Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19870127 / ~'-<.,.~ :~:'.'. ...'.~.. . :;. , AGENDA .,':.... ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 27, 1987 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. city council Chambers 1st Floor city Hall SPECIAL MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff .-- _/ t.r II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - SCORING SESSION A. 1010 ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission Scoring B. 700 E. Hyman Residential GMP Submission Scoring C. 1001 Residential GMP Submission Scoring D. Mountain View Residential GMP Submission Scoring III. ADJOURN MEETING A.COV '. MUSICK AND COPE A E M 0 R A N D U M To.- Planning & Zoning Commission From® Musick & Cope Re: Lowe Development Corporation Date® January 26, 1987 Planning Staff comments raise a question about the ability of City water rights to provide adequate water for aesthetic and irrigation ponds covered under a raw water lease agreement between the City and Lowe Development Corporation. Attached is a tabulation of raw water rights owned by the City out of the Roaring Fork River. The City holds the most senior water right in the Roaring Fork River. The Wheeler Ditch diverts water out of the river near Ute Cemetary. Water from this ditch is decreed for the purposes required by the lease betweeen Lowe Development Corporation and the City. According to an extensive engineering study, this water right would have provided water during the dryest years of record. We believe that this water right is a reliable method of providing water to the Lowe Development ponds. In addition, the City owns the senior water rights from the Durant Mine/Spar Gulch area. These water rights appear to be drought resistant and, therefore, could also insure that the Lowe Development Corporation ponds retain water throughout the season. During the dry period of 1977, the Roaring Fork River dropped to is lowest levels in perhaps twenty years. Even during this time, the City water rights were in priority and could have met the terms of the lease agreement with Lowe Development Corporation. While no one knows what will happen in the future, persons who contract with the City for water service can rely upon the statutory responsibility of the City to meet its obligations. The City has an excellent water system and only enters into agreements which it can honor. N Ff" t" 6 DRAFT WATER 3 NOTES DISK2 Aspen Owns/ Leases Aspen Ditch/ 32 2.00 Irrigation 2.00 Spar Gulch 95 3.00 Domestic 3.00 Wheeler i Nellie Bird Riverside I t East Aspen Begley/Spar Gulch r Anthony Well Aspen Well #4 Durant Mine/ Spar Gulch Aspen Well #2 Aspen Well #3 Street Stock 84 1 10.00 Irrigation 10.00 Domestic Street Stock 3073 3 3.94 Irrigation .65 3076 4 3.00 Irrigation .33 3187 7 6.00 Irrigation 6.00 4310 1.50 Irrigation 1.50 Domestic Industrial 4746 .17 Domestic .17 4758 .67 Municipal .67 Absolute Domestic 2.64 2.64 Conditional 5018 2.00 Irrigation 2.00 Recreational 6165 2.23 Irrigation 2.23 Municipal Domestic 6166 2.23 Irrigation 2.23 Municipal Domestic Manufacturing Jan. 19, 1987 Mr. Glenn Horn Assistant Planner City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Horn, We are residents of 991 Ute Avenue (homeowners of Lot 1, Ute Subdivision) and are writing to let you know that we have reviewed the proposed 1010 Ute Ave conceptual plan and at the present time have no objections to it. In fact, we especially like the proposed park which Skip Behrhorst tells us will be deeded to the City as a City Park. We hope that the area will remain as open as possible so as not to be too densely built in the Ute Ave section of the property, and it would appear that the homes will be clustered away from this area. 0' also appreciate the fact that they plan to construct 17 homesites instead of the allowable 26. Sincerely, Cathryn R. and Thomas F. Crum 991 Ute Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 • i J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 January 20, 1987 Mr. Glenn Horn. Planning Office Asper Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611. Re: 1001 Residential Growth Management and Conceptual PUD Approval Dear Glenn and Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2612 T represent the Gant Condominium Association. Through negotiations with Ronald D. Austin on behalf of Aspen Development and Construction. Company, the applicant herein, we have reached an agreement whereby the Gant consents to and joins in the application being made by Aspen Development. The sole purpose of this joinder is to allow Aspen Development to include the tennis court area, which is the subject of a long term lease to the Gant Condominium Association, in the calculation for density and to be committed to open space by the 1001 project. The Gant is not to be considered as a co-cieveloper. The members of the board of directors of the Gant Condominium Association are all out--of-state residents; therefore, we have been unable to obtain their signatures by the meeting time, and they shall be forthcoming. Sincerely, 0(6��. J. Nicholas McGrath, P.C. mw 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS January 27, 1987 Mr. Sunny Mann Vann Associates P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: 700 E. Hyman Condominiums Drainage System Analysis Dear Sunny® I've reviewed the January 5, 1987 memorandum from Jay Hammond, City Engineer with respect to drainage design for the above referenced project; I have also reviewed the site plan with your office. This is to certify that the storm drainage system can and will be designed to maintain historic flow rates with respect to both surface water flows and groundwater recharge and as a result all historic rates will be maintained while reducing the peak impacts on the adjacent public facilities. The site configuration allows for the construction of either dry wells or other pervious surface retainage facilities so as to provide artificial recharge of the groundwater aquifer to replace that water which is prevented from entering the groundwater because of the proposed construction. The site also allows for the construction of either detention or retention facilities so as to capture the increased surface water generated and release it at historic flow rates. These facilities would also function so as to remove the peak loading on public facilities and therefore would in fact reduce impacts on the currently in place public drainage facilities. I trust that this is consistent with our previous discussions and addresses the key issues raised by Mr. Hammond. Specific design of storm drainage facilities will be accomplished at the detailed submission phase and will be consistent with the above discussion. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. Gordon, P.E. Presid t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Douglas P. Allen for HBC Investments RE: Question of Available Quota DATE: January 26, 1986 INTRODUCTION: This memo to written in response to the analysis of available quota by the Planning Office dated January 27, (sic) 1987. QUOTA AVAILABLE: We basically agree with the mathematical computations of the Planning Office relative to their computations, as far as they go. However, in prior years to 1985 there were also available unused residential quotas as there were in-1985 which have never been used to this date but appear not to have been carried forward. Thus with the 35 units unallocated from the 1985 quota and agreed to be carried forward to the 1986 competition by City Council there are at least 57 units presently available without going into any future year allocations. QUOTA RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office implies in their memo that your easy solution to the numbers problem is to deny �� Mountain View a quota because the Mountain View request presents a problem" because of the number of units requested. Contrary to the Planning Office recommendation we feel not only that Mountain View is worthy of a GMP allocation but that there are compelling reasons to recommend to Council that the unallocated quota be allocated in this year's competition. They are as follows: (1) The Planning Office is correct in that it is likely that Mountain View will serve primarily as a short-term residential use as intended by the City Code in Section 24-3.2 which states in this zone that the intention of the zone is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist - oriented single-family, duplex and multi -family units.", with permitted uses including "dining room, laundry and recreation facilities for guests only." Thus not only the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan of 1984 both state that the projected use by the applicant of this facility is still an adopted community objective of both the planners and the elected 1 governmental officials but so does the City Code. As the Planning Office and Council, not the applicant, have written the City Code, the applicant can only work within the parameters of the Code as it presently exists. That Code specifically allows an application for use such as that before you for scoring this year. (2) Of the projects mentioned by the Planning Office in their memo, only the Hotel Jerome is presently under construction. The Little Nell Hotel is apparently delayed and the Aspen Mountain Lodge project is certainly delayed to a date uncertain. Thus any employee housing changes in connection with these two projects are speculative at best and will only occur at some indefinite time in the future, if at all. The 75 units quoted by the Planning Office will not all be back in the system as residential units until some time in 1988 or 1989 at the earliest. It might be well to keep in mind that available undeveloped or redevelopable land in the recreation/accommodation s area which has not already received allocations is virtually non-existent. Thus we are not talking about going on and on years and years into the future on a geometric growth curve in the recreation/accommodations area. Who will build what, when? No one knows exactly, but certainly not very many units. We submit that it is not only inherently unfair to not fairly grade the applicant based solely on the merits of the project and not on any other outside considerations, but to then forward a favorable scoring recommendation to Council so Council will be in a position to make the decision as to whether a few units should be allocated from the 1987 residential quota either under the Code provision allowing 20% extra in any one year or sufficient units from the future to complete any one project. As you are probably aware, the City Council in granting a multi- year allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge did so based upon the following reasoning in their resolution: "l. The need, as outlined in the Planning Offices, 1982 draft Short -Term Accommodations Report, to substan- tially upgrade the quality of the community's lodg- ing accommodations while maintaining a balance be- tween the quantity of our accommodations and the capacity of our ski areas. 2. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain Lodge site as the most appropriate loca- tion for the development of new short-term accommo- dations. (Note: The "location" referred to is the Recreation/Accommodation Area, not just the one site. 2 3. The opportunity for additional lodge development in the L-1, L-2, CC and CL zone districts, beyond that proposed by the applicants, is limited given the remaining availability of undeveloped parcels and the relatively limited expansion capability of the district's existing lodges. 4. Although there are potential growth impacts on the community associated with the award of a multi -year allocations in the amount required by this project, such an allocation is justified given the off- setting benefits which are expected to accrue to the community and the fact that the project's con- struction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts. 5. The approval of a single major project will have the effect of confining construction to one time period rather than piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many years. 6. The entire Aspen Mountain Lodge district will bene- fit from a project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants' commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission's proposed lodge improvement district. 7. A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for future competitions in the event the proposed hotel is unable to proceed in a timely manner." It is interesting to note that in the last few years much tourist accommodation capacity in the recreation/accommodations area has been lost. Some of these are: 132 units at the Aspen Inn Lodge and annexes 18 units at the Aspen Inn Condominiums 150 Plus attrition over the last 10 years of an estimated 250 units or 1,000 pillows. By attrition we mean removal from short-term rental market by the owners or change in use. We believe the above clearly shows not only a need for replacement of tourist accommodations without delay, but also at least some of the reason for declining attendance figures in our community. CONCLUSION: The applicant thus recommends that, in the event the other three applications are found to meet the scoring threshold, that the Montain View 58 units be allocated together with the 21 3 other units would only construction 1988,. in this year's competition. At the outside, this require allocation of 22 units from 1987 while on Mountain View will not be started until Spring of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Douglas P. Allen for Mountain View RE: Residential GMP Scoring DATE: January 27, 1987 INTRODUCTION: This memo is to clarify and correct some of the comments of the Planning Office as well as to take issue with others, relative to various aspects of the recommended scoring of the Mountain View project. My comments will be in the same order as those contained in the Planning Office memo. For brevity, unless otherwise stated, supporting information verifying the Planning Office's comments will be found in the corresponding section of the GMP application starting with page 17 and ending with page 56. l.a. WATER SERVICE: Rating 2 COMMENTS: None l.b. SEWER SERVICE: Rating 2 COMMENTS: None l.c. STORM DRAINAGE: Rating 2 COMMENTS: None l.d. FIRE PROTECTION: Rating 2 COMMENTS: None l.e. PARKING DESIGN: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 0 ) COMMENTS: Based upon a careful review of other previous project applications such as The Ski Company Hotel, The Aspen Mountain Lodge, The Lodge at Aspen and our previous experience with the 1 601 Aspen project last year with the comments made by both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, comments last year ranged from "parking plan totally inadequate" to no comment regarding the adequacy plus comments to the effect that the Aspen Skiing Company parking commitment should be retained in the form of surface parking. In this application we have addressed all of the previously -stated concerns. By way of clarification, the parking garage will not serve non - project needs nor will it become a public garage. If this is of great concern to the City, this point may be covered in conditions to final approval. Although there is an auto disincentive policy in Aspen we must face the fact for at least the present and the forseeable future the parking problem will be with us. Perhaps approval of the railroad, coupled with an efficient trolley or tram system in the central core area will alleviate some of the automobile problem, but in the meantime we feel that based upon previous comments and surveys of visiting tourists that it is totally appropriate to provide more parking rather than less especially as we are targeting family groups. Our parking design improves the quality of service in the area. The best feature of the parking plan for Mountain View is that it does have excess rather than deficient capacity. Due to the fact that the site is so large the architects have determined that it was very feasible to have, for the first time in Aspen, an adequate parking facility for a project. In order to make this a first class project we made the threshold determination that all guest parking was to be in the underground garage and not * to be crowded onto the surrounding streets as is so prevalent. Frankly, we are amazed at the Planning Office comments relative to an adequate parking facility. Quite simply, parking is a perennial problem in Aspen and we have addressed it with this application. By this design all of the parking spaces on South Aspen