Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860121 >' RECORD OF PROCEEDIIIlGS REGULAR MEETIIIlG PLANRIIIlG MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm with Commissioners Roger Hunt, Ramona Markalunas, Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton, Al Blomquist, David White, and Jim Colombo present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMEIl'.rS Hunt asked if recertification had been obtained from the energy entities that the City has sufficient electrical capacity to add new growth without brownouts. Richman replied an answer had not yet been obtained. Peyton said she would still like to have the City Attorney come and talk to the Commission, as a whole, about legal responsibilities and conflicts of interest. MIlII1JTBS November 26. 1985: Tygre moved to approve the minutes of November 26, 19851 Peyton seconded. All in favor1 motion carried. PUBLIC BEARING LI~E NELL GNP SCORING SESSION Alan Richman, Planning Director, discussed the scheduling of addressing the many items involved in this application. Tonight's meeting is for GMP scoring issues only. Richman said this was the first time a project had come before the Commission other than at the conceptual level to be reviewed for growth management, therefore, the application was looked at differently. That is not to say different standards were applied in the scoring process. When you have an application of this magnitude and an application which has proceeded to this detail level of its development it is impossible for it to be reviewed with one eye closed. It is for the Commission to make a determination as to whether they think the level of commitment in certain areas is adequate at this point and if the commitments made by the applicant can in fact be accomplished. Richman reviewed the Planning Office's proposed scoring of the project. There were referral comments on water and sewer concluding in both areas that the applicant was upgrading the public water and sewer system to the point that it is a general benef i t to the neighborhood. The recommendation is for maximum points. In the area of storm drainage the applicant had studied the issue from the standpoint of the site as well as the surrounding area and 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 had recognized a need to handle off-site drainage as well as on-site drainage, which is desirable for the project and the commun i ty at large. There were 2 questions about the drainage design. The applicant is committed to installing storm drainage facilities on the site, for the site and the tributary drainage but provided no indication as to where on the site that would occur. The Planning Office has been unable to determine that in fact the applicants commitment could be realized on the site, feeling unable to give them a maximum rating as a result of that level of discomfort. After talking to the applicant it was determined this was not a proposal to do on grade drainage but to do some subgrade detention facilities, routing it to the City's storm sewer system. Richman said that gave him a conceptual feeling that the site could handle the storm drainage but that the impact would be on the City sewer system. Richman said he felt a score of 1 was justifiable on that basis. Richman said in terms of fire the proposal is to add 2 fire hydrants to the neighborhood. They do improve service to neighb- oring properties. Jay Hammond's (City Engineer) opinion was that without the hydrants the project would not work. Richman said Jim Wilson, Fire Inspector, commented that fire access would not be available to all sides of the building, therefore, needing to be sprinkled, which it will be. Richman said the Planning Office was rating this a 1 1/2. Richman said there were no improvements proposed to the road network and based on the consultants analysis the roads are adequate. Richman said there were several potential problems with the roads but did not downgrade the project as a result because there was no basis to say the roads are inadequate in the area. Richman said Jay Hammond had expressed concern about the traffic generation figures being used by the consultant. Richman also thought the Commission should be aware that there had been no analysis or recognition of the impact of any on mountain activities yet the new lift is a part of this overall project. He thought there was a clear relationship between the increased capacity on the mountain, increased traffic on the streets, as well as the increased attractiveness of Little Nell when the new lift is placed on the site. A color rendering of the architectural design was reviewed. Richman thought it demonstrated successfully that there were a number of techniques being employed in the design that would tend to reduce the perceived mass and height of the building as opposed to the neighboring buildings which are of the flat 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGm.ll.R MEE'l'ING PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 square variety. Richman thought this indicated a successful effort at trying to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Richman said the reason for the downgrade in this category was the applicants shadow study which indicates that Durant w ill be in the shade for most of the winter and Spring St. will be shaded in the afternoon by the building. This category was rated at 1 1/2 by the Planning Office. Richman said in terms of site design he had real problems with the way the project had proceeded. The mall on both Dean and Hunter is a significant improvement to the area and has a lot to do with the overall project in terms of better access to the site for skiers. As indicated by the applicant zone 2, the area by the Tippler and in back of the North of Nell building, will not be fully paid for by the applicant. Richman said he did not think the neighborhood impacts were being handled in that aspect. Additionally, there was no indication as to who would maintain the mall areas, which might have a significant public caucus associated with it. Richman said his main site design problem was in terms of the skier drop off area. He thought it created a number of problems for the community. In terms of open space there really is none along Durant St. Richman's major problem with the project design was the way the traffic flows. There is a potential serious conflict with cars coming out of the drop off area and in to the porte-cochere area, along with a dangerous intersection. Additionally, with an island placed in the city right-of-way people will park against the island turning Durant St. in to essentially one lane. There will at least be loss of public parking on Durant st. which is undesirable. The Planning Office's recommended score was 1. In terms of energy conservation measures Richman said this was state of the art techniques and an exceptional gesture on the part of the applicant. Richman said he thought this rated an outstanding design score of 3. Richman said from one standpoint there had been several improvements in terms of parking and circulation. A drop-off/service area within the mall, presented at the conceptual level, has been eliminated which Richman thought was a major benefit. Richman also thought moving the maintenance function from the base area would have major benefits to the community both visually and from a circulation standpoint. Richman said a question had been raised by members of the public about the design by the Tippler and Tipple Inn, essentially removing their service/delivery area and some of the parking. The applicant has submitted a letter to 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RBGm.ll.R MEE'l'ING PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 the Planning Office indicating that this property was not under their control and that the design should not be considered by the Commission as a definitive design. Richman said he thought the applicant had retained the crucial view of the site from Hunter St. and there were no view plane impacts from designated public locations. The standard score was recommended. In terms of amenities Richman said both the restaurant areas were essentially standard. rated both of these areas standard. conference areas and The Planning Office Richman thought there were exceptional amenities for the community at large in terms of recreational facilities, adding the facilities were standard for the lodge itself. The Planning Office gave this area a score of 3. The housing is by formula reSUlting in 9 points being awarded for housing 36% of the employees and 5 points awarded for housing those employees in converted units. The Planning Office's recommended score of the project was 57 points which is above the threshold of 54 points. Peter Forsch applicant, said they had addressed all 25 conditions of approval and thought the submission was considerably improved. Mr. Forsch said there were 3 areas he would like to draw attention to. One being the delivery service area, being moved out of the Dean St. area over to Spring St. The service area has been both enlarged and moved further in to the building, lessening the impact to the base area. Secondly, the parking had been increased significantly, up to 118 spaces, which their consultant have said is more than the proj ected need yet represents the total square footage available. Thirdly, the entire building has been moved back 10 feet from Durant St. in order to accommodate a number of concerns dealing with open space, parking and circulation, shadows, and perceived building mass. The building is now 36 feet away from the existing curb line. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, commented that in Alan Richman's memorandum to the Commission regarding the scoring of this application Mr. Richman says "in the rating of this project we used a slightly different standard than would otherwise be the case". Mr. Kaufman wanted to point out that GMP scoring needs to be done in a way that treats all applicants the same regardless 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGm.AR MEETING PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 of their underlining zoning. The GMP submission requirements can not be treated differently on scoring. This particular application is much more detailed than any other GMP application. The scoring criteria that exists in the code for GMP does not take in to account the conceptual or the detailed SPA aspects of this application, which take place at another time. The SPA was never intended to change the way a GMP application is scored. Richman reiterated that everything that was before the Commission, as it applies to the criteria of growth management, should be applied to the criteria of growth management. Bill Kane, representing applicant, submitted a document to the Commissioners that represented the applicants suggestions for the scor ing of the proj ect. Mr. Kane said in the storm drainage area they were scored 1 point and are requesting 2 points. Because of the un ique position of the site the storm drainage investigation included lands from Durant St. essentially up to the head waters of Vallejo Gulch. In the investigation the first problem area uncovered was some unclearity about the flow from Vallejo Gulch. The best mapping available for this review was a 10 foot contour map prepared for the Aspen Mountain plan. We were informed that the investigators did not feel that 10 foot intervals were sufficient to allow them to accurately characterize the flows and direction of the flows. We proceeded with a contract to produce new mapping at 2 foot intervals to allow the investigators to precisely calculate the drainage characteristics to get a feel for what kind of storm flows would be experienced at Little Nell given a 100 year storm event. The 2 foot interval contour mapping project was interrupted