Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20181002 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Skippy Mesirow, Jimmy Marcus, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Spencer McKnight, Kelly McNicholas Kury. Absent: Rally Dupps Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Ben Anderson, Planner Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Planning Director Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow commented that he received a note from David Bentley regarding the tabled application for 465/557 N Mill Street rezoning. In the note, Mr. Bentley expressed that coin laundry is very important to him and the community. Mr. Mesirow stated that he agrees with Mr. Bentley’s statement. Mr. Mesirow also reminded everyone present of the coming November election. He encouraged the community to vote and to encourage others to vote. He prompted Measure 2A, which is a measure to change the date of the municipal election from May to March. Mr. Mesirow is personally involved with this measure and encouraged people to vote for it. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Phalen introduced the new senior planner, Mike Kramer and stated that his previous position was with Pitkin County. She also asked the commissioners about some upcoming meeting dates that have potential conflicts. She stated that November 6th is election day would conflict with a regular P&Z meeting and asked if commissioners want to keep that meeting date or move it November 15th. The commissioners decided to move the meeting to the following week, November 13th. She also asked about the planned P&Z meeting on November 20th, which is the week of Thanksgiving. The commissioners decided to keep the meeting on the 20th. Ms. Garrow introduced herself as the Community Development Director. She announced that the City of Aspen’s Pedestrian Malls were honored as a Great American Place by the American Planning Association. She announced an event on October 6th to celebrate the honor and the 42nd anniversary of the malls. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Waltersheid moved to approve the minutes from August 21st, 2018. Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lift One Lodge, and Willoughby and Lift One Parks Planned Development, Major Amendment Planner Ben Anderson introduced himself as well as his fellow staff members present: Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Director of Planning, and Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director. He introduced the applicants. Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates, representing Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, who is the applicant for this case. Michael Brown, principal. Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects, who is the architect for this project. Aaron Brown and Harris Berlinsky of the Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, principals. He also introduced Kevin Dunnett from the City of Aspen’s Parks Department and Kelly Murphy, President & CEO of the Aspen Historical Society. A representative from Gorsuch Haus was also present. He mentioned that the applicants held an event at the Limelight the previous evening with between 250 and 300 people in attendance. He stated that the City of Aspen is one of the property owners on the Lift One Corridor Project and that Aspen Skiing Company and Aspen Historical Society are important partners. He stated that these partners have all come together over many months with numerous conversations about the possibility of bringing the lift down towards Dean Street and the changes to the involved properties that would have to be made to accommodate this new lift placement. He stated that this meeting is the first in an extensive review process that’s going to happen over the next couple of months. He detailed the review schedule: two meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, tonight’s meeting and the following meeting on 10/16. The applicants will meet with APCHA on October 3rd. There will be two meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission, on 10/10 and 10/24. The Open Space and Trails Board is going to be evaluating and making recommendations about Willoughby and Lift One parks. Ultimately, this project will go to City Council, with a first Reading scheduled for October 22nd and the second reading and public hearings will be coordinated with the second reading for Gorsuch Haus, starting on November 12th and 26th, with additional meetings if necessary going into December. He also announced a site visit at noon on October 15th to walk the property with the applicant teams from Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge and encouraged the boards and the public to come. Mr. Anderson outlined the planned schedule for that evening’s meeting and future meetings. He stated that the City’s presentation would be first, then the applicant’s presentation after. He stated that the overall review schedule for the project was planned to work backwards from a 2019 municipal election. He explained that this meeting will be an introduction to the project and that he is asking the Commissioners to make a recommendation at the Planning and Zoning meeting on the 16th. He stated that the process is compressed and that the commissioners will be asked to make a recommendation with a couple of pieces that may require additional information. He explained that this project is different from the Gorsuch Haus project in that there are existing approvals that have been in place since 2011. There was an original Planned Development that was approved with Ordinance 28 of 2011, which established a vested right under a code starting in 2006. The applicants came back in 2016 and made some changes to their architecture and some internal configuration. On these occasions, City Council took these vested rights and extended them, currently until 2021. This project and application is for an amendment to these existing approvals. He stated that this review is for a plan development major amendment, which means that there are some substantial changes to this project to accommodate the lift and do some redesign on aspects of the project. As a major amendment, it comes under review of current land use code, although staff also takes the vested rights very seriously. This is an amendment that is responsive to the necessary changes to the planned development, Lift One Lodge properties, and the City of Aspen properties to accommodate this new lift. He stated that this is the umbrella review and that there is a whole series of sub-reviews that will eventually come up in more detail. He explained that the existing approval includes two Lodge buildings with a mix of free market residential units, time-share lodge units, commercial space, the possibility of a ski corridor, a realigned narrowed Aspen street (which has already taken place to accommodate this project), and a vacated Gilbert Street. He mentioned that the letters from neighbors that the commission received relate to the changes that proposed to the existing approvals for Gilbert Street. As part of the existing approval, the Skier’s Chalet would be brought down to Willoughby Park and converted into a ski museum, owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society. Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse would be renovated to provide deed-restricted dorm-style housing for 60 employees, and a subgrade parking garage would be added, though this proposal makes changes to the existing approvals. Mr. Anderson also stated that the existing approvals include a maximum height for the Lift One Lodge building measured from the interpolated grade. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the site plan for the original approval. He showed the locations of the two Lift One Lodge buildings, the Lift 1A Building, Lift One Park and the Lift One historic towers, the separate lot with the Skier’s Chalet and affordable housing, and Willoughby Park with the relocated Skier’s Chalet. The new proposal for this project includes some shifting of the original lot configuration. In the original project, the Lift One buildings are sitting on a single lot. The Steakhouse is on Lot 2 and Lift One Park is on Lot 3 and then Willoughby Park. The proposed amendment includes a widened ski corridor and relocates the lift station and lift corridor, the Skier’s Chalet and Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse, and the historic Lift One structures. The proposal also includes Aspen Ski Co skier’s services and ski patrol in the Skier’s Chalet building, sharing the space with Aspen Historical Society. Willoughby Park is redesigned in the new proposal and there is a change to the point of access to the subgrade parking garage proposed for Dean Street. The proposal also includes a cul-de-sac that creates a terminus at Gilbert Street on the Lift One Lodge property. The Steakhouse building includes a commercial space for a restaurant and bar. That space was previously approved to be on-site affordable housing. There are also changes proposed to the mass and scale of the Lift One Lodge buildings and some internal programing in terms of the relationship of the Lodge and free market residential and commercial space. Lastly, there are some proposed significant changes to Dean Street. Mr. Anderson showed a slide depicting the new proposal. He pointed out the new proposed locations of the elements in the proposal including the Lift One Lodge Buildings, the new lift structure and corridor, the Steakhouse, the Lift One bull wheel and redesign of Willoughby Park around that, the Skier’s Chalet, and the new entrance to the subgrade parking garage which comes in from Dean Street instead of South Aspen Street. Mr. Anderson stated that, to accommodate all these changes, there is a proposed lot reconfiguration. Lot 1 becomes the West building of the Lift One Lodge and the adjoining Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse. Lot 2 is the East Building. There would also be a single lot owned by the City of Aspen that would bring Lift One Park and Willoughby Park together and includes the ski corridor, the lift station, the ski museum, Skico facilities, and the Skier’s Chalet building. Mr. Anderson stated that the new involvement of the Dolinsek Gardens is important to the whole project functioning. He gave background on the gardens. He explained that this property has been owned for a long time by the Dolinsek family and Josephine Dolinsek still lives on the property. When she moves on from the property, it becomes trusted over to the City of Aspen. The plan is to turn this space into a city park and it’s now being incorporated into this larger site design. During the winter months, it will provide room for the ski corridor and ski operations. Mr. Anderson showed a slide depicting the integration of Willoughby Park and Dolinsek Gardens and what that would look like in both winter and summer. He stated that Kevin Dunnett, sitting in the public seating, is a good resource for answering questions on those. Mr. Anderson concluded his presentation and turned it over to the applicant. Mr. Rawley introduced himself as well as Michael Brown and Scott Glass. He stated that the public open house that Mr. Anderson had previously mentioned was well attended and that most people were supportive of the project. He gave background on the project, stating that the process started when Gorsuch Haus came in to redevelop the site and replace the lift. The Aspen Skiing Company, Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, the City of Aspen, and Aspen Historical Society worked together with SE Group to develop possible solutions for the new lift. Through listening to all the different stakeholders, they were able to come up with a map, which is the ski return path. There were ten proposed plans which were eventually brought to City Council, who made it clear that they wanted the lift to come down as low as possible. The groups took that feedback and started planning the lodges around the lift location. The current design balances the historical assets as well as future new lift. Mr. Brown stated that the Skier’s Chalet Lodge is proposed to become a ski museum run by Aspen Historical Society and that the Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse building is proposed to become a restaurant. This plan brings the historical assets to the forefront. Mr. Brown showed a slide depicting the various entry points to Lift One and the new cul-de-sac at the top of South Aspen Street. He stated that this would make for the most accessible base area of any of the mountains here. He explained that the proposal reconfigures the arrival to enter off Dean Street. Both the Engineering and Parks Departments support this change, which makes the 50 public underground parking spaces more accessible. Mr. Brown explained that Dean Street will become a West to East corridor under this proposal. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with an elevational drawing of what Dean Street would look like under this proposal. He explained that there would be a bike lane and pedestrian amenity spaces. Mr. Glass explained that the applicants are trying to bring an alpine character to the architecture and interior design of the project. Mr. Brown stated that one of the benefits of this proposal is developing the area as a second portal onto Aspen Mountain. The new lift that is being proposed is a telemix lift, which is a mix of chairs and gondolas on the same cable to allow for many different uses of the mountain. He stated that the reimagined base and new equipment will emphasize that this is a location not be missed on a World Cup skiing tour. He also stated that tourists who stay at lodges downtown typically take a shuttle instead of walking to Gondola Plaza and the proposed changes to this area would encourage tourists to walk to this area. He praised the work that the Parks Department has done and praised the Dolinsek family for their donation. Mr. Brown showed a slide with a historic photo of the Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse and stated that the photo has been the applicants’ inspiration throughout the project. Mr. Brown stated that the new Lodge will increase the guest rooms available in Aspen and has World Cup Ski Racing potential. He also showed the proximity of the new proposed base are to Rubey Park versus the same comparison with Gondola Plaza and stated that the walkability will help decrease congestion. He showed slides with designs of the restored Steakhouse and the ski history museum and explained that Aspen Skiing Company would have a space for ticketing within that facility. He showed the restoration of the bull wheel and towers, the Dolinsek Gardens, and parks. He explained that the Dolinsek family envisions the gardens as a year-round use area and a potential wedding venue. Mr. Rawley stated that the gross floor area for the project is within 2% of the previous