Street as well as the 24 newly -created parking spaces on Dean Street will be available for the general public. The Aspen Skiing Company will continue to have 30 surface spaces available for its use at a location with less walking distance to Lift 1-A. The Planning Office comments that 151000 square feet of the site is paved for roads and parking. This is because the streets for the public benefit are being provided within the developer's property to the extent of totally replacing Juan Street with Garmisch Circle plus adding the new 9,000 square foot extension to the now non-existent Dean Street. Please keep in mind that Garmisch Circle is not used at all for the development but is created and constructed by the developer solely to improve 2 circulation in the neighborhood. The only paved surface on the project site other than that provided for public roads is the 5,000 square foot arrival and departure Porte de coche area which is being built totally on our property and not in the street. This is an excellent plan to handle arrivals and departures out of the public roads and without public cost. Co -existing off this area and out of sight inside the building is the service area for delivery trucks and refuse removal with adequately engineered turning radiuses. IN SUMMARY, OUR PARKING PLAN ALLOWS GENEROUS PARKING UNDERGROUND AND OUT OF THE WEATHER WHERE IT IS A VERY REAL AMENITY, LEAVES 42% OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE, TOTALLY MEETS ALL PARKING NEEDS OF THE PROJECT, BOTH AS TO TENANTS AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THE USE OF ON STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINS THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PARKING LOT IN A SUPERIOR LOCATION. l.f. ROADS: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 0 ) COMMENTS: The Planning Office begrudgingly admits that there is adequate capacity on both Garmisch and Aspen given their width and traffic volume to handle the additional traffic. This must be conceded as the referral from the Engineering Department so stated. The creation of the new Garmisch Circle directs traffic to the project approximately 100' up Garmisch Street to Dean Drive with substantially less grade, into the arrival area and then into the garage. Employees and residents will not be using South Aspen Street to access the project. It is correct that South Aspen Street does have a steep grade, almost identical to that of Monarch, Mill and Galena. However, Aspen Street is wider. Both the City Engineer and the Lodge Improvement District Engineer want to have the transit facility above Dean Street. Mountain View cars, if they were to use Aspen, exit it before the steep portion. While some visitors may continue to use Aspen Street to access Lift 1-A, they will either be parking in the newly -created 24 spaces at the bottom of Aspen Street where the grade is less or will merely be subject to the same constraints that presently exist on Aspen Street except that the Skiing Company parking lot is now in a more favorable location. The lessened grade of Garmisch Circle certainly improves the quality of service in the area. Keep in mind that this area is part of the "Recreation/Accommodations" area, intended to be developed as a matter of City policy, with lodge and multi -family units and not left as vacant land. There is intensive development both to the north and south of this site and projected additional development to the south, west and east on 3 the presently underdeveloped property to the east and the west. Regarding the dedication to the public of Garmisch Circle and Dean Drive, it was thought by the developer that the dedication to the public for use of both newly -created streets would be looked upon very favorably by both staff and Planning and Zoning as the construction and maintenance obligation would be that of the developer and not the City thus creating a substantial public benefit to the community. To clarify the situation regarding Dean Drive, it does not exist at the present time, having been largely vacated by District Court action. It is not correct that any additional section of Dean Drive will need to be vacated. As stated in the application, the applicant will grant "a perpetual easement for public use", for both Garmisch Circle and Dean Drive. The vacation of Juan Street and its replacement by Garmisch Circle absolutely does not preclude access to the Barbee property. The new alignment not only maintains the existing access to the Barbee property but creates availability and flexibility on the part of the Barbees to access their property from additional locations along the new Garmisch Circle. IN SUMMARY, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THE NEW GARMISCH CIRCLE AS THE GRADE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED OVER ASPEN STREET, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION IS IMPROVED. THE DEDICATION, USE AND MAINTENANCE QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE RAOD SYSTEM MAY BE ALL ADDRESSED AS SEEN FIT BY P & Z AS CONDITIONS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND THUS BE A REAL BENEFIT TO THE QUALITY OF SERVICE IN THE AREA, MERITING A SCORE OF 2 POINTS. 