arm shall be exduded up to a =xinuun area offrwe}t,muded twa hid fifty square feet per dwelling unit; all garage. carport gad storage area betWVM M sad 600 square fftt $haU be calcalated as .: 5 FAR,; all garage or au pwott tiam and serge amas in excess offiw six hundred square feet per dwelling unit span be included as part of the residential floor area calculation, provided however that on residential pr pertfes mntannixig tdstoric l end mi s that do not meet applicable mini rn lot area regc�i� garages and, carports shall be exduded up to a nuwnwm of rive hundred square feet for the property. For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear of the dwelling unit, s LO'd T36-62tISOZ60L6T 01 WOaJ 9`:9T S66T-LT-add No pordan of a driveway to 1 garage shall be below the natural grade within ttee required &rat setback. All portions of a garage, carport our stye area parallel to the street sham be reeessed 'behind the front facade aanihhitxtts - of ten (a feet Garages below nabmd grade, garagm with a vehicWm entrance width greater thaw twenty four .feet, and garages with A vehicular ettittanee width greater than 4o% of thew ft'ot faeeade shall u=teet one of the fallowing co�ndi#laus: (a) All elemerAs of the garage shall be located within .fifty feet ed the rear lot lime or (b) All elements of the garage shall be located fu#her me hundred fifty feet Avm the front lot line, or (c) the 'vehicular entmace to the garage shall be gerl>ndkular to the framt lot line pk.1583� 3-101-D Subgrade areas. The area of any story-4hiek- whose top plate is a n:aximnat of eghteea incites above iced grade at any point along the perimeter of the building shalt be exduded from floor area cakvlaiaort& for any story which is partly above and partly below finished grade, a ra2cnlatlost of ih,e total volume of the story which is above and which is below grade shall be made, for the purpOse of establishing the pesaentage of the area of the story whkh shall be included in flow area ca kulat-dons. This calculation shall be made by deter inmg the total percentage of the perimeter wall area of the story which is above �ktff finished grade which shall be multiplied by tb,e total ft" ama of the subject story, and the resulting total dull be that area which is included in the floor area caltulaf%on. No areaway, ligAtwell or stairwell should be located Jmdn a street. - - ♦ .v :.►�w i �. ..t p.1583, 3-101 Voluma. For the purpose of calculating Boor area ratio and allowable floor area fora. hating or portion thereof whose prinapal use is residential, a determina#at shall be made as to its interior plate heights. Fmiry halls with plate heights &neater than, twelve feet shah counted as two squan feet for each ane square foot of floor area. All other inbufm areas WW be count towards allowable floor area at a ratio of one square Foot for one square foot of goat area regardless of plate height Thwe interior are-a.� TTl��'R�l w'�T�1 T�� •! ! A•lsYl►9p. %AV"=WPW!IFb" IM All -At e0 * d tZZ'6-6St7S00F0L6T 01 WOE jj 92 :9 t S66 Z-LT-WH No p-IM, 3-101-C Amory alwlUng unit or linked pavilion. For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area .for a lot whose principal use is residential, the fallowing shall apply_ The allowable floor area of an attached accessory dwelling uldt shall be exduded up to a maximum of two hundred fifty square feat of allowable floor area or #iffy percent of the sane of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is less; a- the tee An accessory dwelling mut separated fxom a principal structure by no lean than fdkvn ( `' :fleet with a ateoamant foo4wh t of four hundred Shy square feet shall be calculated at fifty pvment emduded up IS -AIL Oi#&eehwWivd fifty squen fee f allowable floor area up to a maodmvm off 9M s;;Vu*T feet Any eletaeatlinking the PrIndpal, strums to the accessory unit may be no mcne than we story Taal and six feet wide 11m 4wr _ _ y R fMI;iiFrih+ll4Zirs.1 6fa..1� •s '� 40 p61584, 3-101 Height mans the mammtutt possible distance from the Yetwei tindisturbed Smtad a6pe and 1 4 finished grace at the ccteeo.r petseter of a building to the highestpemQ�Ie point of a attuctt M within z single vertfeal plane A. Exeptions to M=*X un height limits, . The height of a wilding shall be the maximum possible ib3tamce measured, vertically-Ott-±i -an& from the finished grade to the top cl a flat or mansard roof, or the nwan height between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or similar pitched roof. The ridge of a gable, hip,. gambrel or dmilar pitched roof shalt not extwA over five feet above the species numfi m, he t limit. Antennas chi=tti flues, f! es, vents or similar sus shaft mat extend over ten feet above the specified mum height limit. Water towers and mechanic equipment shall not extmd over ilve feet above the specified maximum height limit. Chrch spfres, bell towers and litre archiwdurai projections, as weR as flag poles, may ed=d over the specified maxinn m height limit. S. ExcnNom for buildings an siapes- The m cimum height of a bniUU;og's fret (3teet facing) facade stay a dgnd for the first U iYty (30) feet odE the building's de;pfit. C. motions for amaways, lZghtweIls and basewmt stairweils. An areafrwzy, Ughtwell or basement stairwell of Less than 1M square feet, entirely recessed behind the verdca.E plane established by I&e building's facade, and enclosed om all four sides to within 18 lndes of the first floor level shall not be counted towards .maodmunt permissible height p.1586,3-101 Lot ,area means the total horizontal, area within the tat lines of a lot When calculating floor area ratio, lot area shall indctde only areas with a slope a teem thm 2o%. in addifiaat, baM (Mg of lot areas with a slope of may be counted towards floor arearatio areas with slopes of greater than 30% shall be excluded. Also excluded far the purpose Gi floor arts calculations is that area beneath the bigh water line of a body of water and that area within an existing dedicated right-of-waY Or Ourface ncluded are any Unds dedka.ted to the City of Aspen for the public trail system or any lands subject to an above or below surface easenxmt When calculating density, lot area shall have tine same occlusions and inchlsi.ons as for floor area ratio, but shall also eawjude any lairds subject to slope density reduction, prumumt to s 7-9fOCi$.Z_b 60'd ;46-6Zt'SO�E0 �,6T 01 WO�d :9t S66T-LT-add 5. CIiECKLIST I SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS We suggest that the following drawings, each with an integni dwxk.Hst, be required for approval. Sheet 1. RequiredDsaw,1np I\leaghborhood Bk )ck Plan at I" = M. Show front portions of all exdsting buddings an the block and flair, set wl from the street, in feet! Mentify pare and frcmt entry for eft bw1ding. Locate acace*ory dweMzg units and yen s if any. Design S&rAar 3s C ie& that the following information is deady indicated on the a000rtx g drawing. i I Building Ckienta&m [ Btn11d-To Tomes Sheet 2. Regp1red Drawings Site Flan at 1 /16" = I'1(Y". Shaw gound fkxxm oi aU project builftw, and footp;inzs cd adjaaeYtt bwldinp For a distance of at Est 100 feet ftm.side property ems. FAR Calculations Density ?.one: site DimensAons in Feet FAR Site Area. (a) Site. Area with Slopes Less than 20%: (b) Site Area with Slopes Between 20-M; (c) Site Area with Slopes Comer SM- TotA FAR She Area (a f M%b): Total Allowable Flocr Ate: Project Floor Area (a) Primary Mass Calculation: (b) Entry Volume Cakulatiow (c) Garage CakuladoR: (d) Bakonies,'Forches Decks and loggias Calculatioln (e) A=essory Dwelling Utah and Linked Pavilion Calmlation: Total Ptojecf Moor Area; Design St lords Checkthat the following ntfarntiafim is elearr hWka#+ed on the acpanying drawing. r ] Frkwy Mass Ceding height of mtryvchinw ' [ Width of street fang garage/width of house [ l Cage recessed behind front facade (feet} E Driveway at grade within front se#laack E No areaways or Eght ells along sUvet frontage 101 9Z ' d TES-62t7GOEGOL6Z 01 W0di L�` s9Z-S66S-L�-?add T T ' d -lu101 Shfet 3. R"uhed I2tawhW 1. sheet mevaum at vie = ry hwlude ekovabm of the pwpoeed prgmt and at least two ad*eft bcafldino an both sides . hwhidewhidio", tram doors mW roof Um. I Additional Pmject Mevaftm at 1/16w . row (as mod) Check thM the t+oimwiag infarntar:t is douly indaitaW on the acxoa�u drawing. t ] Strm+iarA ed entry t 1 Sftmt-bdng prhuVd whidow [ I one siay30cethwdog element t Infiadm Unuards ado oent buddiags HeigMrah+nlatirtin Sheet 4. Ph*UM;=phic p=oraamta PlaotoWm#w pantuama should sWw elevations of all buihhnp an both Sides of your bkdc� nw3ad ag present cmul oria of pur buAdmg sibs. T T' d TZ6-6�1 SOZGO1.6 T Ol woa-d 82:9T S66T-LT-ddd CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO., INC. SUITE 201 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 OFFICE (303) 925-8803 April 25, 1995 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Aspen Center for Physics Development Application Ladies and Gentlemen: FAX (303) 925-8835 This evening you will be hearing the application for the Physics Institute expansion, which includes amendment to the Meadows SPA. In your last meeting we understood that you, along with the neighboring public, were not at all happy with the mass and scale proposed by the Physics Institute. It is our belief their new schemes represent minimal changes to that plan. Aside from the physical plan, there are a number of other issues that are very important in considering the application at this time. Those of us who are in town have attempted to contact the rest of our neighbors, only to find that virtually all of them are out of town and therefore will be unavailable for the meeting. Further it is extremely disturbing that the proposed building was only just laid out yesterday afternoon on the site, April 24, 1995. We were told by the layout crew that the story polls showing the height of the buildings would not even be placed on the property until today, March 25th. As of 4:30 today they still are not placed. This is very inappropriate, given the size and scale of the project. How can the staff, planning commission, or the public have any reasonable sense of the impact of the building (s) , without the story polls having been placed on the property weeks before the actual application is heard by Planning and Zoning Commission. We feel that this is a very serious situation and that it is absolutely inappropriate for the Planning and Zoning to consider this application, given