by an early snow and ground control work was not completed and deferred until the summer of 1986. The Engineering fi rm advi sed the applicant that in order to proceed with the application the only possibility was to proceed with a worst case scenario, meaning we had to proceed on the assumption that 100% of the 100 year storm event from Vallejo Gulch would be transmitted down the Little Nell slope. The applicant proceeded with the worst case scenario, approaching the project with the idea of trying to understand what the absolute worst case would be in terms of flows experienced at this building site from a 100 year storm event. Mr. Kane outlined on a map the area and drainage patterns. The analysis looked at 100% of the worst case scenario reaching the Little Nell area of the mountain. Hopefully when better mapping is obtained it will show that some of this drainage will be diverted to other areas. The calculations were used to arrive at a retention facility sizing of 33,000 cubic feet. The applicant has said in their 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDIIIlGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSIOII JANUARY 21. 1986 application that they will build a 33,000 cubic foot facility with an outlet drain to tie in to the City's storm water system. Mr. Kane said they feel they have done all that is required in conducting a thorough analysis, understanding the 100 year storm event, accepted the worst case scenario, and have in a conceptual way designed a retention facility to detain the waters and release them into the storm drainage system in a way that would not have a negative impact. Mr. Kane said in Mr. Richman's memorandum it states that the project was not retaining 100% of storm water on si te. Mr. Kane did not feel it was a reasonable request for the project to try to retain on this property 100% of the storm drain requirement deriving from Aspen Mountain. Mr. Kane thought they were being degraded because they were using the City's storm drain system but that is the purpose of the storm drain system. Blomquist asked if when doing the resloping of the base area would the dirt move the base up higher and would it in any way tend to divert Vallejo Gulch waters even less. Mr. Kane said one of the comments in the analysis of the site was that too great a width was shown, which would interrupt some historic drainage patterns to the east, essentially worsening our case of diverting water on to the Little Nell slope. A more significant problem was the impossibility for credit at the bottom and fill material at the top of the slope had been reduced because there were reservations about the stability of fill material on the slope. Essentially when the new topographic map is obtained we will go back and redo the grading plan with more precision. What is shown in this presentation is a grading plan that represents the worst case conditions. Mr. Forsch said they do not intend to disrupt the historic flow out of Vallejo Gulch and at this point have assumed all of the water will come down Little Nell, which will probably not be the case but, an assumption they are willing to make at this point. Mr. Kane asked the Commission to keep in mind that they were analyzing a site that goes well beyond the property that will be immediately involved, have assumed the worst case scenario, have retained the best storm drainage engineers available, and are committing to a 33,000 cubic foot detention facility. Mr. Kane felt this area was worthy of 2 points rather than the suggested 1 point. Regarding the Fire Department, Mr. Kane said they proposed an extension of a 6 inch water line attached to a fire hydrant at Spring St., which would be a newly constructed line. In Jim Markalunas's (Water Department) letter to Alan Richman he suggested that line be a 12 inch line. Mr. Kane said they supplied it as a 6 inch line because that was how they were advised by the 6 ~ ~~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING MID ZOIIING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 Volunteer Fire Department. They would gladly amend the application to accommodate a 12 inch line. Mr. Richman said the 12 inch line was highly desired by the Water Department and if the applicant makes that commitment the score should reflect the change, amending the score to 2 points. In terms of architectural design Mr. Kane said the Planning Office had criticized the application based on 3 points: U the schematic level of the drawings submitted, '2 the shading the building would create on Durant St., and .3 the shading of Spring St.. Mr. Kane referred to drawings in their submission (page 25) showing shading created at 9am, 12noon, and 3pm for February 21 and December 21. These illustrations show that the majority of Durant St., at high noon on December 21 , is in the sun. Mr. Richman said he took the comments specifically from the applicants submission which states Durant St. will be in the shade for most of the winter but in February there will be sun all during the mid-day. Mr. Kane said shade will be created by the building on Durant St. but with the sloped roof feature and the additional set back of the building those shading impacts are minimized. Mr. Kane also felt there should not be a downgrading for the shading on Spring St. because, being a north south street, at high noon the sun will be in that street. Mr. Kane thought this application warranted at least a standard score and requested a score of 2.5. The next issue discussed was Site Design. Mr. Kane said the application had been downgraded because1 '1 the Aspen Ski Company's failure to pay for 100% of the pedestrian mall as shown in the plan, and t2 the skier drop-off issue. Mr. Kane said they had submitted a drawing, called a "Landscape development plan" to show or document in more detail precisely what the ASC was committing to in the form of streets in the location. In the first submission there was a