Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940503 .-\ '" ,. "'-.......-' AGE N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 3, 1994, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. Worksession: Langley Affordable Housing, Leslie Lamont IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aspen Meadows SPA Amendment, Kim Johnson V. ADJOURN , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Aspen Institute Expansion - Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan Amendment and GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities (public hearing) DATE: May 3, 1994 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the proposed 2,410 s.f. expansion of the seminar facilities at the Paepcke Auditorium complex with conditions. APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute, represented by James Cook, Project Architect LOCATION: Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision (the north- eastern portion of the Aspen Meadows). ZONING: A (Academic) with an SPA overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant seeks to amend the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan in order to add 2,410 square feet of seminar facilities, including new bathrooms. The upgrade is contemplated in order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. Also accommodated in the structure will be modern teleconference and audio/visual facilities. The existing facility contains 3 seminar rooms. After completion, there will be three seminar rooms. Please refer to the floor plans, site plan and application information, Attachment "A". The expansion requires exemption from Growth Management competition and mitigation. The original Aspen Meadows SPA development was exempted as an essential public facility. PROCESS: This amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Plan is substantial enough to warrant approval through the Final SPA Development Plan review requirements. This requires the application to be reviewed by P&Z for a recommendation which will be forwarded to City Council for final action. REFERRAL COMMENTS: (for complete referral memos see Attachment "B" ) Engineering: 1) There is strong concerns that the increased size of the facility x4ill generate additional employees, support services, and traffic impacts. 2) A request for a storm detention/sedimentation pond easement was made during the 1990 Meadows SPA review, but not accepted by 1 Council. Engineering still believes that this easement is necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act. 3) The Sanitation District must review and sign off on sewer plans via a letter to the Planning office prior to issuance of any building permits. Fire Marshall: No comments at this time from this office. Housing office: The Housing Office recommends that housing mitigation be waived for the new facilities because of the applicant's need for the structure to comply with ADA, and the fact that the original Meadows SPA development was exempted from housing impact mitigation. Historic Preservation: The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the proposed structure and recommends employing subtle design distinctions between the old and new buildings. Water: Since submission of his referral memo, Phil Overeynder has been meeting with engineering representatives of the project and is receiving all necessary documentation regarding the existing and proposed water system for the Paepcke complex. STAFF COMMENTS: The seminar facilities at the Aspen Institute currently occupy approximately 5,120 s.f. The total build -out if approved will be 7,530 s.f. The Institute maintains that because of overcrowded conditions that currently happenduringtheir programs, the additional space will allow for more effective seating arrangements, technological advances for program needs, and handicap access for the bathrooms. Staff has received one letter of support of this application from Charlie Marqusee, a neighbor of the Aspen Meadows (Attachment "C") . Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA) . 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 proposal is an enhancement of the existing seminar function of the site. The facility will remain at three seminar rooms. Structurally, the new wing will basically replicate the Herbert Bayer designs of the existing Paepcke buildings. The site will remain virtually the same but will include some new exterior patios (please refer to the landscape/site plan). Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a detailed landscaping 6 plan to be submitted and reviewed by Planning prior to the issuance of the building permits. 2. Whether sufficient public, fac•i-lities, and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: The Institute asserts that the number of attendees will remain the same even though floor area will increase. The number of seminar rooms will remain-,-at.--three.,-,,--During recent discussions on the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, Cleve Johnson with*the Institute made the commitment to increase "internal" circulation between the West Meadows campus and the East Meadows areas for service and delivery needs. The roads surrounding the project are capable of handling the Institute functions. Engineering has restated the need for a storm water detention pond easement on Lot 1 of the Asp(!5 -1gedddws18�ubd'iv=ision:-- This ifti"l`ity easement is important in respect to the City' s Urban Run-off Master Plan and Aspen's compliance with the Clean Water Act. Council did not require this easement as a condition of the 1990 SPA approval because of pressure by the applicants who felt that it creates the opportunity for the City to build a concrete containment structure in the racetrack area. This is certainly not what Engineering has in mind as there are a multitude of design options available for natural, native looking ponds to accomplish any drainage functions. Engineering does not want to miss this current opportunity to obtain this easement. At such time that a pond designed, Engineering will bring the proposal back for to P&Z for review. 