the fact that the physical aspects of the structure cannot even be appreciated until Planning and Zoning April 25, 1995 Page Two minutes before the committee reviews such a significant impact on the neighborhood. I dare say, that if Cunningham Investment came in front of you with a project of this size and scope, that the Planning and Zoning Commission would not even consider reviewing such an application given the lack of reasonable review time for the plan. Thank you for considering this letter within the context of your deliberations. Sincerely, I. McA. Cunningham, Resident 521 North Seventh Street Aspen, Colorado cc: Aspen Planning Staff IMC/dj r M A TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: West End Neighbors RE: Aspen Center for Physics SPA Amendment Application DATE: April 25, 1995 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are writing this memorandum because we are extremely concerned about the mass, scale and location of the proposed new building(s) on the Physics Institute Property. During your past meeting, many neighbors, as well as staff and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern over the mass and scale as well as location of the proposed building at the Institute. Upon reviewing the Schemes A-F that were just presented to the Commission, we see little change in the building(s) that caused the original objections being raised about the structure. Specifically: 1) The structure, on virtually all plains, will appear in mass and scale to be a single structure, which is longer than an entire city block. 2) The Physics Institute has only considered locating the structure(s) in line with Gillespie Avenue, when there are more than ample additional sites, including the existing Hilliard Hall site, and the very large untreed area north of the existing campus buildings. 3) No attention has been put to the lighting of this structure, which is especially important given the impact of the Aspen Meadows Hotel lighting on the surrounding residents. 4) The buildings turn in a U-shape to the north, thus effectively cutting off convenient access to the race track open space from the east, including Gillespie Street. (2) 5) Very significant concerns have been raised over the location of the structure(s) in relation to the existing ditch and path. This path area deserves significant setbacks in order to preserve the open space feeling of the area. We were further very surprised to find that the Institute, in all of it's "planning" never even knew that there was a zero line set back to the residential lots 10-7 of the Institute Plan. In effect, under their plan, we would have a wall with minimal access through it, all the way from Sixth Street to Eighth Street. We think you would agree that no such structure would ever be allowed anywhere else in the City. 6) The auditorium is twenty feet in height and, in all plans, lies directly adjacent to the drop off into the race track open space. This will, in effect, create a wall surface that will appear almost thirty feet high from the west. This is extremely inappropriate and exceeds the height guidelines in the City. Further it should be noted that this building has virtually no windows as perceived from the elevation, to break the mass. 7) There is ample room to break up the masses by putting buildings both northwest and south of the existing buildings, without impacting the neighborhood. 8) The Physics Insititute has used the argument that they do not want to cut any trees down in the process of locating the new structures. We can assure you that it is going to be virtually impossible to remove the existing Hilliard Hall without losing almost all the trees around the structure. Most of the trees have been growing there for over twenty-five years and have grown in almost every case right up against the side of the building (which is emphasized when you look at the reduced schemes currently presented by the Institute). Further, these Aspen trees are easily replaced at minimal cost. Therefore the tree issue is an inappropriate argument when looking at the overall picture. 9) We have included a site plan with a design that is easily instituted within the plan and which is far more appropriate for relationship of scale and mass to both the neighborhood and to the promises that the City made at the time the SPA was instituted. (3) 10) It should be noted that during the SPA process the Institute objected very strongly to the new Meadows Road being located as an extension of Seventh Street, because they did not want encroachment into their "circle of serenity", yet now they are building a building in exactly the same location. Recommendation: If you were going to recommend approval this evening, we request that you adopt a modified plan, wherein the easterly and southerly two of the three buildings are moved north in a configuration similar to what is found in scheme D, and that the third building, the westerly building, including the very high auditorium, be effectively "flipped" 180 degrees and moved into the current location of Hilliard Hall. This would greatly reduce the mass and scale of the structure, still create a "circle of serenity", and open up the access to the race track