2.a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY: Rating 2-3 (Planning Office Rating: 1) COMMENTS: We have addressed previous Planning Office comments and reduced both mass and unit count. As mentioned previously, lands to the north, south and east of the site are zoned L-2, all with densities either available or in actual use ranging from 1:1 to 1.75:1 in the South Point, Timber Ridge and Lift One developments. Although not required by the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, the actual effect of the development of Mountain View will be to create a less dense environment with more open space than exists in South Point, Lift One, Timber Ridge, and Shadow Mountain complexes. Regarding the "single family homes" in the neighborhood, the only such home not on the development site itself is the existing Barbee residence. The Barbees have publicly stated that their land is available for redevelopment. Thus it is incorrect to characterize the present interim use N pending redevelopment of the property, as a single family neighborhood. The "small lodge" to the east is the Skiers Chalet which is the same 28-foot height as the proposed Mountain View although on a smaller site and with smaller square footage. To characterize the total height of the Mountain View building with a reference point of Dean Drive as done by the Planning Office is totally inappropriate. If.� ' apply the same reasoning to the Aspen Mountain Lodge its'>'�l d be over 80 ' . The actual Code height of the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge is 42 versus the Mountain View actual Code height of 28 '. Not only are the Skiers Chalet and the Shadow Mountain buildings the same height but due to the fact they are 'substantially south and up the hill they will still dominate the streetscape above the Mountain View. The project unequivocally does not intrude upon the buffer transition area. The amenities associated with Mountain View are of those types sought by tourist families, the targeted market for Mountain View, and are intended solely for the use of residents of Mountain View. They have resort kitchens to appeal to family use. IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE ADDRESSED EVERY ITEM WHICH WAS CRITICIZED IN LAST YEAR'S APPLICATION BY LESSENING MASS, UNIT COUNT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW. BY DOING SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED A TRANSITION AREA FROM THE AREA BELOW UP TO LIFT 1-A AND CREATED OUR OWN BUFFER ZONE BY CONCENTRATING THE BUILDING ELEMENTS WITHIN THE CENTER OF THE SITE. THE CRITERIA FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HAVE BEEN MET BY THE DEVELOPER WITH AN EXCELLENT DESIGN FOR THE RECREATION/ACCOMMODATIONS AREA MERITING A SCORE OF 3 POINTS. 2.b. SITE DESIGN: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 1 ) COMMENTS: The Planning Office is quite complimentary about many aspects of the site design. However, the statement regarding the increase in open space as a result of the vacation of Juan Street is not correct. The 15,000 square feet of Juan Street vacated is replaced by 15,000 square feet of new Garmisch Circle, all 15,000 square feet on the applicant's property. An additional 9,000 square feet, all on the applicant's property, is included in the new portion of Dean Drive designed, built and maintained by the applicant. The "impervious surface for at grade parking and circulation" is an amenity rather than a detraction from the site in that all circulation, arrival and departure required for the project is contained within the project and not on public rights of way. We have reconfigured the open space to be more usable and visually available to the general public and substantially 5 increased building setbacks. The Planning Office states that a major design flaw is the location of the Aspen Skiing Company parking in conflict with the Mine Dumps footprints. This statement is not correct. You will note from attached Exhibit "A" that there is no conflict with the existing Mine Dumps Apartments. It is correct that the Mine Dumps units may be reconstructed without GMP competition. No reconstruction plans exist at present. The only present plan is to burden the Mine Dumps property with the ASC parking and trails as indicated in the presentation. If the property is either sold or redeveloped the trails and parking will be retained as a title exception and covenant affecting the land. The Planning Office also unequivocally states that the surface relocation of the ASC parking is a positive feature of the site design. IN SUMMARY,' WITH THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE FOR GARMISCH STREET, THERE STILL REMAINS 42% GREEN SPACE, THE ASC PARKING IS MAINTAINED IN A BETTER LOCATION, NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION IS IMPROVED. ALL OF THE POSITIVE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE'S COMMENT MERIT A SCORE OF 3 FOR AN EXCELLENT DESIGN OR AT THE VERY MINIMUM A SCORE OF 2 FOR ACCEPTABLE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY. 2.c. ENERGY: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 2) COMMENTS: Planning Office comments on 1010 Ute Avenue which received a Planning Office rating of 3 points stated that the Code requirements with respect to energy conservation' were exceeded by at least 25%. Mountain View's energy conservation commitment exceeds standards by an average of 37% as verified by the Roaring Fork Energy Center. In conversations with Mr. Steve Standiford of the Roaring Fork Energy Center subsequent to the Planning Office's scoring, Mr. Standiford stated that "your project is as good or better than any of the others as far as energy conservation." He further stated that the fact he was unsuccessful in contacting the energy consultatnt did not create any problem in him assessing and concluding that the energy program is an excellent one. SUMMARY: THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL COMMITMENT TO MAXIMIZE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND USE OF SOLAR ENERBY SOURCES. SUCH CAN EASILY BE MADE A CONDITION OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. ALL OF THIS INDICATES AN EXCELLENT DESIGN AND MERITS A RATING OF 3. 