3. Whether the parcel: -proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground N. instability and the.,, possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Response: The site is basically flat. No hazards of this type exist. 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: Open space. and trails were outlined in the 1990 approvals. Trails will not be affected. No exceptional changes to open space will result with the subject application. The design and location of the structure as proposed will not create any significant changes to the site internally or from off premise. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 Response: The Community -Plan. promotes cultural and 'educational enhancement of Aspen. This proposal will allow the Institute to better offer its programs to local and visiting attendees. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Response: No public expenditures are needed for this project. 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: This standard does not apply. 8. Whether there are -su-f"ficiert GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption as an essential public facility. GMOS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(b)(i-iii) the Council may exempt development if it is for essential public facilities. Development shall be considered an essential public facility if it "serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to 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 -profit venture." Although the code further stipulates mitigation of impacts of development, ie. housing, parking, utilities, etc., these requirements may be waived for the development associated with a non-profit organization if it qualifies as an essential public facility. Response: The 1990 Meadows SPA approval granted GMQS Exemption for the Institute's West Meadows expansions including 50 new lodge rooms, and updated/enlarged restaurant and health club facilities. Based on this previous ruling that the Institute is considered an essential public facility, and that the proposed seminar expansion does not represent major growth in and of itself, the Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of growth management exemption for the 2,410 s.f. of expanded seminar facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Aspen Institute's seminar facility expansion as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan, including GMQS Exemption as an essential public 4 facility with the following conditions:. 1) The Sanitation District must review and sign off on sewer plans via a letter to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits. 2) a detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by Planning prior to the issuance of the building permits. 3) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall grant and perfect an easement on Lot 1 for the purposes of future storm water detention in compliance with Aspen's 1973 Urban Runoff Master Plan. Such easement shall be determined by the Public Works Department. 4) The Amended Final 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 documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval of both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their accep- tance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 5) 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. Attachments: A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information B - Referral Memos C - Charlie Marqusee Letter, April 28, 1994 5 THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AFFIDAVIT hereby attest that a notice of the public hearing for Aspen Institute Seminar Building was mailed to all owners of property within 300' of the subject property pursuant to the conditions of Public Notice as defined in §6-205(E)(3)(c) of the Land Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code. '10 z --------------- Signed ----�-1-� ----------------------------------------- Date affidavit.931 66 23280 STATE HIGHWAY B2 P.O. BOX 1 640 BASALT, COLORADO B1 B21 (303) 927-31 67 H -PP 19 .94 ASPEH TITLE MIBIT A Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 605 East Main' Street Asp8A-k C 0 816i I MUS-ic Associates of Aspen, Inc. P_Oa Box A -A Aspeu Co 81612) Asperl Center Por Physics 700 west Aspen Co 81611 Asp&n Instj�U-e, 1c. �n L 6 1000 North 13rd Stn-le, Aspen Co 81611- Kenneth R. Tvo Uftir,ed tank "u-ite 4300 'Denver CO 80291. Elaine C, HodgeZ- S., UniveiAsav B-, L a a I Depol,per (Coj 80fio j V 13 u .L -athv ()"Shana 2 1 G SA. 1 I— L IT,en C'0 81611 -L Peer Les' ie 1-ar1-,,-a-'unas ar-Td I. MarkalunAs Ranic - I Ith t Aspen CO 8161-.-, Sara Yank 0 9 t h Street Boulder Co A 0 0 EIY8e A. Elliott 610 North St'l-e-et JOhn A. Luetkerueyier Suzanne F, Lqetketr ]L- ueyer aid Eugen� H, Schrel-Lboar and C, T- " - a n,--V oA,,d D4 PX, Box 1011471 t jrq .0-e MI) 'jjq85 I IL 9- y3m.0 John Albert Odom, ij,. and tOrrie Ftrman Odom 11690 'West 38th Avenue Wheatridge Co 80033 Naomi Uhl felder Box 1165 Aspen Co 81612 Charle's, Clollins and Janice S. Collins Box HU Aspen Co 81611 G,�-,orge lv4. Stark and Margaret S. Stark as Trustees of Stark Trust Box 8015 Aspen Co 81612 Jean Pierre odier P-0, Box 714 Aspen Co 81619 James Salter 500 T4-st Nort-.- Strper Aspen co 81611 Neil H. Beck ��nd Pamela L, Betk 515 West Gillespie Qtreet Aspen CO $1611 Christ Epicoop ol Church Bishop and DjOcese Qf Cnjorado 536 North Street - Aspen Co 81611 Wood Duck Realty Corp. Or,, Darryl Dworman C 4 6-5 We!�t 55th Street, Suite ' A New York . NY 10019 Robert F. St-arodoj anc), Paula A, Starodoj Box 1121 Aspen CO 81612 Sel ITP, "i I kh, a 750 Lauss.anrie Road Los Angeles C-1% 9001,=7 Leonaid A, Lauder and F-V('IYII H. Lauder 2 East 67th Street New York NY 10021. 0 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED Gary Lauder and Will iatft Lauder 7 7 5th .Avenue, 37th Floor New Fork NY 10153 PUBLIC NU i iol DATE TUESDAY. MAY 3 1994 nznPM.