from the neighborhood, both from the Gillespie Street side and from the North Seventh Street side. A copy of this recommendation is enclosed. The neighborhood, and the City at large, should be able to maintain their confidence in the governmental proceedures. Very significant promises were made during the SPA process. Significantly among those was the preservation of the open space and the accessability to these open spaces for pedestrian use. This is an area that is very heavily used by all the neighbors, and we feel it is most inappropriate that the Institute should turn its back on the community. If the Institute truly wants to be a good neighbor they should withdraw their application in its entirety and make significant adjustments to the plan to best reflect the promises previously made to the community. As the City is pushing so hard today to enact new Community Guidelines, which include reduction of mass and scale of single family residences, it is most innapropiiate for a structure of this size to be considered within residential and open space areas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1995 Teague stated it was an overhanging roof. Garton expressed support for Scheme B, mainly to support the physicists in having a building that works for them. Garton felt that the cottonwoods during the site visit were wonderful and with the setback that is proposed by Scheme B, along with some low stone f ictures , she felt it would be terrific - not a ".great wall" effect She really questioned any kind of urban feel going into that campus area in regard to Condition 6 and paving. Buettow thought that Scheme "D" had advantages in function, existing trail and should be given consideration. MOTION Mooney moved to approve the Aspen Center for Physics' Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan shown in Scheme "B", with conditions listed in the Planning Office memorandum dated 4/25/95. I also move to approve Growth Management Exemption and Special Review for Parking in the Academic Zone. All material representations by the applicant will be considered and followed up on. I amend that colloquium can be used by the community for non-profit type activity during hours that are compatible with the residential neighborhood that it is included in. Garton seconded, roll call vote commensed and vote was 5 approved, 1 (Buettow) opposed. Motion carried. BOOGIES DINER GMQS EXEMPTION CHANGE IN USE Mary Lackner, Planner presented. Applicant is seeking approval to expand the kitchen area of the Boogies Diner by 249 net leasable sq. ft. and convert a two -bedroom employee dwelling unit into a one -bedroom unit. The applicant, Lenny Weinglass, was represented by Kim Weil from Bill Poss & Associates. Weil requested that the unit be a Category 3 Unit as a new deed restriction and Lackner stated that was alright with staff. Tygre was concerned about the precedent that gets set on deed restricting, even a portion of a unit. Lackner agreed that it has not been fully explored. Tygre stated in approving a two -bedroom dwelling unit into a one -bedroom unit commercial space, in effect it would be removing a previous deed restriction for a two -bedroom unit. MOTION 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1995 Mooney moved to approve 'the Boogies Diner GMQS Exemption for a change in use that adds 249 sq. ft. of net leasable area, subject to the conditions recommended in the April 25, 1995 Planning Office memorandum. I am amending Condition 1 to a Category 3 unit. Hunt seconded, voting commensed, 5 approved, 1 (Tygre) opposed (for reason above), motion carried. PITKIN COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION FINAL SPA AMENDMENT AND GMQS EXEMPTION The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this request on the April 18, 1995 meeting. Mary Lackner, Planning Office, and Temple Glassier representing Pitkin Co. Board of Co. Commissioners presented. The applicant submitted a new site plan and new roof plan. The applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,500 sq. feet onto the Pitkin County Jail. Hunt commented the addition of screening on the top floor was very effective. It screened the units, and also tied in with the architecture of the addition. Glassier stated she was a little worried about the screening on the roof because it could cause leaks in the future, but there will be a 6-inch gap. Garton asked if the applicant had considered going underground and Glassier responded that they had considered that option, but the radon levels were very high, so mitigation would be very expensive to be underground. Mary Lackner stated that on Condition 3, the architectural plan had been discussed dated March 1, 1995. She recommended amending that to also add the rendering roof. Mr) rP T ONT Hunt moved to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed SPA amendment to add approximately 1, 5 0 0 sq. f t . , of f ice - type space to the jail, subject to conditions 1-11 on Planning Office memorandum dated 18 April 1995 with Amendment 3 being amended to say; the architectural plan dated March 1, 1995 and those renderings presented at this meeting. Mooney seconded motion, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.