approval, but that it’s not possible to compare the other metrics from the original approval and the new proposal because the previous approval incorporated the interpolated grade when calculating floor area. As a result, a lot of the subgrade space that would usually contribute to floor area was not counted. He also pointed out that the new proposal comes under the code maximum 112. The Lodge floor area is also under the code requirement. The free market housing floor area is slightly above that but accommodates the ski corridor. The applicants are currently re-crunching the numbers to be able to provide an apples-to- apples comparison. Mr. Rawley pointed out that the buildings were made longer in some places but have a remarkably similar footprint. Because the lift moved down the hill, the applicants needed to reconfigure some of the buildings. Lodging was added in the proposal. He stated that the numbers are using a gross metric. He stated that they added one free market unit, so the gross free market square footage is 20,000 to 17,000 plus. The net free market square footage is 19,000 to about 16,000. The average unit size has gone down. Mr. Brown stated that, in previous approvals, there were five units located in premium locations to the buildings. As part of the reimaging of this and the lift moving down, the applicants have taken some free market units out and made them commercial, and some of that included subgrade space, which is throwing off metric. The average size of the units has gone down. Mr. Rawley stated that the commercial space has been reconfigured. One change is that the Steakhouse was not a commercial space in the original approvals, and it is now a commercial space, for restaurant use, under the current plan. Previously it was in the affordable housing bucket. Mr. Brown stated that this change was a response to the site planning change. He stated that, when the lift moved down, it was not sensible to have style affordable housing adjacent to a lift. They felt that a restaurant and bar would bring more vibrancy. Dorm-style affordable housing is not allowed under today’s code. Those are the reasons the building was changed to commercial use. Mr. Rawley stated that the commercial spaces have been approved, will be accessible, and will anchor the base area. The Lodge will stand alone and the proposal does not mix uses. He also stated that the maximum height has never been exceeded and this proposal maintains those from the previous approvals. He stated that there will be 109 parking spaces and have reduced the size of the subgrade space, which should reduce the amount of time that the site is under construction. The proposal maintains the 50 public parking spaces. From the applicants’ experience working on lodges, they believe the amount of parking planned will be sufficient. He also stated that their Transportation Impact Analysis allows for bike racks and pedestrian amenities that reduce the need for single occupancy vehicles. The Lodge parking will be handled by valet. Mr. Rawley turned the meeting over to Mr. Glass to discuss the architectural approach. Mr. Glass stated that, in this proposal, the applicants wanted to keep the character, historical references, architectural continuity with the rest of town, and the alpine aesthetic from the original approval. He stated that the applicants really care about the street scape and the scale of the building as well as the space between the buildings and that the juxtaposition between the old lift and new lift is a reference point for the project. He stated that the proposal keeps the roofs flat to maximize capacity and reduce the overall height of the building and will help the building blend in from above. They will have green roofscapes on them. Mr. Glass showed some of the architectural vocabulary in the proposal, including Aspen trees, stone bases and the lighter wood structure and how the different kind of woods and different stone structures come together to make a rustic base look more refined and help the structures blend in to the natural landscape. Mr. Brown stated the palate of the proposal is consistent with original approvals. Mr. Glass stated that the spatial relationship between the Lodge and the Steakhouse building has not changed between the original approvals and the current proposal. He stated that the building includes a view from the street that allows pedestrians to look through the entire building to the other side. He explained how the building’s base integrates into the slope. He stated that the most frequent perspective on the buildings will give a view of the historic buildings first. He went over the plans and pointed out the improvements this new proposal made to the access point on Dean Street in terms of loading. Added amenities also include ambulance drop off, handicapped spaces, bike parking, lockers and storage that are open to the public. He showed slides with pictures of the second and third floors and the main level of the Lodge and emphasized the amount of public space included in the project. Mr. Glass stated that the dimension of the building is derived from the program on the inside and shaped to accommodate the ski corridor. Mr. Brown stated that the skier’s corridor was dictated through the SE Group process to maintain a ski corridor width of 60 feet. Mr. Glass stated that the applicants were conscious about making sure that the mechanical elements were hidden, and the green roof elements were prominent to make for a more aesthetically pleasing experience for skiers. He showed a slide with the floor plan for the Lodge. Mr. Brown explained that the plan has fractural units that key off into Lodge units. Mr. Glass stated that the key to this project is to introduce a new door to the front of the mountain and frame that with buildings that respect history and the future. Mr. Rawley turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants to address the process that led them to the parking garage design with the sole entrance on Dean Street. Mr. Brown explained that snowmelt is extremely difficult on South Aspen Street and not desired from the community standpoint. South Aspen Street was the original location of the parking garage entrance, but when the lift location moved, the plan could no longer have the slope needed for the lift and maintain a functional parking garage. Mr. Mesirow asked where the removed affordable housing units will land. Mr. Brown stated that the original location of the affordable housing units ended up being a better location for a vibrant restaurant and bar. The applicants intend to do an affordable housing project offsite or through purchasing of credits. Ms. McGovern asked if their plan will offset the full 90.96 FTE. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants are still working though the number of FTEs that are being derived from the project. Mr. Rawley stated that the reason for the uncertainty has to do with how the area calculations are going to shake out. Mr. Brown stated that they have added one unit on site in this project, in the east building. Mr. Mesirow asked how many credits are available right now. Mr. Brown stated that there are over 100 credits in the pipeline of current projects. He believes there are more than sufficient credits to handle both this project as well as Gorsuch Haus. Ms. McGovern asked if the affordable housing will be complete prior to the construction of this project. Mr. Brown stated that their certificate of occupancy is contingent upon it. Ms. Carver asked if there will be dedicated parking for free market units and, if so, if they’d be reserved and how many spaces that takes away. Mr. Rawley stated that there are 109 spaces total, with 50 that are dedicated to the public and that the balance will be handled by the Lodge and the free market. There will be one space per free market unit, taking six spots. Ms. McGovern asked if those will be accessed via valet parking. Mr. Brown stated that those can be accessed via self-park as well and that the 50 public parking spots are self-park. Mr. Mesirow asked if the public parking spots are paid or restricted. Mr. Brown replied that those spots will be maintained as two-hour parking spots, but that that still needs to be determined. Ms. Carver asked how big the space for shuttles will be on Dean Street. She expressed concern about traffic jams. Mr. Brown showed the slide with Dean Street to show the width of the street. He showed the pull offs for drop off. Mr. Brown stated that gutter to gutter is 27 feet. Ms. Carver asked how many cars long the pull offs would be. Mr. Dunnett answered that there will not be a curb, just an architectural bollard to delineate the lack of curb, which will make unloading easier for skiers. Ms. Carver asked if there is a rendering of a closeup of the South Aspen Street side. Mr. Glass showed a slide that partially captured that area. He stated that the applicants looked at the different components in the neighboring buildings and tried to match the building bases and the materials used. He stated that they are matching a stone that is used in neighboring buildings and a wooden frame that’s referencing residential scale construction. The applicants’ goal was to match the building to its surroundings and respond to the topographical conditions. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would like to see more green building, like harvesting of the rain water and snowmelt. He suggested solar on the roofs. He stated that he would like to see an annual net zero to reduce the footprint. Mr. Glass stated that solar is made difficult with the snow. He stated that the biggest opportunities are in water treatment, and low-profile and efficient building construction types as well as trying to make the buildings as lightweight as possible. He stated that the applicants are working hard to make that happen. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the lighting management to prevent the building from being a big glowing orb on the mountain at night. Mr. Glass replied that they did respond to previous commissioner Jasmine Tygre’s concerns that she brought up when she was on the commission. As a result, they’ve created layers to reduce the amount of glass. Ms. McNicolas Kury asked about specific structures on the rendering, if it was a curtain or a structure. Mr. Glass replied that it’s a set of screens inside the glass. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the distance a typical public user would have to travel to get to the lift. Mr. Brown asked if the starting point for her question was the garage. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the timing from both the garage and the sidewalk. Mr. Brown stated that, from Dean Street, the steps that you access are gentler than the steps at Gondola Plaza. Mr. Glass added that it was the lowest location while preserving the gantry and the bull wheel. Mr. Mesirow asked if preserving that alignment was the sole reason it didn’t go even lower. Ms. Phalen replied that the SE Group determined that a lower location would have started cramping in on queuing, snow service, and turnarounds. Mr. Brown stated that Aspen Skiing Company needs 25 or 30 feet access for mechanical to be able to pull out from the base. He showed on a rendering where the ski return would be and where the gondola cars would load. Mr. McKnight asked where the gondola storage would be. Mr. Brown replied that the storage of the gondola cars currently happens inside the Silver Queen Gondola. Dave Corbin from Aspen Skiing Company replied that separate gondola cabin storage would happen at the top of the lift, in terms of taking cabins off at night. It is not the intention to store all the cabins at the base of the mountain. Mr. Mesirow asked about the perceived benefit of a telemix lift versus a gondola setup. Mr. Corbin answered that a telemix offers the best of all possible worlds. Skiers who don’t want to take off equipment can load directly onto the chair. Alternatively, cabins are available for people who prefer them. Cabins also provide opportunities for use year-round. Mr. McKnight asked about the speed of lift. Mr. Corbin responded that it is a little under four minutes to Ruthie’s. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the location of the elevator from the parking garage. Mr. Rawley pointed out the location on the slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the width of the sidewalks long the museum side and if that’s been addressed with the one-way configuration of Dean Street. Mr. Dunnett replied that the sidewalk width is approximately 12 feet at the drop-off. He stated that the sidewalk is a little more constraining in front of the Skier’s Chalet building since they need to preserve the existing staircase in its configuration. Ms. McNicolas Kury asked if the response was to get larger to the northern side. Mr. Dunnett replied that that was correct and pointed the area out on the slide. Ms. McGovern stated that the math on the plans is in correct and stated that she would like to see the correct dimensions on the revised plans. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are any impacts to the neighbors to the north side of Dean Street. Mr. Anderson replied that there are a couple of neighbors here to speak to that. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are additional renderings for the cul-de-sac area. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants can have those for the next meeting. Mr. Glass stated that they have two in the presentation, and he showed those slides. Ms. McNicholas Kury clarified that she was referring to the cul-de-sac on the east side. Mr. Rawley replied that the applicants don’t have a rendering of that. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the applicants had renderings of what the parking entrance will look like. Mr. Glass replied that they only have renderings where it’s vaguely shown. He stated that the applicants want to make it very quiet, framed by trees, stone, and the museum building. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the project will come back before the board for future approvals. Mr. Anderson replied that this project will come back to P&Z on the 16th seeking the commissioners’ recommendation. If the project goes on the ballot, the voters would be presented with a conceptual approval of this project and the Gorsuch Haus project. Both of those projects would then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the pieces under their jurisdiction for final review. Ms. Phalen stated that that would be more fenestration, though some items might get changed along the way since the process is long. Ms. Carver asked about the amount of snowmelt for this project. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants can bring that information to the next presentation. He stated that the areas to the south of the Skier’s Chalet Stakehouse building and to the north of the western building will likely be snowmelted. He stated that he would need to talk to Aspen Skiing Company and the Parks Department about the areas nearest the telemix as well. Ms. Carver asked if the history museum is closer to the street than the building next to it. Mr. Glass replied that she is looking at the face of the balconies, which aligns with the building. Mr. Mesirow asked if the green roofs will be open to public access and, if so, if there be programming on them. He also asked if the green areas will be programed or if they are just gardens to be seen. Mr. Glass replied that the current plan is that they will be gardens to be seen. He stated that the eastern building will not be open to the public, as it is a residential building. He does not know about the Lodge building, yet. It does have two pools, so it has the potential. Mr. Mesirow asked if Dolensek Gardens will be developed at the same time as the rest of the project or if that will only happen once the family is vacated. Mr. Brown replied that Lift One Park and Willoughby Park would be done as part of these project. Dolensek Gardens would not happen until the family is vacated. Mr. Marcus asked where the 60-foot width number comes from regarding the ski return and if there are any concerns about bottlenecking or reduced sunlight making that spot icy. Mr. Brown replied that a narrower corridor could have been possible, but Aspen Skiing Company asked for 60 feet to preserve quality. He turned the question over to David Corbin from Aspen Skiing Company. Mr. Corbin stated that Aspen Skiing Company has been very adamant. They wanted to keep a minimum of three Snowcat widths for the return of skiing and a comfortable dimension to allow people to maneuver safely. He pointed out that that section is at a 17% slope, which puts it at a medium difficulty. It also allows enough operational room to effectively groom and maintain snow surface. He stated that Mr. Marcus’s prediction of shadowing through that area is correct, but he thinks ice will be prevented with maintenance and it will get some sun from the south. Aspen Skiing Company believes that this corridor would deliver a good guest experience. Mr. Brown praised the generosity of the Dolensek family and stated that this project could not have happened without the donation of the property. Mr. McKnight asked how traffic will be impacted by this project, especially at the intersections where Durant crosses Monarch and South Aspen. He asked if the intersections will add more stop signs. Mr. Anderson replied that the Engineering Department and the applicants’ engineer is looking into that. He stated that the advantage of the location in the proposal is that it is keeping traffic off the grades on South Aspen Street. He agreed that there will be increased traffic in the area but hopes that a lot of people will be approaching on foot. Mr. Mesirow turned the hearing over to Mr. Anderson for his portion of the presentation. Mr. Anderson asked for a five-minute break. Mr. Mesirow called for a five-minute break. He stated that the next portion would be quick and then public comment would come after that. He explained that those giving public comment would have three minutes. He stated that this meeting will conclude, not with a decision to approve the project or not, but what the commissioners need to see to make a decision at the October 16th meeting. Mr. Mesirow commenced the meeting again at 6:19. Mr. Anderson stated that the purpose of his presentation is to cover issues that staff would like the commissioners to consider to clearly identify some of the changes that are happening to Lift One Lodge and re-emphasize the vested approval and the amendment that is now subject to current code. He stated that City staff helped facilitate the SE Group’s study and have worked closely with the stakeholders to arrive at this point. He stated that the City is supportive of the project at this point. However, he stated that there are some things that staff would like more information about and some things that need further study. He mentioned the new proposed scale and massing, changes to interior programming, the change to employee housing going from the dorm style units to the one unit, the relocated and repurposed Steakhouse moving to Dean Street but also turning it into a commercial space. He asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to think about growth management and mentioned that there is a request for additional allotments in terms of the Lodge and the additional free market allotment. He also mentioned old mitigation versus new mitigation. He stated that the applicants are meeting with APCHA and are waiting for a recommendation from them. At the next Planning and Zoning Commission in two weeks, some of these topics will be ironed out. He pointed the commissioners to Exhibit 14, a draft cost sharing agreement that Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus have proposed. It discusses some of the original development requirements and original approval documents and rethinking some of those things as more stakeholders have come into the project. He showed some slides from the approvals from 2016 to provide comparison of some of the changes to mass and scale. There was a maximum height for both the west building and east building from the interpolated grade. He stated that staff is consistent with the applicant in finding that the proposed massing is meeting the maximum height requirement from the original approval. He mentioned that the vertical elements that are on the new proposed building that are not necessarily as prominent as on the original approval are primarily serving as vertical circulation. In the initial approval, the elevators were central and internal to the massing of the building. Because of the floor programming, those elements have moved to the exterior or the building. Staff would like to restudy those two elements to see if it would be possible to move the height of that massing into the center of the building or to break up that massing using material or form, because they are the tallest elements of the building. They are compliant with the code, with the ten-foot allowance for mechanical and elevator overruns, but are prominent features. He asked the commissioners to think about the height and the changes to scale and massing and consider if those elements of the project are things that Planning and Zoning continues to support. Mr. Rawley clarified that the elevator stacks that Mr. Anderson brought up are on the inside of the building, located from the pedestrian pathway. Mr. Anderson showed a slide with elevations to give a sense of how the building steps up from Dean Street and commented that the building was wide and has gotten narrower. He showed the historic elements in context to demonstrate the massing. He stated that the project is going from 22 full lodge units up to 34 in the new proposal. He reiterated that the new average doesn’t necessarily compare with previous approvals. However, the new average Is about 1500 square feet. That translates to incentives within the lodge district in terms of density and growth management mitigation issues. In the east building, number of free market residences is being increased from five to six with one affordable housing unit. Staff is somewhat concerned about this change since there is a new element in the code that, in lodge projects, the City limits free market residences to 1500 square feet of net livable. He reiterated that the original measurements and the