detail plan showing lots of trees and paving, not clarifying who was going to pay for what. A new drawing has been submitted showing 2 zones. Zone 1 will be developed by the Aspen Ski Company at its own expense with input from the Aspen Lodge Street Improvement District. The plan for zone 2 is to have the ASC participate in the development of zone 2 essentially as an adjoining neighbor in the Street Improvement District. Zone 2 is politically so volatile because of the special requirements of the Tipple Inn and North of Nell building that politically it is not reasonable for the ASC to try to be put in the position of being planner/designer for a street that inherently has problems that are part of the Tipple Inn and North of Nell operations. Mr. Kane said zone 2 is not being planned or designed as part of this 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLAlIIIIING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 application. Mr. Kane asked that consideration for zone 2 be withdrawn from this application and did not feel their score should be degraded because of failure to pay for that zone. Mr. Kane said in the issue of the skier drop-off design the change was to set the building back and try to accomplish as much of the drop-off on private property as possible. The building has been set back as far as possible with the basic constraint of trying to achieve the shipping and receiving functions off of Spring St, a 45 angle parking configuration is planned, a planter island installed to insure vehicles will not back into a moving lane of traffic, and the backing distances and turning radius are drawn from standard civil engineering design manuals. Under site design the recommended score of 1 reflects a major design flaw, Mr. Kane said their requested score would be 2.5 points. Mr. Kane reviewed the plans for the drop-Off area. Hunt said he had a problem with extensions in to the right of way, thinking it not practical for the way people drive, and also not practical for clearing the street of snow. Blomquist said Denver had installed this type of situation and it works fine. Mr. Kane said there would be opportunity to talk about this further during the precise plan stage of review. Mr. Kane said in the parking and circulation category the applic- ation was downgraded to inadequate parking because of removal of public parking for the drop-off area, which was also a cause for downgrading under site design. Mr. Kane said they have requested that the drop-off area be considered under one category or the other and that one issue not be used under multiple categories to downgrade the application. Mr. Kane commented that the parking ratios used were the same that were used for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project, in that .7 spaces per lodge room were used as the main ratio to generate parking. Tygre asked if the parking on Durant St. in front of the drop-Off island was going to be eliminated. Mr. Kane replied yes. White asked how many parking spaces would be lost with this proposal. Mr. Kane replied 14 in the summer and 10 to 12 in the winter. White then asked if 14 spaces could be located wi thin the proposed drop-Off area. Mr. Kane said they were showing 12 spaces. Mr. Kane said they would request at least a score of acceptable on this issue. Under amenities the project was criticized for having standard quality facilities for conferences. Mr. Kane said this is a 96 room hotel and not of a scale to justify large conference facili- ties. There are facilities in proportion to the number of rooms. The plan would be to provide full support to those conference 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGm.ll.R MEETING PLANRIIIlG MID ZOIIING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 facilities. Additionally, a night club/bar restaurant operation was mentioned and is shown on the third floor of the hotel. Mr. Kane said given the size of the rooms, the quality of the building itself, the extensive amenities, preservation of the outdoor deck space, and the preservation of most of the amenities that currently exist at Little Nell in an upgraded form warrant a rating of 3 points rather than the suggested score of 2 points. White asked how big the lodge rooms were. Mr. Forsch replied 550 sq. ft. Mr. Kane said they would like to have the bonus points considered for five major reasons. Realization of currently inappropriate land uses and the fact that there will be a massive clean-up of the base of the Little Nell site1 improvement of skier/pedestrian arrival, and the fact that this will result in the largest private commitment of resources to public spaces than from any other project in the CitY1 the improvement of skier services in virtually every categorY1 the excellent building design1 and the reconstru- ction and improvement of util i ties to incl ude water, sewer, drainage, electric and fire protection all of which will result in vastly improved services for the entire neighborhood. Hunt asked about the circulation around the service area, noticing on the plans there was not enough clearance for 25 and 35 foot truck trailers (as shown) to maneuver in the space alloted. John Cottle, for applicant, said they had discussed this matter at great length with a traffic consultant and the proposal was at heir recommendation. Mr. Forsch said more detail could be obtained and Mr. Hunt said he would like to see it because he did not believe the area would work. Markalunas asked how much of the parking would have to be removed to accommodate the shipping and receiving area. Mr. Forsch replied none, there is no parking permitted in the area now as it is currently the Ski Company maintenance facility. Markalunas then asked about the parking next to the Woodstone Lodge building. Mr. Kane said that was signed parking from 6pm to 3am and parking was not permitted there during the day. Richman commented that if the applicant was committing to the fact that their design works for the turning radius they have the ability to demonstrate that to the Commission at the precise plan stage. The Commission should review and score them based on the commitment. If they can not meet that commitment that is a substantial change for their application. 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEE'l'IIIlG PLANRING MID ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1986 Hunt said in order for him to score the project he needed to know if there would be a gondola or a quad chair lift as it would be a different score. Richman said in terms of skier capacity they represent identical numbers. Different benefits may be seen from the two but that information will not be available until later in the process. Anderson opened the public hearing. Anderson entered letters from Mr. Crawford and Mr. John Taylor in to the record. Don Crawford, Tipple Inn Board of Directors, said they were concerned because their only parking is off of Dean St. and they need a large turning radius to get in to that parking. He said it was imperative that they have enough space to get in to that parking. Mr. Crawford did not see how the area could become a major drop-Off area as proposed and the Tipple Inn residents still be able to get into their parking. Additionally, there is concern about long ticket lines at the ticket kiosk proposed for the end of Dean St.. Mr. Crawford said the owners at the Tipple Inn were also not interested in getting a bill for an area that they are not necessarily interested in and will create a lot of congestion. Ron Craigtion, read a letter from J.D. Muller, Tipple Inn resident, asking that the precise plan review, conditional use permit, GMP quota allotment, not be considered apart from each other and that any GMP recommendation include as a condition the approval of the precise plan and the conditional use permit. Hans Gramiger, concerned citizen, asked if the park incorporated in the plan had been acquired at this time. Mr. Forsch replied no but that they were in the process of acquiring it. Mr. Gramiger said the parking requirements for this project were different than those for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project, multiplied by the fact that the ASC is in the business of running ski lifts. He felt no one had considered providing parking for the people who pay a large amount of money to use the ski lifts and thought that should be addressed. Additionally, Mr. Gramiger thought the site design, parking and circulation, and the service entrance should be scored a -10 each because the project is an insult to the community. The service entrance will not work. Mr. Gramiger thought the building should be moved back, and the entrance moved to Durant St., with no exits on to Durant or Spring St. but rather an underground tunnel exiting further down at the next intersect- 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETIIIlG PLAlIIIIING MID ZOIIING COMMISSION JAROARY 21. 1986 ion. Mr. Gramiger said the zoning had not encouraged the applicant to use any ingenuity. Mr. Gramiger added that the Aspen Skiing Company was in the skiing business and has steadfastly refused to give parking and now they are requesting a double use and only want to provide amenities for the new construction, completely ignoring there is a ski hill. Jerry ~1t, manager of the Aspen Alps, commented they had worked with the ASC on this project and they find the plans submitted very compatible to their area. Additionally, they are pleased with the design and concept of the proposed project. Anderson closed the public hearing. Hunt asked about the serviceability of the new lift to transport the mountain restaurant merchandise up and down the hill. Will there be a separate vehicle that will carry these things to the restaurants. Mr. Forsch said they will be looking in to "work carriers", which can carry up to a ton of merchandise per load. Hunt then asked what provisions had been made for the parking of service vehicles. Mr. Forsch said their thinking was that they may need access to the service/loading dock which will be made available. If there is any prolonged term parking they anticipate having some spaces underground where a vehicle could be left for longer periods of time. The Commissioners scored the proj ect. The final score was 55.2 which is above the threshold. Motion: Hunt moved to direct the Planning Office to draft a Resolution which: 1. Forwards to City Council the Commission I s scores on the GMP project1 and 2. Recommends that City Council not act on the issue of allotment of 96 lodge units until such time as the Commission completes its review of associated submissions, and forwards its complete recommendation to Council. Peyton seconded. All in favor1 motion carried. II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRIIIlG MID ZOII1IIIlG COMMISSIOII JANUARY 21. 1986 OLD BUSIlIIESS MUNICIPAL CODE AMElIIDIIEll'.r: LOT SPLIT RESOLUTIOlll Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request and proposed language for the resolution. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said he did not understand why lands annexed by the City should be treated any differently than land that existed within the City limits. Richman said the County lot split provision was a 50% density reduction so there is a community benefit associated with the lot split. Therefore, someone could be interested in annexation which would in effect give the right to a lot spl it at density instead of a lower density. Blomquist thought the last sentence of Condition '1 "and the land was not annexed by the City subsequent to January 1, 1986" should be taken out. Motion: Hunt moved to approve Resolution '86-1, amended to strike the last sentence of Condition #11 Tygre seconded. All in favor1 motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. =K~ uJ~ Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 12