Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930406 AGENDA , - ...._--~-~ ~---.....,...-......,...., ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 6, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room ci ty Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Truscott Place GMQS Exemption, Leslie Lamont IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Benedict Building SPA Map Amendment, SPA Plan and GMQS Exemption, Kim Johnson V. WORKSESSION A. Superblock Study, Leslie Lamont VI. ADJOURN '" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: April 6, 1993 Special Meeting - April 13 Aspen Art and Recreation Center (Red Brick) Rezoning (KJ) Regular Meeting - April 20 Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment & Rezoning (LL) Whipple Accessory Dwelling Unit (LL) Fortier Accessory Dwelling Unit (KJ) Rio Grande Subdivision Conceptual SPA Master Plan Adoption (LL - continued from March 16) Regular Meeting- May 4 O'Block Text Amendment for Off -Street Parking (LL) City Shop Final PUD, Stream Margin, Conditional Use, GMQS Exemption, and Parking Special Review (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: April 6, 1993 RE: Truscott Place - GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a GMQS Exemption for a change in use from office to affordable housing and lodge to affordable housing for Truscott Place. The Planning Department recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption. APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) as represented by Tom Baker. LOCATION: Truscott Place, 39551 Highway 82 ZONING: Public APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Change in use from office to residential and from lodge to residential. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 B(b) of the Municipal Code, the Commission may grant a GMQS Exemption for a change in use provided that it can be demonstrated that the change in use will have minimal impact upon the city. A determination of minimal impact 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 space 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. Change in Use Office to Residential According to the application, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners directed the Housing Office to move their offices into the downtown area to increase their level of service. The office moved into the basement of the Courthouse Plaza building and would like to convert their off ice space at Truscott place into affordable housing. The vacant office is 1,375 square feet. APCHA is proposing to convert 1,100 square feet of the office into a 2 bedroom affordable housing unit and keep approximately 275 square feet as a manager's office. The APCHA office used 8-10 parking spaces which will be converted to residential spaces. The conversion represents an increase in the inventory of affordable housing for two employees and dependents, if any, and an increase in the number of residential parking spaces available for Truscott Place. There will be no visual impact as the remodel is interior and the residential use will be less impactive on city facilities than an office space that accommodated seven employees. Change in Use from Lodge to Residential Currently there are 50 studio units in the old Red Roof Inn (Truscott Place). A typical unit size is 360 square feet. Each unit is equipped with a sink, refrigerator, microwave, and hot plate. It is the intention of APCHA to upgrade these units to improve the quality of life and fire safety aspects of the units. APCHA proposes minor/interior remodeling to include replacement of the hot plate with a stove. The Code defines a dwelling unit as a separately enterable, self- sufficient room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence by a single family or guests, independent of other families or guests. As defined in the Code, a lodge (hotel) unit shall not contain kitchen facilities. Although a conditional use review occurred at the time the Red Roof Inn was converted from lodge units to residential units (affordable housing is a conditional use in the Public zone district) a GMQS Exemption for a change in use was not reviewed. Therefore it is the interpretation of the Planning Department that the 50 studio units at Truscott Place are still lodge units and technically a GMQS Exemption for a change in use is necessary before the units are fully converted from lodge to residential units (replace the hot plate and add a stove). APCHA also plans to add an outdoor storage unit, 9 parking spaces and enclose the trash receptacle. These alterations will be reviewed through a PUD amendment.in April. The conversion of lodge units to affordable dwelling units represents a decrease in the number of employees generated and an increase in the number of affordable units in the housing inventory. Initial remodel is interior, parking has been available for residents since conditional use was approved, 1989. When the stoves are installed and interior remodelling is complete the units will be occupied in the same manner as they have been occupied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the change in use from office to a 1,100 square foot 2 bedroom affordable residence and 50 lodge, rooms to 50 affordable studios with the condition that the applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and at hearings. 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a GMQS Exemption for the change in use from office to a 2 bedroom 1,100 sq. ft. affordable dwelling unit and from 50 lodge rooms to_50 affordable studios at Truscott Place a.k.a. old Red Roof Inn, with the condition as stated in Planning memo dated April 6, 1993." Exhibits 1. Office to Dwelling Unit Conversion 2. Studio Remodel 01 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED 19 BY' RESOLUTION • ELEGI72tca� � lit-�P�E Er�v Ex /sT/�G F� Pi,QN 60-t 7tio f3/�o/2 FR cU, 7- 7Rt5r,=/94A- CO/ti1E,q,'51ON (:;'F 1419CM CFFICE: 7D A H4NACIE. -fo CFFICE AND 2 m 14FAm ,o,ieN " sN�r Goy 'r � PvSnA I tf' � CoNQfnoNS �trE. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the application for SPA designation, SPA development plan and GMQS exemption approval for the Benedict Office Building was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information required in Section 6- 205.E.2., which posting occurred on March 27, 1993, in a conspic- uous place on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on March 26, 1993. Applicant: FREDRIC A.D FABIENNE BENEDICT nny V The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this are E. day of April, 1993, by Sunny Vann on behalf of FREDRIC A. AND FABIENNE BENEDICT. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,. ��� -70 Notary Public Vincent J. Higens President PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX 300' OWNER'S LIST Christina Davis Vice President Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of property owner's within three hundred feet of Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AUTHORIZED, J4. ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL ATTN: DIANE 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL C/O MARK OVERSTREET 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 BARBARA 0. FLECK 1/2 LISA BETH FLECK 1/2 1525 SOUTH LODGE DRIVE SARASOTA FL 34239 CHARLES MADDALONE MARLENE MADDALONE TRUSTEES P.O. BOX 635 ASPEN CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 FREDERICO LONGORIA DENNIS E. NIXON BOX 1359 1200 SAN BERNARDO LAREDO TX 78042 PHYLLIS S. HOJEL C/O ELECTRO COM AUTOMATION 2910 AVENUE F ARLINGTON TX 76011 POWDERHOUSE ENTERPRISES 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 T. RICHARD BUTERA JULIE ANTHONY BUTERA 520 E. DURANT AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 LOT 14A, CALLAHAN SUB LOT 15, CALLAHAN SUB LOT 7, CALLAHAN SUB SOUTHERN MOST LOT, GORDON/ CALLAHAN SUB UTE CEMETERY UTE CHILDREN'S PARK LOT 81 GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB LOT 15, UTE PLACE SUB LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUB SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT 14E, CALLAHAN SUB k 6 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK 74135 THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL 5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE SUITE 1000 TULSA OK 74135 UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ASPEN CO 81611 LOT 2A, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB LOT 2B, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB LOT 2C, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB LOT 91 GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB METES AND BOUNDS rr ........... MEMORANDUM h "i TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissio t FROM: Kim Johnson-, Planner RE: Benedict Building - SPA Designation (map amendment), SPA Development Plan, Text Amendment for Consolidated SPA Review, and Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing DATE: April 6, 1993 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the following as proposed: 1) the map amendment to designate the Benedict Office Building parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and 2) the SPA development plan as submitted in the application; and 3) the proposed text amendment which will allow a SPA project to be consolidated to two steps (P&Z and City Council) from the required four steps when the Planning Director deems that a two step review is appropriate; and 4) GMQS Exemption for the proposed deed restricted cabin to be moved onto the site. APPLICANT: Fritz and Fabi Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle Company, represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 1280 Ute Avenue (Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision). The parcel is 2 acres (87,120 s.f.) ZONING: RR (Rural Residential) PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicants seek to amend the Official Zone District map to add SPA designation to the underlying RR-PUD zoning. This will allow the non -conforming office building use to be legalized pursuant to an SPA use variation approval. As an SPA, a Final Development Plan must be approved. The Applicants propose to establish as the Final Development Plan the existing buildings' footprints, parking, open spaces and the relocated cabin. The approximately 1,200 s.f. cabin, designed by Fritz Benedict in the late 1940s, is currently located on a parcel in the west end. The new owners have a demolition permit for the cabin, but will allow the structure to be moved to .the Benedict Office Building site. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1 Engineering: 1. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights -of -way. 2. The City should consider seeking a wider trail easement for construction purposes. The trail is in place at this time with a 14' wide easement, but if it were reconstructed in the future, a wider construction easement may be useful. 3. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building. 4. Street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway. 5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private property, not in the public right of way. 6. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the frontage of the property. 7. The City should consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location between the edge of pavement and the property line. 8. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the applicants' property. 9. Indicate the high water line, the 100-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's easement. 