measurements in this proposal are not comparable since the original methodology was very different. Mr. Anderson noted that the original requirement for 50 public spaces in the parking garage is being maintained. There will be 59 new spaces for Lift One Lodge project specifically. Other changes include the relocation of the entrance to the subgrade garage from South Aspen Street to Dean Street and the improvements to Dean Street that staff thinks are an improvement over the existing approval. He stated that he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to think about the parking. He stated that the project is currently 16 spaces short of the minimum parking requirement. He stated that they are working with the applicant, and the Engineering, Transportation, and Parking Departments to look at the review criteria for a special review to better understand the relationship with parking spaces on site, their mobility improvements, and the realities of the neighborhood parking context. There is a proposal and some discussion to allow for tandem parking for the valet service or staff parking to help meet the requirement. There needs to be some work done by the applicant as well as staff on this element. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the subgrade parking garage and stated that there would likely be some sort of metering system to control the public parking spaces. He showed where the trash and recycling are proposed to be located and stated that the Environmental Health Department would like to see further study in that area to ensure that that space works for trash and recycling and that the trucks can access that space. Mr. Anderson stated that staff wants to make sure that the interface with the subgrade space with the parking garage works for the needs of Aspen Skiing Company and the Historical Society as there has been discussion about more efficient use of that space, particularly from the Historical Society. They want to make sure that they can get large artifacts out of the garage space and into the gallery space. Mr. Anderson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to City Council on the site planning and the new block configuration, the mass and scale of the buildings, parking and transportation, growth management, and commercial design. He stated that, since this project was initially approved, commercial standards and guidelines for staff have changed. Lastly, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to address the vested property rights. As an amendment to an existing approval, staff’s recommendation is to grant this project a new three-year vesting period from the point of approval. Mr. Anderson stated that the information that staff need the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at and make a recommendation on includes the materials and the massing of the east and west building regarding the vertical circulation elements, a visual analysis of the Wheeler view plane, the size of the free market residential units, the number of parking spaces onsite, mobility improvements in the parking context, the interface of the parking garage with the ski museum and Aspen Skiing Company facilities and the Skier’s Chalet, the subgrade garage to ensure compliance with the needs for trash and recycling removal, and the changes to Gilbert and Dean Streets, regarding access for fire protection, impacts to existing neighbors, and compliance with engineering standards. Mr. Anderson stated that Sopris Engineering has been hired by the City of Aspen, Lift One Lodge, and the Gorsuch Haus to create a unified understanding of mud and debris flow, storm water management issues, and grading design. We know that this is in the works. And then lastly, a site plan that specifically identifies the provision of onsite pedestrian amenity space for Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Mesirow asked what that means. Mr. Anderson responded that there is a pedestrian amenity requirement in the Commercial Design Review. This project has a lot of amenity associated with Willoughby Park, however, the City would like to understand the onsite amenity on the two Lift One Lodge parcels, the free market building, and the Lodge building. He stated that the City and the applicant also need to come to better understanding of some of the dimensions from the existing approval to the current proposed. As this project gets closer to putting an ordinance together to take to City Council and the voters, there needs to be a better understanding of the internal programming so that the commercial, free market, and lodge uses can be broken out in a more precise way. The applicants will try to have as much of that information for the Planning Zoning Commission for the meeting on October 16th, however there might be some elements of this that won’t be answered until this project is before city Council, due to design constraints. He reminded the commissioners of the schedule and encouraged everyone to come to the site visit on October 15th. Mr. Mesirow asked if it’s appropriate for the commissioners to reconsider elements of the original approval in their review. Mr. Anderson stated that there is some flexibility to review those elements of the original review. Mr. Mesirow asked how the free market building and unit size should affect the commissioners vote. Mr. Anderson answered that the units are staying close to the same size as in the original approvals. He stated that there has been community conversation around other projects regarding the proportion of free market activity to lodge activity, and staff want to be respectful of that and sensitive to the vested rights approval that includes units that are roughly the same size as what is being proposed. Mr. Mesirow asked if it is correct that there is anything in the review criteria other than max allowable that can influence the commissioners’ votes. Mr. Anderson replied that that is correct. He stated that the commissioners can consider the vested approval and the land use code now says about this topic, with its new updates. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he feels that two meetings are not enough to digest all the information being put before the commissioners and the overall timeline for this project of six to eight meetings with boards and commissions is too short. He stated that he likes this project, but that he feels the commissioners are not being given enough facts and detail about it. He stated that this project should not be condensed just because the City is a part of this project. He stated that Mr. Anderson gave them about fifteen Items to take a critical look at with only a few minutes left in this meeting and one other. He questioned whether this project is a major amendment or a whole new application and asked why it is not being looked at in that way. He stated that he understands that this project qualifies for the same height limit that is in the original PD. He asked about the interpolated grade and what the project was held to the first time and how those things differed from one another. He stated that, while the project still meets the height, the mass and scale is very different than the first time. He reiterated that he is generally in favor of everything that the applicants have done, but that he thinks the timeline is too rushed. Mr. Mesirow stated that the commission won’t vote on this project until they feel satisfied in their knowledge base. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he understands that and understands that it’s ultimately City Council’s decision. He stated that, if this were a typical commercial design project, the commission would see multiple phases of conceptual and final. He stated that he understands the need to get it before the voters and questioned the timeline of getting this to a vote on the spring ballot. He stated that it’s a better project than what was brought before the commissioners the first time and is grateful that the applicants are working with the City and other stakeholders. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Anderson to respond to Mr. Waltersheid’s comments. Mr. Anderson stated that there has been a concerted effort from the stakeholders to work together to make the Dean Street location of the lift happen and have had a lot of meetings as a result. He stated that there is a lot of momentum right now and the applicants and City would like the schedule to happen as it’s laid out, but if the commissioners don’t feel they can give a recommendation after the meeting on 10/16, the commissioners can have more time as long as they are willing to show up at additional meetings. Ms. Phalen stated that this project is technically a major amendment and is supposed to match up with the new code. She stated that the group had lots of meetings over the summer trying to ensure stakeholders’ needs are met. She also stated that we also need to balance and consider that there is an entitled project and if one of the players pulled out then the whole thing could potentially fall apart. Ultimately this project will be put before the voters for a decision. She stated that it is a compressed timeline, but that they are trying to get as much information to the commissioners as possible as they continue to hash out details. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the voters would approve this as a conceptual approval and if the project would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval. Ms. Phalen replied yes. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. Phalen to outline that process. Ms. Phalen stated that conceptual approval locks in the mass, siding, height, floor area, and uses. Some details can be changed between conceptual and final in addition to materials and fenestration. She stated that, even if the voters approve this project for final review, there will be a lot of work to be done on development agreements. There are a lot of things that would need to be handled before this project can get to permit. Mr. Walterscheid stated that there is a lot of information that needs to be refined. He stated that It initially seems like quite a lot to swallow in that amount of time. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners had anything else to ask. Seeing none, he stated that he would like to give the applicants the complete list of things that they should explore to gain a recommendation and hold opinions about things outside of the direct inquiry from staff for the next meeting. He also stated that only points with consensus from the commission will be things for the applicants to look at. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that she does take a little issue with restricting the information that the commissioners ask for because, even though not all the commissioners are intrigued by something doesn’t mean that information couldn’t lead to a different vote. Mr. Mesirow stated that he is trying to avoid an unnecessarily long list of things that the applicants need to study that have nothing to do with the resulting vote. Ms. McNicholas Kury replied that the items important to her are important to her vote. She stated that she is not looking to the rest of the commissioners to ask for information that will help her make her decision. Mr. Mesirow explained the procedures for public comment and that it will be limited to three minutes per person. PUBLIC COMMENT Galen Bright introduced himself as a resident and the HOA president at South Point Condominiums. He stated that his HOA would like more research done about the garage entrance related to the number of users and services using one entrance and exit. The valet will also cause extra traffic with the proposed entrance, which would not cause a problem in the original approvals. He also asked why snowmelt is off the table. He stated that this area needs to be pedestrian friendly like Gondola Plaza and stated that traffic for skier drop-off will back up into Durant Street. He stated that the wider the street gets, the more grade change must be corrected and a retaining wall would turn the condominiums’ ground level units into garden level units, which is a big concern for owners on the first floor. He also commented that he did not understand the direction for the bike path and that it will require more grading. Marissa Lasky introduced herself as a resident at the South Point Condominiums. She commented that the condominiums have a 17 % grade change and that the project will give their second floor a garden- level feel. She stated that she and her neighbors agreed to it being set back, which would also make that area a user-friendly plaza like Gondola Plaza, which would also balance the town. She stated that the grade already causes people to fall. The sidewalk also eliminates the current location for their dumpster. She stated that an effort to make this plaza pedestrian friendly is very important to her and her neighbors. She stated that the people in the building are long term or full-time residents and would like to see it be a home. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend meeting to 7:15. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Casey Martin introduced himself as a lawyer from Balcomb and Green representing Aspen Mountain Townhomes. The townhomes are a 3 unit building with entrances that open onto Gilbert Street. He stated that their concern is the location of the east building. The relocation of Lot 2 pushes the building downhill and obstructs what used to be a right of way of Gilbert Street. The cu- de-sac at the east building contemplates two-way traffic, which is already very difficult there. He stated that more traffic will also mean more danger to the children who live in the neighborhood. He stated that the clients are not opposed to the project, they are only asking the commissioners to delay and get more information. He stated that they would like to see relocation of the east building or shrinking the size to preserve the view plane. If vehicular access to the building remains, it should be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Martin for the names of the owners from the townhomes who he represents. Mr. Martin replied that he represents the homeowner’s association. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants have not talked to these homeowners and would like names of who to approach. Mr. Martin responded that the applicants can approach Balcomb and Green as their council. Genevieve Hose introduced herself as a representative of the homeowners of the Caribou Condo Association. She stated that they have a written agreement with the developers of this project that was introduced in 2011 and supported the prior project. Their concerns are primarily related to skier’s access where the east building is, maintaining the height, and maintaining the scale of the project. She stated that they are still reviewing material that was provided to them, but that some of the information there seems to conflict with what they have heard at the meeting. Jim Cardamone introduced himself as an Aspen resident since the ‘80’s. He wanted to provide strong support of this project in general and wants to bring World Cup Ski Racing back into town. He also wants to see the west side of the mountain developed. Molly Faulk introduced herself as the manager at the Lift One Condominiums and representative of the board of directors. She stated on their behalf that that they support the project and hope to have a board member at the October 16th meeting for more comments. Jim DeFrancy introduced himself as being from Gorsuch Haus. He stated that he appreciates everyone’s comments and would like to remind everyone that there are many complexities that went into designing this project and Lift One Lodge had to make the most significant changes. He asked staff to keep in mind that the issues that they brought up are going to have to be addressed by all stakeholders and that they are already mindful about all issues raised by staff and will be addressed. Mr. Corbin stated that Aspen Skiing Company is technically a co-applicant on the Gorsuch Haus project, since they own that land, but that they are not on this project, which means that he can speak as a member of the public. He stated that Aspen Skiing Company supports this project in terms of its land use and what it’s doing for this part of town. He also thanked the Lift One Lodge development team for their flexibility and willingness to re-design their project. Ms. Lasky spoke again to address parking and stated that current conditions are terrible and the loss of on street parking will only make things worse. Mr. Mesirow closed public comment and invited commissioners to share points of further study for the applicants. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she would like to see more renderings from the cul-de-sac view, a view of the parking entrance from Dean street, more information about the view plane, and more information about why it is so difficult to come up with the apples-to-apples comparison on growth management. She stated that she is feeling that she may not have fully comprehended what the commission approved in the original approvals. Mr. Mesirow asked what view planes she wanted to see more about. Ms. McNicholas Kury responded the Wheeler and Main Street. Mr. Anderson responded that this property is in two view plans: Main Street and the Wheeler. Staff analysis shows that this project does not infringe on the Main Street view plane, but the Wheeler view plane is something that staff need to evaluate. Ms. McGovern motioned to extend the meeting to 7:30. Ms. Carver seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Marcus stated that he would like to see additional information around the ski corridor, showing that it’s a positive experience for the skiers returning to that area and an understanding of where the towers will be. Mr. McKnight stated that he is very impressed with how this has come together. He agreed with Mr. Waltersheid’s concerns about things moving too quickly. He would like to see the additional information that Mr. Anderson promised for the next meeting as well as some of the public comments from meetings with neighbors. He does like where this project is going, but his vote will depend on the information that he gets at the next meeting on 10/16. He also commented that the parking and traffic are big issues for him and would like to see more information on that topic or solutions. Mr. Mesirow stated that he would like to see more information about the parking garage entrance as he thinks that it provides a significant barrier to pedestrian access. He would like to see a re-exploration of an entrance on South Aspen Street or an exploration of an entrance that’s closer to corner near the bull wheel. He stated that he does not like the free market building and stated that the units are too big and too expensive and will be empty most of the year. He would like to see them be much smaller. He also commented that he would like to see more exploration around the public amenity and how it interacts with that space. Ms. McNicholas Kury left the meeting at 7:16 pm. Mr. Mesirow stated that he will not be supportive of a project that does not fully mitigate for affordable housing. He also stated that he agrees with staff comments about changing the vertical elements and stated that he would like to see that he would like to see the massing activated with programing such as public art. Ms. Carver thanked the applicants for sticking with this project and emphasized the importance of doing this project right. She stated she would like to see more of a welcoming plaza on the Dean Street side. She stated that she would like to see a bigger parking garage. She agreed with Mr. Mesirow that the free market units should be smaller. She stated that she would like to see the sidewalks heated between Durant and Dean Street since it’s so hilly. She stated that the building to the west lacks variety and would like to see interest added. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Carver if there is anything she would like her fellow commissioners to champion for her at the next meeting, as she will not be attending. Ms. Carver stated that it’s a great project and does not want to see it rushed. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with a lot of what the other commissioners stated. She is concerned about the neighbors in the Southpoint Condominiums. She wants to ensure that the changes to Dean Street don’t negatively impact their building. She is also concerned about the Dean Street entrance since it is narrow and not welcoming. She would like to see study about how to make the corner of Aspen and Dean more welcoming. She also stated concerns about the two buildings on Gilbert Street and the cul-de-sac being too narrow for two-way traffic. Ms. Phalen stated that staff need to look at safe turnarounds. Ms. McGovern agreed with previous commissioner comments about free market units. Mr. Marcoux stated that he likes the four-minute lift ride to Ruthie’s. He asked if they might be underestimating the amount of traffic going through the telemix lift instead of the gondola. He expressed concerns about parking and overflow into the neighborhoods and ice garden. He is concerned about the housing and interested in APCHA’s input. He expressed concerns about the lack of renewable energy involved in the project. Mr. Walterscheid commented that he is very supportive about project and does not want his concerns about the project to reflect negatively on his support. He requested to see side-by-side comparison with this building and the original approvals. He also requested more information about parking and the impacts the restaurants have on that. He stated that he would like to hold this project to the same standards that they would hold any other project to. Mr. Mesirow commented to staff and applicants that he would like the October 16th meeting to be catered to the concerns and requests of the commissioners. He also stated that there is the possibility of calling special meetings if commissioners don’t have what they need to come to a decision at the next meeting. Ms. Phalen stated that Mr. Mesirow needs to continue the hearing to October 16th. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to October 16th. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow adjourned the meeting at 7:26 PM. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager