Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880322 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 22, 1988 - Tuesday 4:00 P.M.* City Council Chambers 1st Floor city Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff ~.. II. MINUTES February 16, 1988 III. RESOLUTIONS A. Recommending Endorsement of Annexation Element by City Council IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 820 & 822 E. Hyman Townhomes Condominiumization V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel GMP/PUD Amendment and Rezoning VI. ADJOURN MEETING * Special Meeting time to complete business under items III and IV prior to continued hearing MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Ritz -Carlton Review Schedule DATE: March 18, 1988 In response to your request, the purpose of this memo is to provide you with the agenda for our discussion tonight, to insure that we move forward from this point on. I have discussed this matter with the applicant, and we would like to skip architecture/design tonight, to allow some additional time for the studies you requested to be completed. The applicant requests that you set a second meeting this week (Thursday the 24th?) to address architecture/design issues. Our intention tonight would be to begin the discussion where we last left off, at item 1.e, FAR and other area and bulk issues. Following this item, we would intend to go through all of the site planning and technical. issues, with the exception of employee housing. We would also like to complete your review of the rezoning of the former Blue Spruce site. The "extra" meeting would be used for architectural review only. Then, on March 29, we would address employee housing and GMP rescoring. Finally, on April 5, a resolution would be prepared for your consideration. Please note that if you schedule a meeting for March 24, I may have difficulty getting the GMP rescoring out the next day for you to review, which would undercut the entire reason for having the extra meeting. With regard to the technical issues, there are several additional comments I would like to make.as follow-ups to the initial memo. These comments will reference the issue number and page from the original memo for your convenience. Please bring your packet from the March 8 meeting as we are not reproducing it herein. Item 2.b- Parking area access The recent drawings of the development at the corner of Monarch and Durant have flipped'.the proposed building and parking entrance.. The new entrance is next to that of the Mountain Chalet, which could cause some conflicts. However, the City Engineer supports the relocation and our prior objections have there.""'ore been addressed. Item 2.d Residential units within the hotel/Rezoning When we commented to you on the request to rezone the site previously occupied by The Blue Spruce from L-1 to L-2 to permit construction of three residential units, current elevations had not been submitted. However, we were informed that the building was to be a modest, two story structure with a restaurant on the lower floor and three residential units on the top floor. When the new elevations were presented last week, we were quite surprised to find that the tower would rise to 48 feet and that the building had a huge skylight which appeared to approach this height. We have reviewed the approved design and found it also was about 50 feet to the peak of the roof, but it contained three floors of lodge rooms and the restaurant. The thirty-six lodge rooms in this building helped to reduce some of the massing elsewhere in the project. We point out to you that the height limit in this zone district is only 28 feet. It seems inappropriate to allow a height 20 feet in excess of the Code for a two story building which could be designed in compliance with this limit. The fact that this is a PUD does not mean that we disregard the Code and let the design determine the regulations; instead there must be a community benefit achieved by any variation granted. We see no such argument made by the applicant and recommend that the building comply with the limitations of the L-2 zone district. Item 3.b- Revisions to parking program The applicant has informed me that all 261 spaces are to be provided on -site, and that the cash -in -lieu payment is no longer an option for this project. Item 3.c-.Coordination with improvement district Since we wrote our initial memo, there has been some discussion with Council about the timing of the Galena Street Improvement District. Some residents of the area want to insure that nothing delays implementation of this district in 1988, and Council appears to concur with this feeling. One action which could delay the district would be if the Ritz project is not committed to going forward with all of its utility installations in the spring or summer and it is decided that the area should only be torn up once. To avoid this situation, we recommend requiring that the applicant commit to installation of required utilities at the same time the improvement district construction occurs. Item 3.g- Construction schedule and impacts There have been further meetings between staff and the contractor in recent weeks. Based on these meetings and our current knowledge of the project, the key issues with respect to the construction schedule are as follows: a. Excavation and pile driving will be highly disruptive to the community in terms of noise and traffic. We M should require these activities to be virtually complete no later than June 15. If this is not possible, construction should not be permitted to begin until September. b. When street closures occur, adequate alternate access routes for residents and for emergency vehicles must be provided, with proper signage in place. C. Fencing should shield construction staging sites, especially at highly visible sites along Durant. d. All construction should be prohibited from 10 PM to 7 AM. e. Construction cranes which protrude over public property must receive a permit from the City Engineer; when located over private property, permission and indemnification must be obtained from the owner. f. Pedestrians walkways will be set up along Mill and Monarch Streets on the opposite side of the street from the construction. This will temporarily eliminate some on -street parking, but the applicant is considering opening to the public the newly built lot west of the Grand Aspen to mitigate this impact. g. For review of the construction worker housing issue, please see page 20 of the original memo. Should any additional issues be brought to our attention, we will comment to you verbally at the meeting. ritzsched2 purposes for their recommendation to the City Council. RESPONSE: The applicant has demonstrated that there will be minimum displacement of employees through the verification (affidavits have been submitted) that the units have been used as long term residents by individuals who do not qualify under the employee housing guidelines and as second homes which have been short termed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approvals of the subdivision and condominium request with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit a statement of subdivision exception which shall include the limitation that the units shall be rented for periods of six months, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. 2) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district if one is formed for their area. 3) A plat shall be submitted pursuant to section 20-15 of the Aspen municipal Code 4) Schematic floor plans shall be submitted which include the following: a. Individual Units b. Common and limited elements C. Elevations of floors and ceilings d. Additional elements as required by the colorado state statutes. ch.ron �0 �yyl,dlY� .A,Q 4 This information is included in your packet. Out of 18 multi -family projects in the neighborhood over half of the units are short termed. The immediate vicinity does include a mixture of long term and short term rentals as well as owner occupied units. However, it is important to note that the projects which allow the short term accommodations are all projects which were created prior to the enactment of the 6 month minimum lease restriction in 1977 or are located to the west of Original Street. The 6 month minimum lease restriction was waived for 700 East Hyman, a similar residential project, however, it is important to note that this is a project in the Office Zone District and is located West of Original Street. We believe that Original Street should be considered a dividing line between the downtown area and this mixed long term residential neighborhood. The Council recently made the determination on the Torpen condo project, located at 1018 E. Hopkins, in the same general neighborhood, that short terming would further deteriorate the area as a long term residential area. The Torpen condo project was denied the ability to waive the 6 month minimum lease restriction. We suggest that waiving the six month lease restriction for 820 and 822 may cause a "tipping" of this neighborhood toward more short term use, which is undesirable, given the many residences in the area. b) The parcel is in close proximity to the downtown area or to major tourist recreational facilities. RESPONSE: The proposed townhomes are located within one quarter block of the bus route, four blocks from the gondola and three blocks from the Hyman Avenue mall. In addition, the Aspen Square, a short term project, is located approximately 3 blocks away from the proposal. C) The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject neighborhood as appropriate for short-term accommodations. RESPONSE: The 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan shows that the area East of Original Street is designated as single family and mixed residential. Mixed residential is defined as having a limited amount of professional offices and tourist accommodations. (c) CRITERIA: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. ,Such demonstration shall be made at the time of initial consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission for 3 T H E Est& Rif- 0 F A S P E N L T D. Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611. To The Planning and Zoning Commission: ROBERTA ALLEN JANINE J. SHARKEY March 17, 1988 Since I am out of town this week and unable to attend the meeting, I wish to express my feelings regarding the proposed Ritz Carleton Hotel project. The developers have presented a plan that is within the legal parameters, visually attractive, well thought out in terms of function and top duality in every way. I don't think it is Aspen';§ architect'.Sfunction to try to legislate taste - and surely a case could be made, both pro and con, for every building in town. Speaking for many of my friends and buisness associates I'd like to strongly_ encourage you to proceed with this project and allow the developers to do what they are proposing without creating additional delays and costs that will inevitably be passed out to the end users. Yours truly, Roberta Allen RA/ask CC:Perry Harvey