10. The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non- conforming and may not be enlarged. Housing Office: Tom Baker responded that the proposed Category 4 deed restriction is acceptable, and that the minimum 1,400 s.f. requirement will be waived for the 1,230 s.f. cabin because of the voluntary nature of the proposal. STAFF COMMENTS: The Benedict Office Building is a grandfathered non -conforming use in RR (Rural Residential) zone district. This non -conforming status restricts maintenance or upgrades for current and future owners. As the MAA and loth Mountain Division Hut Association are being gifted portions of the building, the non- conforming status also affects financial aspects of their occupancy or future sale of space. The property received City Council approval to condominiumize the building in 1992, in anticipation of the new non-profit ownerships. Staff considered the situation of the non -conformity and any alternatives to an SPA overlay. The only apparent option would be to try to rezone the parcel O Office. This was a less desirable option for one principal reason: by changing the zoning, any changes to the site could be made without P&Z or Council review as long as the use or dimensional requirements were permitted by the Office zone. The SPA overlay ties the parcel to an approved site 2 plan. Any changes, major or minor, must be processed as an SPA amendment. This is somewhat of a burden to the owner(s), but assures the neighborhood and the community that changes will receive appropriate review. Text Amendment for SPA Consolidated Review: The Land Use Code currently requires that SPA developments be reviewed through a four step process Conceptual Plan (P&Z and Council) and Final Plan (P&Z and Council). However, under the PUD (Planned Unit Development) review requirements, the Planning Director can determine that a 'consolidated" PUD review can occur if it is determined that "a full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose". Consolidated PUD reviews typically take place about once every year or two. SPA and PUD overlays have a similar purpose in reviewing various functional aspects of a development, ie. neighborhood compatibility, parking, open space, natural hazards, public facilities impacts, and slope density reductions. The main difference between PUD and SPA review is that within an SPA, a project can receive a variation to the uses allowed in the underlying zone district. Both SPA and PUD approvals require recordation of a development agreement outlining the future responsibilities of the developer and the City. Staff believes that adopting the PUD consolidation language for review of SPA projects makes sense because of its limited applicability and that there is always the option for P&Z or City Council to require full four step review if either body deems it more appropriate for the project. The proposed language for SPA consolidated review is: "An applicant may request and the Planning Director may determine that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Planning Director shall consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve to public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre - application stage of whether consolidation will be permitted." "An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures if Final Development Plan review. The Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur." Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review 3 standards for amendments to the code: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed text amendment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address text amendments. Individual SPA projects are subject to consideration of community impacts. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existi.ng'land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: Compatibility issues will be addressed pursuant to the Final SPA Review standards. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has no effect. Individual applications would be considered via Final SPA review. 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: These items will be addressed via Final SPA criteria. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: Final SPA review would still be -required. Impacts will be evaluated on a site -by -site basis. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this criteria does not directly apply. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: This amendment affects all parcels with an SPA overlay, thus is not specific to any particular location. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with 9 the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: This amendment allows for streamlined review in appropriate situations, which is in the public interest. A complete review under the Final SPA Review standards is still required to evaluate a project's impacts. Map Amendment for SPA (Specially Planned Area) Overlay: Per Section 24-7-801 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of an SPA is to: "A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit." As mentioned earlier in this memo, the non -conforming status of the existing uses on this parcel jeopardizes the useful future of the building to its current and future occupants, and the community. The best way to legitimize the business/professional office use, as staff sees it, is through an SPA overlay and variance approval. Any changes to an SPA property can only occur via established amendment procedures. A similar SPA variance for offices was approved in 1992 at the old Aspen Savings and Loan structure. Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth goals to maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and 5 community oriented functions. While this site was not specifically identified in the Plan, this proposal will allow the established office uses to remain into the future. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: Currently the zoning on the parcel is RR (PUD), as is the Aspen Club, located directly to the east of the subject property. The Ute Park Subdivision (10 units) was approved for the parcel across Ute Avenue in 1992. To the west is parkland. The subject property has been used for offices since its construction in the mid 1970's. The surrounding uses have developed around it, in full knowledge of its impacts. The proposed SPA Plan and use variation will not change the impacts to the vicinity, except for limited activity associated with the one additional deed restricted residential unit. If the non -conforming status of the property continues, the possibility exists that the structure will not be maintained as it should. Yet the demand for office space proximal to downtown will likely remain high. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The only increase in trip generation will result from the relocated cabin being proposed concurrent with the SPA overlay. As Ute Avenue has recently been overhauled, this increase will have minimal traffic impacts. 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: It will be necessary for the relocated cabin up, to connect to the water and Sanitation District service lines which are already on the property. However the map amendment is not expected to substantially increase the demand for public services beyond the current uses or services capabilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The only new development is the placement of the cabin on the site. Any applicable vegetation being removed shall obtain tree removal permits. Stream margin review is not necessary for R this proposal. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Asper.. RESPONSE: The proposed application of the SPA overlay is consistent with the existing uses of the site and will not negatively impact the surrounding area. Any changes to an approved SPA Plan must receive approval through appropriate land use reviews. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: As mentioned in the application, the building was constructed pursuant to legal building permits in 1973/4. The property was rezoned R-15 PUD and RR PUD during 1975/6 as an accommodation to the developing Callahan Subdivision and the Aspen Club facilities. According to the application, no mention of the non -conformity was found in the record when the'Benedict property was rezoned to R-15 and RR. The existing office use predates nearly all residential uses in the neighborhood., including the intensely used Aspen Club. The most important change to the subject property is that Fritz and Fabi Benedict have condominiumized the building and conveyed a substantial portion of it to the Music Associates of Aspen and the loth Mountain Division Hut Association. The Land Use Code tightly restricts what maintenance and improvements can be made to a non- conforming structure (see page 4 of the application) This creates a difficult situation to current and prospective owners of the building for both maintenance, remodeling, and mortgage financing aspects. 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 Benedict Office Building is a valuable asset to the community by providing much needed office space relatively close to the commercial core. Maintaining this use via SPA Plan approval and SPA use variation does not conflict with the community's interest. Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPAJ . 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 7 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 current office uses, along with the one residential unit, has co -existed with the Aspen Club, park, and residential uses along Ute Avenue since the mid 19701s. Since the site will remain virtually the same, except for the proposed relocated cabin, compatibility is maintained. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: Ute Avenue has recently been improved by an improvement district, and can service the existing office building and proposed residential unit. 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: The only new development will be the cabin on the south side of the property. As indicated in the application, this location is within a "blue zone" rating for avalanches. According to Art Mears, avalanche specialist, a blue zone indicates that structures are subject to low frequency, moderate energy slides, typified as loose powder -type slides. Construction is not prohibited in blue zones, but certain construction methods must be employed to relieve avalanche impacts to the structure and its surroundings. Art Mears is expected to make an inspection soon at the cabin site to prepare his recommendations for construction. A suggested condition of approval is that his recommendations shall be followed when siting and constructing the cabin/foundation, and must be attached to any building permits for the cabin. Prior to consideration by City Council, the Applicant shall provide Mr. Mears' finding for this site The recent snowslide across Ute Avenue from the Benedict building is an example of a wet, slab type slide indicated as line #1 on the sketch provided in your packet. 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: The cabin is proposed to be located on the property, taking advantage of the slop the storage garage. The setbacks required underlying RR zone are being honored. Open E'1 in a sensitive manner e in order to excavate of structures in the space and trails are already provided on the property. S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Benedict Building predates the 1973 Land Use Map which established this area as single family residential. The current Aspen Area Community Plan does not make site specific recommendations, but does recognize the loss of local -oriented business locations, and loss of funky character in Aspen. Providing for the continued viability of this office building, and the relocation of a classic log cabin supports the objectives of the AACP. 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 sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Response: The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption for the deed restricted cabin, so a growth management allocation is not necessary. Use Variations permitted within an SPA: Section 24-7-804 D.2. allows variation the uses permitted by the underlying zoning based on the standards of Section 24-7-804 B (the review standards addressed above) . Any variations allowed shall be specified on the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. If the SPA overlay is approved, and the office use is deemed appropriate via variation to the underlying RR zone, the SPA Agreement shall state the variation. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a A determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of growth management exemption for the Category 4 deed restricted single family home to be relocated to this parcel. Please refer to the Housing Office referral, Exhibit "B". RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SPA Designation of the Benedict Office Building, SPA Development Plan, text amendment allowing consolidated SPA review, and GMQS Exemption for the Category 4 deed restricted cabin, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f. 2. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement dis- tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development plan for approval by the Engineering Department. 4. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall determine which avalanche mitigation techniques will be employed to protect the relocated cabin, as recommended by Art Mears or suitable avalanche expert. Such mitigation techniques shall also be attached to the relocation and/or building permit for the cabin. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the Category 4 deed restriction for the relocated cabin. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 6. The Final SPA Development Plan and SPA Agreement (including use variation for professional and business offices) 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 10 before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council.for a showing of good cause. 7. 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. EXHIBITS A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information B - Referral Memos 11 'ARK C4 r fV A LOT 16 O Z Quit z Lc I-l'i CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION 'AII I To rwrrr,:T;�ylilll<� o MANHOLE e-41, "A th /Z 4 A \RK" 25 L. E5ETWEEN A \ P-ED 5ANP5TONf\\�"/ - PLANNING & ZO?ql*C- COMISSIM EXHIBIT 4 ., AppRom 19 BY RzsoLuTroN 10' LN /* MAI- TT (0, a\ f�rWttu)E3 ul� LOT 15 'R20 Pt S c- D t "�. -eAA E IAI Iff A2 OLE MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: April 6, 1993 RE: 'Superblock Worksession SUMMARY: Two months ago, Council and the property owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, Bell Mountain Lodge, City Market and the Hannah Dustin office building contributed money to a conceptual study of - the "Superblock" concept. The scope of work included the review of underground parking and above grade site planning; this was a recommendation contained within the Aspen Area Community Plan Transportation Action Plan. The proposed underground parking structure is one component of the draft Transportation Plan; the Plan is currently being discussed by the Transportation Committee members with numerous organizations in order to gain input and recommendations. The superblock study area included the Kraut property and the land bounded by the alleys on the Kraut property block and the City Market block. A consultant team comprised of Jim Curtis, Joede Schoeberlein, Harry Teague and Jonathavn Rose orchestrated several meetings with surrounding property owners, city staff, and Council. The team has developed recommendations for the Commission and Council for pursuit of the "superblock" concept. The purpose of this worksession is to introduce the Commission to the work and ideas generated by the property owners and consultant team. An April 1T 1993 worksession with Council has been scheduled. Staff will -fake recommendations for both the Kraut property and the "superblock" concept. STAFF COMMENTS: Parking One Garage: The team considered the design and costs of one large parking garage beginning underneath the Kraut property (including the A -frame parcel) and ending at the alley between City Market and the Durant Mall. Most utilities except water and storm drainage are located in the alley. A parking garage underneath the alley between Kraut and Bell/Buckhorn Lodges would require the relocation of utilities. Relocation would be very costly. The alternative is to build a vault to house the utilities in the alley which would allow a continuation of the garage at the second level. In order to build one garage, a development plan for the redevelopment of all the properties would have to be in place. A development plan of this nature will be very time consuming and complex. Two Garages: The second parking scenario was two separate garages, one underneath Kraut including the A -frame parcel and one underneath Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodge/City Market. If separate garages were built the utilities in the alley would remain untouched. The Kraut property could be developed next year without waiting for the development of'the rest of the superblock. If the garage was tucked under Hyman Avenue no parking spaces would be lost by splitting the garages. The team recommends developing two garages. The garage underneath the Kraut property would accommodate the Kraut property development and build -out on the A -frame parcel (some extra spaces will be available for lease). As a result, the City can focus resources on a municipal parking structure underneath the superblock. Site Planning At the request of the property owners the City has begun to explore a variety of land use tools to create redevelopment flexibility on the superblock. One possibility is a SPA overlay. Through a SPA overlay many redevelopment strategies are available. Among those that have been discussed are: pursue a "superblock town square" concept, rezone the LP zone district to NC with lodge on the second floor, flip City Market property to the other side of Cooper Avenue, enable the expansion of City Market, combine employee housing on one site, develop 100% employee housing on the Kraut property, and close Cooper Avenue. Details Jim Curtis together with Jodie Schoeberlein will make a detailed presentation to the Commission emphasizing the difference between one and two parking garages, traffic and pedestrian circulation, and conceptual ideas for the "superblock town square" concept. 2