2.d. TRAILS: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 2) COMMENTS: In creating an excellent design' for trails this applicant as well as any other applicant is limited in dealing with only the property controlled by applicant. You will note from the Barbee letters that any attempt to correlate the trail system on the applicant's property with that owned by others is criticized and discouraged by them. The optimal route may be to the west but that is for the Barbees to deal with as it is on their property. Subsequent to the issuance of the Planning Office memo I met with Steve Burstein and pointed out to him that his statement that the trails would not be built by the applicant is incorrect as on page 42 of the application it specifically states that the trail will be constructed by the applicant to Nordic Council specifications. The ski trail does not conflict with the tree planting plan, they will co -exist with each other. There is no "siting conflict" in this plan. At this point it is a conceptual plan only. You will note from page 43, the applicant "commits to coordinate and perform the construction of such trail improvements based on designs approved by the Lodge Improvement District." L.I.D. plans continue to evolve and their present plan now calls for some parking on Aspen Street. Our presentation showed typical sidewalk construction on the Aspen Street side of the property, but the applicant has committed to coordinate the sidewalk design with that of the Lodge Improvement District. SUMMARY: THE TRAIL DESIGN IS AN EXCELLENT DESIGN BOTH AS TO CONCEPT AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WILL NOT ONLY BE DEDICATED FOR TRAIL PURPOSES BUT BE ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE. 2.e. GREEN SPACE: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 1) COMMENTS: We agree with the Planning Office that this is an urban environment. We do not agree that it is excessively urbanized. Again, at the risk of being redundant, this is the Recreation/Accommodations area in which such environment is intended. At the present time there are only two existing trees of any significance on the site and one of those will be retained, with the other being replaced with an abundant planting of trees and landscaping to enhance the green space. Sensitive to the criticisms received last year, the green space is directed more toward the front of the project and more toward the outside where it will be an amenity to the neighborhood and of benefit visually to the general public. The only reason that the buffer to the north is not all green space is that Dean Drive is located to the north of the 7 improvements on this site. However, there is a distance of 140 feet to the Timber Ridge and between 105 to 150 feet to Lift One as well as a 90-foot green buffer area on the west side toward the Barbee tract. Even the Planning Office concedes that the site plan is much improved over last year's submittal. SUMMARY: Mountain View will be constructed in an environment intended to be urban. There is substantial and significant green space providing visual relief throughout the project meriting a score of 3 points. 3.a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Rating 3 . COMMENTS: None. 3.b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES: Rating 2 . COMMENTS: None. 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING: Rating 12 COMMENTS: None. a a, JAN 2 71987ILI 'r TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM® Timber Ridge Condominium Association David Ellis, President, Board of Managers RE: Mountain View GMP and Rezoning Application DATE: January 27, 1987 The Timber Ridge Condominium Association objects to the requested rezoning and GMP application for the Mountain View project and submits the following comments for your consideration at your January 27 GMP public hearing and the continued public hearing for rezoning on February 10. Garmisch Circle Realignment The relocation of Garmisch. Circle as originally shown on the site plan is not possible without use of the Barbee property. With the Garmisch Circle Alternative, the 36 feet of proposed improvements (24 feet street and 12 feet trail) puts the north edge of the new trail approximately 5 feet fromthe southeast building and eliminates the majority of landscape buffer between. building and street. This also contradicts statements made that the trail will be ideally located on the southwest side of the new street. The 36 feet does not include any extra. space for necessary snow storage or the transit stop which is also proposed for Garmisch Circle. When these elements are added to the right- of-way requirements, the right-of-way actually encroaches into the building by more than 5 feet. The applicant repeatedly claims that Gilbert Street and Garmisch Circle will align creating a safer intersection, improved traffic flow, and better trail alignments. This would be correct if the Barbee property were utilized. Without the Barbee property the new intersection is worse than the existing Juan/Aspen intersection because it creates a hazardous offset intersection which does not meet city design standards. The improved traffic flow and trail alignment do not occur either. The relocation of Garmisch. Circle as shown in the alternative results in a major site design flaw and nullifies many of the beneficial claims made in the application regarding improvements to traffic circulation., trails, transit Mop and landscaping. This should be reflected in lower GMP scores in all of these categories. Traffic & Parking Impacts/Dean and Garmisch The applicant claims that the opening of Dean Avenue to through traffic will be an improvement to historic patterns. To the contrary, when Garmisch and Dean "become the preferred auto and delivery and bus approach to the project" the negative impacts on both streets will be considerable. In the last 15 years there has been no problem encountered with the dead end situation on Dean Street as it exists. Second, the traffic projections presented do not include any trips generated by employees, service or delivery vehicles or limosines or buses. Garmisch and Dean are very narrow by city standards having only 50 foot and 41 foot rights -of -way respectively. The 41 foot width of Garmisch west of the Timber Ridge is insufficient to accommodate existing angle parking, a 24 foot street, curb and gutter, and proposed 12 foot trail within the right-of-way. The applicant does not own any property in this location. ,The applicant shows 24 head -in parking spaces with landscape islands along Dean Street on all the site plans. This is to occur in a 50 foot easement. On page 31 of the application, the appliant promises a 12 foot trail, 45 degree angle parking and a 24 foot street. The minimum design standards for this configuration require a minimum of 55 feet of right-of-way, obviously in excess of the proposed width. The angle parking requires 40% more frontage to accommodate the same number of parking spaces, virtually eliminating all the promised landscape islands. The applicant claims that there are only 8 parking spaces currently available to the Timber Ridge on Dean Street. There are typically 10 spaces utilized during peak season plus 2 loading zone spaces. The loading zone has been entirely eliminated in the applicant's plan. Finally, it is not clear whether the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing Dean Street public right-of-way in favor of a private easement. We would object strongly to vacation of the existing Dean Street right-of-way. For the above reasons, the project will substantially alter existing traffic and parking patterns and impact both Garmisch and Dean Street. The maximum points requested by the applicant in these categories should not be granted. Relocation of Aspen Skiing Company Parking Lot The relocation of the 30 ASC parking spaces onto the Mine Dump property is essential for the site plan to function as shown, yet there has been no plan or schedule presented indicating how or when the 30 relocated spaces will be accommodated on the Mine Dump property. It is very clear that all existing tenant parking at the Mine Dump apartments must be removed, and quite likely some of the existing structures as well, to provide 30 spaces for the ASC lot as promised. The displacement of existing parking spaces creates a very real negative impact on the neighborhood situation and should reduce scoring for parking and neighborhood compatibility. Trail q In addition to the problems regarding alignment and available right-of-way discussed above, the applicant has specifically declined to pay for construction of the trails and has indicated he expects reimbursement from the Lodge Improvement District. This approach is at best only acceptable and does not merit the maximum points requested for trails. Proof of ownership The applicant does not now have clear title to the property, or does it appear he will have clear title in the immediate future. The concept of considering such a project on equal terms with projects which have met the minimum qualifying prerequisites for GMP competition and subdivision seems unfair to the other applicants. It is even more unfair when a limited number of units are available for the year. The awarding of the GMP Quota assumes that the applicant is ready and able to proceed with the construction within a reasonable period of time which is something that seems very unlikely in this situation. Rezoning The requested rezoning of Lots 3 - 12, Block 11, Eames Addition will result in a net increase in allowable density of 22 dwelling units and an increase in allowable height from 25 feet to 28 feet. Even assuming that the portion of the property abutting Aspen Street may be appropriate for L-2 zoning, the westerly end of the block should remain a transition zone to the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain. The L(PUD) overlay designation in this area was created specifically to allow and encourage transition lodge use. Neither the increased density nor the added height of L2 zoning are appropriate, however the applicant intends to maximize both under the rezoning. Second, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a real community need for the additional upper -end, luxury class multi- family units at this point in time. A very large number of luxury lodge rooms have already been approved, the actual impacts of which have yet to be assessed. Contrary to the applicant's contention, the general community needs may be better met with more moderate priced lodge rooms than luxury condos. The above concerns together with the lack of clear title make it clear that the rezoning will not "promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen" and should be denied.