Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20181016 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Skippy Mesirow, Jimmy Marcus, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McKnight, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps. Absent: Scott Marcoux, Ruth Carver. Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Ben Anderson, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager Trish Aragon, City Engineer COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that ballots will be the in mail this week and that voters can use Pitkin County BallotTrax to track their ballots. They can find that information on the Pitkin County website. Mr. Mesirow encouraged everyone to vote. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS Toni Kronberg encouraged people to vote for Option A on the Rio Grande Plaza question and discussed the benefits of that option over Option B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern stated that there is a section in the minutes from October 2nd that incorrectly states that the City of Aspen is the property owner on Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus. Mr. Anderson clarified that it should state that the City of Aspen is one of the property owners of the properties on the Lift One Corridor Project. The final copy of the minutes will reflect that change. Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the minutes from October 2nd. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resolution No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge Subdivision / Planned Development Major Amendment to a Planned Development Continuation from the October 2, 2018 meeting Mr. Mesisrow noted that this meeting may need to be continued to a special meeting if the commissioners feel that they need more time to review the application. Mr. Anderson introduced himself and noted that the commissioners have received many public comments emailed to them. He submitted them as exhibits to the packet and they will ultimately forwarded to City Council when the project comes before them. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants have been in ongoing conversations with the Cascade Townhomes and Aspen Mountain Townhomes who have objections regarding the east building profile and massing and include view line issues. Because they are already in collaboration with the applicants, they are not raising their concerns at this point, but have not waived their right to comment publicly on this project. Mr. Anderson stated that staff will give their presentation first and then the applicant team. He stated that this project is a part of the Lift One Corridor Project and that representatives from all parts of the project are present at the meeting. He stated that the applicant on this project is Lift One Lodge. Previous approvals include Ordinance 28 of 2011, a significant but minor amendment in 2016, and a series of vested rights extensions from City Council that extend through 2021. The primary review is planned development, major amendment with a series of sub-reviews. He stated that there are elements of this project that remain similar to original approvals from 2011 and 2016, but that some things with this proposal, which will be the focus of the meeting. He gave a summary of the proposed changes to the project from existing approvals for the benefit of those who were not at the previous meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that both staff and applicant presentations intend to address the questions and concerns that the commissioners raised at the previous meeting. He stated that the staff presentation is grouped by categories. Mr. Anderson introduced the materials required from the applicant prior to the second reading of City Council. He listed areas of concern as the vertical circulation elements, re-study of material form, relocation of elevator and stair towers to the interior of the building, a visual analysis of the height and massing from the Wheeler view plane, evidence that the subgrade garage allows for movement of trash and recycling vehicles, a visual depiction of pedestrian amenity for lot one. Staff feel that they need to collaborate with the applicants on a confirmed dimensional table for the project. Staff would also like to see detailed floor plans to confirm allocations of floor area to proposed uses to ensure that it is being allocated appropriately. Mr. Anderson then introduced issues that the commissioners raised that staff felt could be worked out in final review. Those things include engineering requirements, the final design for the subgrade garage, the potential for public access to the rooftop amenity, energy and water efficiency outcomes, and free market residential unit sizes. He noted that staff concern about the size of the free market residences has been reduced as it has been clarified that they are approximately the same size as original approvals, though they still are above what is currently allowed in the lodge zone district. Mr. Anderson introduced the issues raised by neighbors in public comments. Those include the cul-de- sac and traffic conditions on Gilbert Street and the extension of building mass on the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. He noted that staff have considered these issues and Community Development and Engineering staff are supportive of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Anderson also mentioned the concerns from the Southpoint development across the street from Willoughby Park which include Dean Street. Most of the concern is related to the relocated access point to the garage on Dean Street and the related traffic impacts, the movement of Skier’s Chalet Lodge closer to Dean Street, the inclusion of pedestrian and bike facilities on Dean Street, impacts from the new sidewalk to the north side of Dean Street and the required relocation of the Southpoint trash dumpster. He stated that, while staff respect the neighbors’ concerns, staff have worked hard on the details of the proposed design and are in support. He introduced Kevin Dunnett from the Parks Department to speak to updates to the site. Mr. Dunnett showed some of the redesign that has been done since the previous Planning and Zoning meeting. He gave the measurements of Dean Street and the proposed bike lane. He showed a slide of the redesign of the staircase, which was done in response to the Historical Preservation Commission’s concerns from their previous meeting. He described some of the amenities in the design and stated that the grading meets ADA requirements. He noted that the design has changed slightly to remove some retaining walls and provide more of a park feel. Mr. Anderson stated that there are three issues that need further discussion before P&Z recommendation. The first is concerns about parking in the neighborhood. Staff have several recommendations to address this, which all meet code. One option is provision of the 75.1 onsite parking spaces. Another is provision of the 75.1 parking spaces using a definition of parking that would allow for tandem spaces, cars stacked back to back, or stacked spaces, which would be accessed by valets. Lastly, up to 40% of parking can be provided by cash-in-lieu. Staff does not prefer this option. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the design of the subgrade parking garage and described the layout. Mr. Anderson gave more details about growth management. He stated that most of the project has already received their allotments with the previous approvals of the project, which are still valid. There are an additional 20 lodge unit keys and one additional free market residence that need to be allocated to this, which staff is recommending. Mr. Anderson addressed affordable housing mitigation. He stated that the original project was a negotiated project and that many came together to result in final plan development. It utilized 2005 Land Use Code. As a result of the initial approval and in the amendment, the project was required at the time to provide mitigation for 90.96 FTEs at a category 4 rate, which was at a 100% mitigation rate. Under the proposed project, the 16 dorm style units from the original approvals are going away, though there is a proposal for one one-bedroom onsite unit that would account for 1.75 FTEs. The balance of mitigation would be offsite and buy down, affordable housing units, and the previously proposed cash- in-lieu. As a major amendment, this project is required to come into current code compliance regarding affordable housing mitigation. Under current code, staff estimates mitigation for 61.77 FTS at a category 4 rate. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicants met with APCHA on October 3rd. Their recommendation was that the ski museum remain as an Essential Public Facility and the Aspen Skiing Company services be considered net useable and calculated in that affordable housing mitigation estimate. APCHA was not supportive of cash-in-lieu as a method of meeting mitigation. He stated that staff does not have a preference for cash-in-lieu, but stated that it is allowed by the land use code and by APCHA guidelines. As a result, Community Development staff is recommending that cash-in-lieu continue to be considered. Mr. Anderson explained employee generation review. He stated that staff recommendation for affordable housing mitigation is to use generation and mitigation rates calculated using current land use code. The project mitigation may be evaluated using employee generation review and the free market mitigation may be waived due to the efficiencies of related free market lodge facilities. This is described by code and may be done at the discretion of Planning and Zoning and City Council. An audit would be required two years following the certificate of occupancy. He also stated that staff recommends that the ski museum remain categorized as an Essential Public Facility, which is established in existing approvals. And lastly, that mitigation may be provided using offsite units, onsite units, affordable housing credits, buy-down units, or cash-in-lieu. Mr. Anderson stated that total mitigation using 2018 code would be 61.77 FTEs according to staff estimates. Free market generation is 13.6 FTEs, and that number would be subtracted from the total mitigation. The numbers would be confirmed during building permit once staff fully understand the exact programming of the project. Mr. Anderson stated that Planning and Zoning had raised concerns about heights, floor area and massing, and how this proposal compares with the previous approvals. He explained that the measurements in the previous approvals were based off of interpolated grade, which is why the 2018 numbers are different. He compared the measurements from previous approvals with the current proposal and showed diagrams that illustrate that comparison. He stated that staff’s position is that both buildings are below the interpolated grade, though using the interpolated grade for height is an unusual condition for approval. He stated that staff is recommending support of the interpolated grade and 53 feet as they were previously approved but wanted to be transparent about height. He showed slides of the original building as it was approved in 2016 and read the measurements. He stated that, from finished grade, the tallest points on this building are given an additional ten feet from the approved height as part of previous approvals and part of land use code that allows additional height for vertical circulation elements. He stated that staff’s perspective is that there are points on this building that benefit about 5 feet from the role of interpolated grade. The building stays below the maximum height established in the approval, however, in terms of measurement from finished grade, there is some additional massing that has happened. Mr. Anderson addressed gross lot area and stated that staff and the applicants are on the same page. He stated that gross lot area for lots 1 and 2 is 44,800 feet. He stated that the floor area ratio in the lodge zone district is 2.5 to 1, which translates to an allowable floor area of 112,000 square feet. The proposed floor area for this project is 170,600 square feet. This compliance with the allowable floor area in the lodge zone district is one of the reasons why staff is recommending approval of the project. He stated his belief that P&Z was concerned about this project getting bigger from previous approvals, but that the gross floor area didn’t change. The parking was reduced by 22,000 square feet, which got reallocated to lodge, commercial, and residential use. He stated that staff’s view is that there is an increase in floor area in this project from original approval because of that change in programming from below grade to above grade. He stated that P&Z’s consideration of that is whether or not the change in programing justifies additional massing that’s come above grade. Mr. Anderson stated that staff’s recommendation is approval with conditions. Staff request discussion of the massing concerns, particularly on the vertical circulation elements. Staff have an estimate of 49.09 FTEs at a category 4. Staff would like the applicants to provide required parking mitigation onsite. Staff request that the applicants provide required additions to the application for Council review, and that they include specific project details in detailed or final review. Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to the commissioners for comments and questions. Mr. Walterscheid thanked Mr. Anderson for his presentation. He asked for clarification on the measurements, asking if he is correct in the assumption that, due to interpolated grade, this building is 10 to 15 feet taller in some cases than a 53-foot elevation. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Walterscheid is correct if the interpolated grade and the approved vertical circulation elements are taken into account. Mr. Walterscheid stated that the 2011 ordinance ties the project to height and floor area. He asked what we measuring differently now, according to the current land use code, that was not measured that way before? Mr. Anderson replied that it was the use of the interpolated grade and the way that interacts with wall sections. He reiterated that the gross floor area is growing by approximately 22,000 from the square footage that is moving from below grade to above grade. He stated that staff is confident in the current calculation and the relationship to FAR, but that staff and the applicant can’t give a precise number in terms of floor area because of the difference in calculation methods. Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. Anderson to clarify which elements of this project are subject to the old land use code and which are subject to the new land use code. Mr. Anderson stated that staff and the applicant have tried to find a balance of those things. He stated that the interpolated grade is part of existing approvals. Staff felt that it was fair to bring the employee mitigation number into compliance and bring the calculation of that into current code. Staff made some decisions about going with vested approvals in some circumstances, such as in the question of height. Ms. Garrow stated that there is a vested approval until November 2021. If the amendment isn’t approved or the vote fails, that building is going to be constructed without all of the other public benefits that are coming along with this amendment. In terms of height and floor area, they’re vested in that old code and, it could be argued, in the 100% mitigation rate. Staff are trying to pull this project into the current code as much as possible. At the end of the day, staff are going to be measuring height from the interpolated grade, but using today’s language. Floor area calculation will be done using current land use code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the ratio between free market and lodge is not getting pulled in to current code. Mr. Anderson stated that that is correct. Ms. McGovern asked if the calculation of unit size was going to be done on today’s metrics even though they’re allowed to be over the 1,500 square feet. Ms. Garrow responded that that is correct. She stated that, because this is a vested approval and an amendment to a vested approval, the applicants do have to keep those original numbers. Mr. Waltersheid asked how the commissioners get to the discussion about height limit. Should 53 feet be the maximum or the average? He asked how that is determined for a revision to a planned building. Ms. Garrow stated that the actual lot lines are changing significantly to accommodate the ski corridor, so the building does not have the same footprint as the current approval. Mr. Walterscheid stated that consistency with previous approvals makes sense. He asked if the commissioners have leeway to say that they would feel more comfortable with an average height than with 53 feet and if that is enforceable. Ms. Garrow replied that that is within the Planning and Zoning Commission’s purview. She stated that the commission could make a recommendation to City Council related to massing or height changes as part of a whole package. She stated that she would encourage the commission to make a general recommendation rather than giving specific numbers. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the applicants are still striving to meet LEED Gold as was stated in the 2011 ordinance. Ms. Garrow responded yes, since that is part of the original approval. She stated that the 2016 amendment was about materials and the massing of the roof and all other commitments stayed the same. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners should be interpreting the old and new standards with some level of fluidity. Ms. Garrow replied that that is correct. Mr. Mesirow asked what the free market size standard was at the time of the original approval. Mr. Anderson replied that there was not one during the original approval. He stated that, under today’s standard, it can be expanded to 2,000. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners can make a requirement regarding cash-in-lieu. Mr. Anderson replied that the commissioners’ recommendation would be valuable to Council. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants to further explain the employee generation review. Mr. Anderson explained that this is a change since the 2005 code. In the lodge district dimensions and in growth management, there is for smaller units. As the unit comes down, the mitigation rate for employee housing mitigation decreases. Ms. McGovern asked what lodge height was allowed under previous code. Ms. Garrow replied 40 feet. Ms. McGovern stated that this got approved above the lodge district height. Ms. Garrow responded that that is correct. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the mitigation rate is higher for free market or lodge. Mr. Anderson replied that the lodge unit size reduces the mitigation rate as the size of the lodge unit comes down. Ms. Garrow stated that there are more FTEs generated by the lodge development than the free market side and the commercial because it’s predominantly a lodge. The growth management staff findings and review criteria includes the language related to the employee generation review. Standards are related to whether there are unique employment characteristics of the operation, the extent to which employees of various uses overlap and serve multiple functions, and specific language for lodge projects only. As an incentive, that free market generation or mitigation requirement is absorbed into the lodge. Mr. Mesirow asked for more detail about the Essential Public Facility categorization of the ski museum. Mr. Anderson explained that Essential Public Facilities are public facilities. He stated that, if projects are declared as Essential Public Facilities, Council can waive any affordable housing mitigation that would be required. He stated that, for the ski museum, there would be a calculation rate based on square footage that would result in a generation rate. However, staff is recommending that that initial requirement be waived and, much like other Essential Public Facilities, that an audit be done down the road at increments that would update the mitigation rate. In the initial calculation, Council can waive that affordable housing mitigation requirement. Ms. Garrow noted that that’s also a request form the Aspen Historical Society. She stated that, in the existing approval, the ski museum is considered an Essential Public Facility, no mitigation is required now, and there is an audit at 5 and 10 years. Mr. Mesirow asked for staff to make the case that this ski museum is essential. Ms. Garrow replied that any nonprofit or government is considered an Essential Public Facility and automatically fall into that section of the land use code. She stated that there is a different growth management review for all Essential Public Facilities versus commercial spaces. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what the mechanism is for that. Ms. Garrow responded that it’s simply an audit. At the time of building permit and certificate of occupancy, the nonprofit or governmental body provides information about the number of employees that they have. At the five year audit mark, they do an additional analysis and, if those numbers are different, there would be a review with City Council and a recommendation from the APCHA board. Ms. McGovern asked who would be on the hook for the mitigation in that case. Ms. Garrow replied that the way that the current ordinance is written, that would be a conversation that happens with the Historical Society. She stated that there is a lot of continuing discussion related to development agreements and cost sharing, so it’s not yet fully been identified at this point, but it would be by the time Council was voting on this. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what APCHA thinks about the mitigation number. Ms. Garrow stated that APCHA recommended in favor of the Essential Public Facility with a zero mitigation rate now and an audit later. She stated that they did not make a recommendation on the generation numbers since that is something in the land use code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the Gorsuch Haus project has onsite parking. Mr. Anderson replied that they do and that it is also subgrade. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the mitigation is including anything related to loss of parking in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Anderson replied that the 50 spaces in the public part of the garage is a response to the loss of parking in the neighborhood. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Dean street is narrowing at all for the ski museum. Trish Aragon, City Engineer, commented from the public seating that the width is what is happening now with the exception of the drop off area, which is a larger cross section than what we see now. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any more questions for staff. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to the applicant team for their presentation. Stan Clauson introduced himself as a representative of the applicant. He introduced Scott Glass and Michael Brown. He commented that he has never seen as cooperative a public-private partnership project. He stated that this project will provide substantial public benefits to the city of Aspen. He described the revitalization that will return to this area as a result of this development. Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Clauson’s statement regarding collaboration and community benefit. He stated that, if the community does not see value in this project, then it isn’t going to happen. Mr. Clauson stated that the presentation is organized mostly around the staff memo, to address the questions and concerns. He turned the presentation over to Scott Glass to talk about massing and circulation. Mr. Glass stated that, in the last meeting, the applicants were challenged with addressing the bulk and mass of some of the stair cores. After looking at different options, the applicants settled on bringing some of the programing into the building to lessen the width of the cores and using thinner elements. He stated that the applicants have looked at the same thing for the eastern building. The applicants would prefer to keep the elements in a similar location. Mr. Glass addressed the Wheeler view plane. He showed a slide with the view from the Wheeler Opera House. He stated that the highest point that you can see from the steps of the Wheeler Opera House is 8,122 and the highest point of Lift One is at 8,045. He stated that it cannot be seen from the Wheeler view plane as there are other buildings in the way. Mr. Clauson stated that the proposed building does not materially alter the observer’s ability to see the preserved view from the reference point, as stated in the code. Ms. Garrow stated that staff would agree that it meets that criteria. Mr. Glass addressed the interface of the Lift One building to the museum. He stated that, while the interiors of the museum have not been fully planned, the applicants have had extensive conversations with Charles Cunniffe’s office, the Historical Society, and Aspen Skiing Company about where the general program lies. He stated that the applicants have accommodated both entry access to the building, circulation through the building, and freight and art loading into the building. He described the layout of the building, stating that the museum and Skier’s Services share a vestibule. Mr. Glass showed a slide that depicts the upstairs. Mr. Glass stated that the original approval had 14-foot clear access from street to trash and recycling, which accommodates the height, width access, and turning ratios for garbage trucks with 530 square feet. He stated that the Environmental Health department has recommended a minimum of 400 square feet in a hotel of this size. Mr. Clauson addressed the garage entry on Dean Street. He showed slides with the renderings of their plans for Dean Street and pointed out the planned amenities. He pointed out that their plan for an attached sidewalk is to accommodate the Southpoint condominiums and not impact their existing landscaping or grading down to the garden level apartments. Mr. Brown stated that the entrance into the garage is formerly where the loading dock was for the Aspen Historical Society. Mr. Clauson showed on the renderings where there is sidewalk currently. He showed how the cross section relates to the façade of the Southpoint Condominium building. He stated that this plan maximizes the retention of the natural landscape while also providing for good pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Brown stated that there is no sinking of grade and the condition will be dramatically improved from the condition today. Mr. Clauson stated that this street currently has a cross slope that’s well in excess of what it should be, which will be remedied. Mr. Brown stated that it will go from 17% grade to ADA accessible between three and five percent grades through the width on Dean Street. Mr. Clauson stated that a lot of attention has been given to ADA accessibility with the elevator and other mechanisms to allow for access to the lift. Mr. Brown stated that the placement of the Steakhouse building was influenced by also having ADA access off of Juan Street. Mr. Clauson stated that the garage entry has a walkway that goes subgrade. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they are accomplishing the grade by bringing the grade up on the north side of the street or by bringing it down on the south side. Mr. Clauson replied that it’s a little bit of both but largely by bringing it down on the South side. Mr. Clauson discussed the traffic study. He stated that the City implemented a transportation impact analysis program, which the applicants provided as part of the application. The intention was that that would obviate the need for further traffic studies. However, since questions have been raised about this particular part of the project, the applicants hired Felsburg Holt and Ullevig to look at some of the issues that might be generated by moving the entry to the garage from South Aspen Street down to Dean Street. He stated that the report has not been fully vetted by Community Development and Engineering staff. He stated that the firm concluded that the intersections have enough capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic associated with Lift One Lodge development and that, on average skiing days, queuing will not block the garage access. They stated that, on peak days, garage access may be blocked for a short period of time but would not extend into the Dean or Monarch intersection. He showed a slide with the rendered plan from the original approval and used it to discuss alternative access points. Mr. Glass stated that a continually facing public edge is very important to the success of this proposal. The applicants did a lot of studying and determined that the Dean Street location was the best place to give the most open access to the project. Mr. Brown stated that this plan also reduces several months of construction and requires fewer trucks hauling soil through town. Mr. Glass stated that the Dean Street entrance is by far the easiest access for a public parking garage as well as project loading and services and has the least public impact. He stated that it also addresses some safety and ease of access concerns that were raised during previous approvals. He listed alternative garage entrances that the applicants explored and gave the reasons why they were not as viable as the Dean Street entrance. He reiterated that the applicants believe that the Dean Street entrance is the best option in terms of ease of use, safety, efficiency, construction duration, and public openness. Mr. Clauson stated that the traffic consultant endorsed the Dean Street entrance over the entrance from the original approvals and stated that the entrance location combined with the one-way patterns, will have a beneficial effect on traffic patterns and will result in reduction of any potential congestion. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants have quantified the onsite and offsite pedestrian amenities including the areas around the Skier’s Chalet, areas both on a lower and upper patio level in the west building, and an area adjacent to the east building. He stated that, because the applicants are providing substantial financial support for the amenities, the code provides that it can be counted as part of the overall amenity package. Based on lot size, they would be required to have 11,000 square feet of public amenity. On site, there is 6,381. Mr. Glass addressed parking. He stated that the proposal fully provides the ADA and the 50 public parking spots. He stated that the valet system allows the applicants to right-size the parking and use strategies to reduce the overall footprint of the building. He stated that the applicants believe that that the number of spaces allowed in the proposal would accommodate the lodge and the free market functions. These spaces include tandem and stackable spaces to meet the code. He stated that one of the benefits of not expanding the footprint of the garage is a reduction in excavation. Mr. Brown stated that the idea is that people don’t bring their, but if they do, they leave them in the garage. Mr. Clauson addressed dimensional comparison. He stated that the previous approval used an alternative method of floor area calculation, which stated that, for any story that is partially above or partially below interpolated natural grade, only the floor space above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. That is different from the code today and was also different from the code at the time it was approved. This led to a large amount of non-unit space that was not apportioned, as it normally would be under the land use code. He stated that the total floor area has been restated in terms of the current code and represents an 11,000 square foot increase, which is within the 2.5 floor area ratio of the land use code in the lodge zone district. Mr. Glass addressed building heights. He stated that the approval that came in 2016 adhered to a map of a previous building. When the applicants tried to shoehorn the 2016 approval into the 2011 approval, they ended up with a lot of strange conditions that made for an inefficient and awkward layout on the upper floors of the building. Instead, the applicants tried to find a maximum from the previous approval and work to stay below that, keeping a similar relationship between the building and the mountain. He showed on the slide how the building matches the maximum height in one place and is below it everywhere else. Mr. Glass stated that the situation for the east building is similar. Mr. Clauson addressed growth management. He stated that the applicants are requesting employee generation review with free market staff shared with lodge use. They are requesting offside affordable housing credits and cash-in-lieu to meet the affordable housing requirement. They would use credits if possible, but they may not be available in a timely way. He stated that staff see a staff supported generation of 43.47 FTEs excusive of the Aspen Skiing Company commercial space. He stated that the number Mr. Anderson gave, 48.09 FTEs, was inclusive of the Skiing Company, which is not on the Lift One Lodge property but part of the overall development. There will need to be a little bit of negotiating regarding who is responsible for the Skiing Company services part of the employee generation. He stated that there are growth management allotments required for one free market unit and 20 lodge keys. Other allotments for the overall project have already occurred. Mr. Brown stated that staff had showed the 2016 amendment of approximately 90 FTEs. The 2011 affordable housing requirement for the project at its 100% mitigation rate was 35.12 FTEs. The number has decreased by a reduction of commercial space from what was proposed to Planning and Zoning in 2016, creating a number between 43 and 47. He stated that the notion of being able to provide for that number in cash-in-lieu is not preferred by the applicants or the community. However, if the certificates aren’t available the entire community is waiting for the lift to go until they become available. Mr. Clauson turned the meeting over to the Aspen Skiing Company’s presentation. Mr. Mesirow called for a five-minute break. He stated that the public would have a chance to comment and stated that the hearing will likely be continued to another meeting. Mr. Mesirow restarted the meeting at 6:44 without Ms. McGovern and Mr. Dupps present. Mr. Mesirow motioned to extend the meeting to as late as 8 pm. Mr. McKnight seconded. All approved, motion carried. David Corbin introduced himself as the vice president of planning and development for Aspen Skiing Company. He stated that his purpose was to make a presentation regarding the ski corridor. Ms. McGovern rejoined the meeting at 6:44 pm. Mr. Corbin stated that his purpose is to demonstrate that the 60-foot width is not an arbitrary number. He stated that Aspen Skiing Company wanted to keep at least 3 Sno-Cat widths, which would be 20 feet each, to sufficiently function as a ski portal. From Dean Street to top of South Aspen is a 15% slope on novice to low intermediate terrain, requiring that 60-foot width. He showed some slides of comparable slopes with wide and narrow trails to further demonstrate why a 60-foot width is desirable. Mr. Dupps returned to the meeting at 6:57 pm. Mr. Clauson stated that that concludes the applicants’ presentation and that the applicants look forward to working with neighbors on their issues and concerns. Mr. Mesirow opened the meeting for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the slide that showed the measurements for the elevation, as it is different than the measurements in the commissioners’ meeting packet. Mr. Glass stated that he would walk the commissioners through the elevations, stating that things have evolved. He stated that the difference in the elevation that Mr. Walterscheid is asking about is related to changes related to efforts to make the building look lighter. Mr. Mesirow asked for clarification on the subgrade garage entrance on Dean Street. He stated that most alternatives presented by the applicants have significant impact on the programming except the spiral option. He asked if that option is suboptimal because of the inconvenience to the driver and greater excavation. Mr. Glass replied that that Mr. Mesirow’s statement was incorrect. The spiral option did have significant impact on the programming, the worst impact of all alternative. He stated that some lodge area would be lost and 22,000 square feet would need to be relocated elsewhere. Also, it is difficult for driving and for trash and recycling pickup. Mr. Mesirow asked which of the other options would be Mr. Glass’s second choice. Mr. Glass stated that he is not sure, since every plan has a problem that changes the public interface. Mr. Brown stated that the alternative garage entrances were meant to show the exhaustive study that was done, not necessarily that there are other viable options. Ms. Garrow asked if it would be helpful for the Engineering department to weigh in on the question. Trish Aragon introduced herself as the City Engineer. She stated that the Engineering department is concerned about having the garage entrance on Aspen Street due to the slope. They are in favor of the Dean Street access. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Aragon if she agrees with the traffic study that the applicants commissioned. Ms. Aragon stated that she just got report and has not had time to process it. Mr. Clauson stated that the traffic study supported the Engineering department’s conclusion that Dean Street is the best option. Ms. Aragon brought up the part of the study that stated that the the drop-off area might be backed up during peak times, like Christmas. She stated that it is not a good idea to design the drop-area for those one or two peak times a year and she stated that the high usage once or twice a year does not concern her. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any further questions for the applicants. Seeing none, he thanked public for being patient and turned the meeting over to public comment. Mr. Mesirow stated that comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT Marissa Lasky introduced herself as a neighbor at the Southpoint Condominiums. She thanked Michael Brown for his open communication. She stated that her neighbors feel disenfranchised, but that she wants to try to make this work. She and her neighbors would like to have the building moved back, stating that it got taller and moved forward. There is a 19% grade from Durant to Dean. The walk out apartments will feel very garden level up to second floor if the building comes forward. Cars queuing up for parking will produce a lot more exhaust and motor noise. Mr. Brown clarified that Ms. Lasky is referring to the Skier’s Chalet and museum building. Ms. Lasky stated that Mr. Brown promised to work on it, which she is pleased to hear. She stated that parking needs to be mitigated as best as possible for noise and congestion. She agreed with the HOA president who stated at the last meeting that the bike lane doesn’t go anywhere. She expressed concern that the 50 parking spots that are being placed underground are not 1:1 with what’s being lost. She stated that the spots being lost would be more like 75 to 90. She would like to see more public parking in the garage. She stated that, regarding cash-in-lieu, $38,000 is not equivalent to what those parking spaces are from her personal experience. She stated that she does not want to see parking eliminated and pointed out that, since the parking is below-grade, they have one chance to get it right.. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. Lasky and stated for the record that Planning and Zoning received 14 letters of public comment. Of those letters that were supportive, many gave the Dean Street garage entrance or the placement of the ski museum as reasons for their support. Casey Martin introduced himself and stated that he is representing the Aspen Mountain Townhomes and the Cascade Condominiums. He stated his comments also represent the opinions of Marley Hodgson from the Aspen Mountain Townhomes HOA, Robert Scheer who owns the Cascade Condominiums. Mr. Martin showed a PowerPoint presentation. He showed the proposed site plan and expressed concern about Gilbert Street. He quoted from the City Engineering standards, stating that dead-end streets are prohibited unless they’re going to connect to a future street, but that two-way traffic requires at least eleven feet of width for each lane. He stated that the new proposal addresses the dead-end street issue by making it a cul-de-sac. However, he stated that the street is still too narrow for two-way traffic, which will cause safety issues. He stated that the street is 15 feet total width. He expressed concern that the street will turn into a secret drop off and pickup spot for skiers, and that the proposed signage will not be enough to stop people. He showed slides to demonstrated that the street is too narrow. He stated that they’re asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the application with conditions related to vehicular access to the east building along Gilbert Street. He expressed concern about the ability of emergency response vehicles and public services to access the street. He proposed that access to the street be limited to Gilbert Street residents using retractable bollards or a gate. Mr. Hodgson commented that the residents are very much in favor of the overall project, but that they are very concerned about their safety. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Aragon to respond to Mr. Martin’s requests for a gate of bollards at Gilbert Street. Ms. Garrow stated that staff want to respond to comments about both the bike lane and Gilbert Street. Ms. Aragon stated that the purpose of the bike lane is to allow people to go against the flow of traffic on a one-way street. It also allows for fire access. Ms. Garrow stated that adding the contra bike lane here allows cyclists to ride from Lift One to Gondola Plaza, creating a new bike connection that isn’t formalized today. Ms. Aragon stated that the current approvals widen Dean Street to allow for two-way traffic, which would impede on the park, pedestrian area, and on the Southpoint Condominiums. She stated that the one way goes from west to east to allow for drop off and circulation from that direction. She addressed Mr. Martin’s concerns regarding Gilbert Street, stating that the current right-of-way for Gilbert Street is 30-feet wide and that the buildings are encroaching into the right-of-way, making the lane width narrow. Gilbert Street could be widened, but staff are not proposing to remove the encroachments that are in that right-of-way. She stated that the cul-de-sac facilitates the turn around and that putting bollards in would prohibit that as well as maintenance and fire access. She stated that putting the cul- de-sac on the end of Gilbert street improves the street from an Engineering perspective. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Aragon how the traffic pattern is supposed to work if the street is not widened. Ms. Aragon replied that there is the opportunity to widen Gilbert Street a little to make it a little better, though staff are not proposing that at this point. She also stated that having the cul-de-sac allows for traffic to wait. Mr. Mesirow asked if Ms. Aragon believes that it can operate in a reasonable way as is. Ms. Aragon stated that the current approvals for Gilbert Street would create a dead-end without a cul- de-sac, which is not a good situation. She stated that the plan in the current proposal is an improvement on that. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants understand the concerns of the neighbors and don’t want that street to become a skier drop-off. He stated that he is not sure that that would happen on a large scale, but the applicants would be working with the neighbors in any way possible to ensure that the street is strictly for residents, visitors, and emergency services. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he appreciates the diagrams showing the elevations. He stated that he was very happy to see the updated elevation where the horizontal element had been thinned. He liked the linear horizontal nature of the 2016 amendments with the stepped back upper level and he is happy to see that replicated. He stated that he is in favor of this project and acknowledged the amount of community support. He looks forward to the effort moving forward and that he would rather see room for drop-off instead of the bike lane. He is curious about where loading and unloading for services where those would be, but he stated that he is aware that the applicants will go through more development. He stated that he supports the project and he will vote to approve it. Mr. Mesirow asked if any of the commissioners have anything they would like to see as a condition or planned discussion. Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to see the project stay at the higher employee mitigation level as Aspen is lacking in employee housing, especially categories three and four. She stated that she is not in favor of cash-in-lieu and does not want this project to take all the credits available, which would put residential development at a standstill. Mr. Mesirow stated that, in his opinion, using the current method for calculating for employees is appropriate. He does not see how eliminating the 13 FTEs for essential use makes sense in this scenario. Ms. McGovern corrected Mr. Mesirow, stating that the elimination of FTES was for the “cap-and-trade” method of calculating lodge rooms. Ms. Garrow clarified that they are referring to the employee generation review section of growth management. She explained that any project can take advantage of this section of the code, though there is some specific language related to lodge projects that, as an incentive to assist lodge projects and when there are duplicative services, there can be a reduction of the free market FTEs. Mr. Mesirow stated that his understanding was that there were two considerations. One was if the commissioners think that this project rises to the level to take advantage of the employee generation review. His opinion is that it does not. Separately, there is the calculation related to the museum being categorized as an Essential Public Facility. Ms. Garrow replied that the Essential Public Faculty is separate from the lodge development and the request. Staff and APCHA’s recommendation is to carry forward the existing approval which is zero mitigation now with an audit in five years. Mr. Mesirow stated he thinks the applicants should be required to mitigate, but he would accept the current standard for getting to that number. Mr. Brown stated that the 90 to 47 was not an apples to apples comparison. It was 35 to 47, an increase because the applicants reduced their commercial space. Ms. Garrow stated that one of the pieces that further complicates this approval is that there was a 2011 approval and a 2016 amendment. The 2016 amendment converted accessory lodge space, which was floor area, but did not create FTEs. That got converted to commercial space, which then increased the number of FTEs generated by about 60. That’s where that 90 number came from. This amendment is closer to the 2011 approvals in terms of the commercial space, with an increase for the lodge. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what the audit process would be like and expressed concern that the Historical Society could potentially be on the hook for millions of dollars for mitigation after the audit in five years. Ms. Garrow stated that every single nonprofit that has done a building expansion in this community has gone through this process. She said that sometimes the organizations have stated that their expansion would increase FTEs and require mitigation and sometimes not. Since this is early in the process, it is not clear how many employees the ski museum will have. That’s the reason staff and APCHA are recommending carrying that condition forward. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants will have a discussion with the Aspen Historical Society and have an agreement beforehand. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the result of an audit has ever required an organization to mitigate for more employees. Ms. Garrow replied that yes, it recently happened to the Aspen Institute. They did an amendment based on the length of their construction and wanted to make sure their base number was correctly updated. It was approved after a discussion with City Council. Mr. Dupps stated that he is less concerned with the affordable housing as he looks at this project as a giant public amenity, which offsets a lot of the affordable housing sacrifice. Ms. McGovern with Mr. Dupps that it will be a great public amenity but stated that the impacts need to be balanced. Mr. Mesirow stated that there is not anything in the guidelines that says you can waive affordable housing if you like the public amenity. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. McGovern what her initial question was. Ms. McGovern stated that her question got answered. She does not want to see any buy-down or any of the mitigation be waived with the lodge incentive because she does not feel this is the appropriate use of that. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the applicants will be tied to current cash-in-lieu costs. Ms. Garrow stated that she believes that, in a site-specific approval like this, it is tied to the rate at the time of application, but that she would need to check that. Ms. NcNicholas Kury asked if the commissioners can suggest that City Council consider that. Ms. Garrow replied that they could. Mr. Mesirow asked how many commissioners would support mitigation that does not allow the reduction but uses the new calculation for FTEs versus how many would support the reduction. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked him to clarify if he was referring to the Essential Public Facility mitigation when he used the word “reduction.” Mr. Mesirow replied yes. Mr. Marcus asked if Mr. Mesirow also was referring to the other piece, related to the lodge incentive. Mr. Mesirow replied yes. Mr. Marcus stated that he is in support of that based on staff’s recommendation. Mr. Dupps stated that he is also supportive of that. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he is not supportive of it. Mr. Mesirow stated that he and Ms. McGovern are not supportive of it. Mr. McKnight stated that it is in support of it. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she agrees with what the code provides for. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any other points or conditions to convey. Mr. Marcus stated that he appreciated the traffic study and would like to see it be completely vetted by staff. The study conveyed to him that there are a number of concerns that are overexaggerated. He also found the study of alternative parking garage entrances to be very helpful. He stated that, while he can understand the neighbors’ frustrations, the presentation made it clear that the Durant Street entrance is the best option and it resolved a lot of his concerns. He stated that he appreciated Aspen Skiing Company’s presentation. He feels that the concerns that he raised were addressed and he would feel comfortable supporting this project. Mr. Mesirow asked if anyone shared his concerns about the Dean Street entrance. He stated that he sees the opportunity to extend the amenities out to the street as a pedestrian experience, but that the Dean Street entrance prevents that from happening. He would like the applicants to vet other options and would like to pass that along to Council. Mr. McKnight stated that he strongly agrees with Mr. Mesirow and believes that the Dean Street entrance is the worst part of the project, which he supports overall. He agrees with Mr. Mesirow about passing that recommendation along to Council. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she does not agree with concerns about the Dean Street entrance. She stated that the alternative of going up to Aspen Street does not achieve any of the same flow for pedestrians and vehicles. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury after walking the property at the site visit. Moving it to Dean Street addresses some of her concerns about safety. She regretted that it needs to be in front of residential buildings. Mr. Mesirow stated that that is not his primary point of contention. He stated that there is a huge potential for the community to utilize that space. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that streets can be blocked off for festivals and events. Mr. Mesirow stated that, with the hotel and lift, this street will never be blocked off. Ms. McGovern stated that, from a safety perspective, it is a much better entrance to the building than South Aspen Street. Mr. Dupps stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern and Ms. McNicholas Kury. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the finished height of 56 feet is inclusive of the ten feet above for mechanical. Mr. Anderson stated that this goes back to the interpolated grade discussion. He stated that the 53 feet that was the maximum height from the 2016 approval had been used to establish the maximum height for this building. Staff is proposing to use that interpolated grade and 53 feet as the maximum height. Above that, the applicants are allowed exceptions to height which include the circulation elements which can extend ten feet above the 53 feet. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants have not shown the full ten feet above. Ms. McGovern stated that the diagram showed that, above finished grade, the maximum height is something like 68 feet. She stated that the interpolated grade is hard to envision because the building will not be 53 feet tall, it will be almost 70 feet tall. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had consensus around moving the project forward as staff has put forth. Mr. Walterscheid stated that it sounds like the commissioners were all in favor of the project, but that they should clarify some of the recommendations. Mr. Mesirow asked if any of the commissioners were not in favor of the project. He stated that he will vote yes with significant concern about under-mitigating for affordable housing and not taking full advantage of Dean Street. Mr. McKnight agreed with Mr. Mesirow’s approval and recommendations. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a list of 18 conditions that responded to the things presented in the staff memo. He recommended that Planning and Zoning specifically address their concerns about mitigation and employee generation review in their recommendation to Council. Mr. Mesirow asked if staff is asking for the commissioners’ feedback. Ms. Garrow asked if the commissioners want something more specific than condition 15, which just says that the mitigation is going to be calculated using the methods in the current code. Mr. Mesirow stated that he does not agree with condition 15. He stated that the majority of the Commission, but not all, agree with it. Ms. Garrow asked what type of language the commissioners would like in their recommendation. She asked if they would like it to say: the majority recommend using this code section to reduce mitigation. Mr. Walterscheid stated that, since they are split four to three, something of that nature would be appropriate. Mr. Anderson stated that the only other comment that has not been addressed is further analysis of the traffic study for Council’s second reading. Mr. Mesirow stated that the size of the free market units was not addressed. He stated that he would like to give feedback regarding that and believes that the community would do better with a smaller footprint of those units. Mr. Dupps stated that he had no problem with the size of the units. Mr. Waltersheid asked if the size of the units was 1,500 square feet. Ms. McGovern stated that 1,500 is the maximum and they are at 2,040. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that the code was changed precisely because the community is better off with smaller lodge units. The commissioners are just recognizing what was included in the vested approval. Ms. McGovern stated that the commissioners are also recognizing that the units are smaller than the 2011 approvals. She is not sure if that language needs to be included in the conditions. Mr. Anderson stated that staff can include a statement about the commissioners’ support of units that are smaller than the previous proposals. Mr. Mesirow asked staff if the commissioners have missed anything. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution is only asking for representation of the pedestrian amenity on lot one. Mr. Anderson stated that staff felt similarly to the applicant that lot three was offsite and that there was a contribution from the applicant’s project to that. Because there is a discussion about onsite versus offsite in the commercial design review, it was important to understand exactly how much was being proposed onsite so that there could be an identification of that area for comparison. Ms. Garrow stated that it could say lot one and lot two, in order to recognize both. Mr. Anderson stated that there was some inclusion from the diagram. Mr. Walterscheid commented that he would like to see the decreasing of the horizontal massing continue to get carried through this project. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she agrees with that. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be acceptable to include that in condition number one. Ms. McGovern responded yes. Mr. Anderson asked for help in wording that part of that condition. Mr. Walterscheid suggested: continued refinement of decrease in mass related to both vertical circulation and horizontal fenestration. Mr. Glass clarified that the applicants are just changing the fenestration in different locations to minimize the appearance of height. Ms. McGovern made a motion to extend the meeting to 8:15. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Garrow to read back all conditions Ms. Garrow read the conditions and asked the commissioners if she had captured everything. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Garrow to add the recommendation about the rate of cash-in-lieu that should be used. Ms. Garrow stated that she did not hear a consensus from the commissioners on the rate and asked what number they would like to recommend. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for a recommendation on what is allowable. Ms. Garrow stated that the commissioners can make any recommendation. Ms. McGovern stated that the commissioners should recommend the rate at the time of permit issuance since that is when the credits will be due. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. McGovern to clarify. Ms. McGovern explained that applicants using credits need to submit their certificate when they pick up their permit. The cash-in-lieu rate being based on that date would be consistent with that. Ms. Garrow stated that it’s typically at the date of permit submission. Several commissioners voiced approval for the date of submission being recommended. Mr. McKnight stated that it does not seem like something that requires P&Z recommendation if that is what is typically done. Ms. Garrow asked if the commissioners want cash-in-lieu to be an option. Mr. Mesirow asked about including language that it should be a last resort option. Mr. Anderson stated that that is consistent with code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if that rate should be calculated as of September 2018 or as of a future date. Mr. Brown asked what the code says now. Mr. Anderson stated that the mitigation is part of the vested approvals and the land use code at the time. He stated that he commissioners could make that recommendation. He expressed concern that it has not been cleared with the City Attorney. Ms. Bryan stated that her gut reaction is that the rate would have to be tied to the time of the application and that it probably cannot be changed. Mr. Dupps stated that City Council would be the final vote. Mr. Anderson stated that the land use code says it’s at the time of application. Ms. Garrow suggested that resolution not include language specific to a cash-in-lieu number. Instead, staff can convey in their presentation to City Council that this was as an important issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission in wanting to make sure that as much mitigation was provided as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury made a motion to approve Resolution 5 of 2018. Ms. Stickle read the roll. All commissioners present voted to approve the resolution. ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. All in favor. Motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager