Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20121002 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 02, 2012 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 122 East Durant—Hotel Durant Commercial Design Review 2 South Aspen Street 7 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny, City Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer reminded the Commissioners about the State Planning Conference in Snowmass Village; the bulk of the conference was Thursday and Friday. November 6th is Election Day. LJ, Jasmine, Jim and Ryan said no to meeting on November 6th and agreed to meet on October 30th. Jennifer asked who was available for the meeting on November 22nd (Tuesday of Thanksgiving week) Ryan and Bert will not be able to attend. Jackie Lothian stated the City Attorney's office was having an Ethics Training Class on October 23rd from 10-11 am; please send Jackie an email. Minutes —Bert said on the 18th he asked a question about the cost of the hotel. Jackie Lothian explained that P&Z's job was not to review monetary things so we really don't comment on that. Bert said that it was stated by the applicant and that was why he asked if they had a printing press for the money. Debbie said that it was still part of the record. LJ said that we hear from the applicant that we have to do it so why can't we ask for a proforma. Debbie answered because it was not part of the criteria from the land use code on which you make your decision and that can't be made as part of your decision. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from September 18`h with corrections from Bert; seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Cliff said someone from the Hotel Durant contacted an associate of his and it did not change his thinking about it. Continued Public Hearing: 122 East Durant (Hotel Durant) Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Hotel Durant. Sara Nadolny entered Exhibit H into the record (a letter from Larry Mages, Lift One); she received this today and Larry said he has an issue with the glass. Sara said this was a consolidated conceptual/final review continued from August 21St 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 Sara stated some issues from the last meeting that you asked the applicant to address were the calmness of the overall design of the building, forms and materials, to create a better relationship between the stair and the towers, create a better relationship between the decks of the front facade, the applicant was asked to show plans for the trash and recycling area and the commission was split on the desired roof form over the 4th floor story (gabled or flat roof). Sara said the number of roof styles have been reduced and relate better architecturally to each other and the materials have been limited and relate better to the overall design of the building as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Sara said the relationship between the towers has been achieved and reduced the height of the front stair tower helps integrate with the rest of the building. To create a better relationship between the front decks the applicant has used some of the same glass material as the safety rail on both sides of the decks. They have carried the stone material to the east which balances off the front facade and the roof over the side deck mirrors the roof over the west side and they opened up the sides of the deck which gives the design a lighter airier feeling. Sara said the applicant has agreed to bring the trash/recycling area up to code; they may have to redesign to be shifted to face the alley. Sara said the roof form and heights and at the last hearing the commission was split on the roof form; staff directed the applicant to provide 2 different designs that would depict a gable and flat roof over the 4th floor rooms. Comparing the flat roof to the gable roof will not allow the flat roof to be possible unless the 2 feet in height variance is allowed, which will bring the total height of the building to 40 feet. This additional 2 feet may be granted by the commission by this process of design review. Staff supports option 2 with the flat roof for the 4th floor because it better reflects the design of the building and adds less real height and mass to the building. The 4th floor is not visible from the street for this option and creates a better pedestrian environment and scale. Sara stated materials are a final design issue and the stone design turns the corner from the front facade and kind of abruptly to the east side and it affects the quality of application and looks more applied than the actual building; staff feels there should be a more definite point of transition at this point. And after meeting Ken from the design team they have come up with steps to alleviate this and overall staff is pleased with this design. 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 Bert Myrin said the trash is not against the alley and asked if our code provides direction for that. Sara replied it has to be 15 linear feet and it has to be turned to the long edge to face the alley and the reason is the intent is in the code. Bert said so the intent is there so we might need to change the code so it is clearer. Bert said in the memo you had concerns about the stone corner and asked how does the memo come out and then the applicant gets it and he asked if it was a secret that you are just assessing these things. Sara replied no sometimes it is just a matter of timing and that came out before the memo was written and the design team said that was also a concern of theirs and they were working on and the memo which came out first and that was why she said something about it. Jim DeFrancia asked if Sara had a view on the glass balcony. Sara replied that staff talked about using the least reflective materials as possible for the glass. Jennifer Phelan stated that this was the material that you are seeing throughout town using glass that is a material for the railing; staff thought that the materials that they were picking made the facade a better overall facade. Ken Adler used power point to show the changes as they were also exhibit F in the packet. Phil Ring said the owner Brian Schafer was also present. Phillip said that since we last met we have been able to address the concerns that were brought up and we are pleased with the progress made and done the best that we can addressing concerns and pleased that staff has recommended approval. Phillip recapped a couple of points that they are not capping their FAR, it is important for the hotel that we are adding amenities something to help finance the project which is difficult for you but needed for our financing. Phillip said one of the benefits of the project was the major energy efficiency improvements and have been working with engineers and the city electric department to maximize those efficiencies. Phillip said this was reinvesting in a lodging base in Aspen. The elevator moved away from the street and reducing the height of the stair tower and matching in pitch; simplifying the roof forms so they better relate to one another. Staff encouraged them to bring forward 2 options with the roof forms; a pitched roof form that will match the 38 foot zoning requirement and the 40 foot flat roof version that would require the variance approval from this board. Ken said that Sara and Phil covered it with the lowering of the stair tower; going back to the shed roof and tying the materials together and to pick up on that vocabulary on the front facade. Ken said additionally as Sara mentioned we made a few changes in response to that material turning the corner. Ken showed on power point the wrap of stone on the southeast only on the first floor and on the southwest getting rid of the glass rail with a half wall wooden material. Ken said 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 02, 2012 they preferred the flat roof version and it was actually 220 square feet less space of the roof top deck and the flat roof ties in better with the surrounding buildings and the character of the building itself. Ken said if the commission felt the flat roof was better they had one small change to the back of the building at the stair tower and penthouse to gain about 50 square feet and are still under the FAR limit from 1400 to 1600 below the FAR limit. Cliff Weiss asked what is glass and what is not. Cliff said the balcony rails on the cover pictures are glass. Ken said that right now they don't know what those railings will be at the end of the day; they might be glass and maybe something else and will come down to a budget issue. Cliff asked if there was glass railing on the roof. Ken responded there was a little portion in the front and on the eastside; the addition of the sides eliminates the glass railings. Ken said they have pulled the railing back about 41/2 feet back. Cliff asked what was the stone wrap all the way up or on the bottom stone with wood above; he asked if they preferred the flat roof. Phil answered they prefer the flat roof for a number of reasons: it will be less expensive to build; it will be far more energy efficient; it lays out better; the roof forms are much simpler than the gabled roof and you won't be able to see it from the street. Bert said the staff memo on page 8 (Resolution page 2) mentions the height allowances. Jennifer stated the actual underlying zoning allows a height of 3 8 feet which may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. Bert said the 40 foot was just more appealing. Sara replied that the Mountain Design Guidelines that she talked early about were these 5 guidelines to create a building with an overall energy efficiency; the 40 foot option creates a more pedestrian friendly environment. Jennifer said there were design objectives that this helps meet. Bert said on the same page number 9 do those encroachments become dedicated to the Hotel. Jennifer said for clarity right now there is no type of license; anyone can park there. Jennifer said they have the ability to ask for an encroachment license from the Engineering Department and that would be an exclusive encroachment license if it was granted. LJ asked what was between the hot tub and the south side of the building; is there a wall there. Ken replied that it was basically a 42 inch high roof, the entryway and the guardrail. Public Comments: 1. Paul Taddune thanked the commission for considering Larry Mages email; he was the president of the association. Paul read from Lift One 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 concerning the Hotel Durant increasing its height and installation of a recreation area on the roof across the street from Lift One. Paul said he met with Phil and Ken and they seemed to think that the hot tub hours could be limited to times, which would help the neighbors and the Hotel. Lift one does not want to see any additional height in the area because they were prohibited by City Council from having some increased height roof elements and having said that I think that everyone is in agreement that the flat roof works better for everybody. Paul asked about the solar voltaic panels on the roof and about the reflective material and the railings and glass on the building being reflective. 2. Mack Boelens asked if they were adding parking as well. Jennifer replied the same number of units were being proposed so the same parking was proposed. 3. Jaleh White lives across from the building and voiced concern for the hot tub on the roof and Brian said they were going to limit times. Commissioner Comments: Jim said it was a good project and enhances our lodging base; the applicant has shown some sensitivity. Jim said he was for option 2 which staff recommended. Cliff said they shouldn't have people in the hot tub late at night and it is probably a safety thing. Cliff said the solar panels are at a 12 x 3 angle so even if the sun hits those panels it will not reflect into the eyes of the units across the street. Cliff liked where the stone doesn't overlay all the way up and he likes a gabled roof but the neighbors like the flat roof and you say it is cheaper and more energy efficient so he will go with the flat roof. Stan asked the angle of the solar panels. Ken replied it was about 18-19 degrees. Stan said it just was not possible to reflect the sun back. Stan said the issue about the hot tub and the distance to Lift One and the city has a noise ordinance. Stan said he was sure there were treatments of glass to reduce their reflectivity. Stan said the flat roof was less massive for the neighborhood. Keith said that he was in support of the staff recommendation. Bert said that he could support Stan's suggestion about the reflectivity of the balcony railings and the stair towers. Bert asked staff is there was concern of the glass rooftop railings being more reflective. Jennifer responded not that we know of. Bert did not bring anything about the noise levels and time. 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 02, 2012 Ryan asked from process to operation that if we recommend approval and you change a material how does that tie in with that approval. Jennifer replied there were minor changes that staff can approve; the railings and how they can keep the transparency with an alternative material and if it felt like it was really going away from the spirit of the approval we would send it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ryan liked the building and could support it. Jasmine said that she had nothing to add. LJ said he didn't think it was in their purview to impose a curfew on the roof top. LJ said with option 2 the flat roof was less offensive. LJ asked if we approve the resolution and then add an amendment about the glazing. Debbie stated there was a suggestion to add a condition to the resolution to add glazing be as non-reflective as possible and if they need to come back for a change there is a process to use. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend approval of the request for a commercial design review at 122 East Durant, Resolution 17-12, adding all South facing glass surfaces be minimally reflective, seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll Call: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Continued Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on South Aspen Street Lodge Conceptual PUD. Chris Bendon stated this was a continued hearing from last week, September 25th and during that meeting there was a request for some additional information, which has been provided and he will hand that out. Chris stated presented on the 25th was an amended site plan that shifted the parking garage entrance over to South Aspen Street because South Garmisch was unworkable. Chris recapped that this was the 3rd hearing and we are focusing on a conceptual PUD and focusing on the uses within the project, the site plan and massing with the idea of presenting City Council points so they can go through that same exercise at a conceptual level and see if the project is workable and then it would come back in through final review for the specifics of architecture, parking ratio, more detailed review that this board is used to seeing. On the 25th we reviewed a summary of what he characterized as P&Z criticisms and suggestions for the fine tuning and he has incorporated the language into the resolution. Ideally this is a way for City Council with some guidance on the project that it more 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 02, 2012 thorough to weigh their way through the minutes. The applicant provided some additional drawings and he distributed the drawings with more information. David Parker used power point and showed a slide with the original right of way at 75 feet and then with the movement of Lift One Lodge it is down to about 28 feet of actual.right of way. David showed the garage entrances on the slide and there was discussion from the views from Lift One Lodge and South Aspen has the right to put in somewhere between a 36 or 40 foot high building along the 5 feet from the property line under the current code. The current hotel configuration has better site lines. David said there were 2 pods of affordable housing; one was in the hotel at grade level and one up in the upper side of the middle building with a 10 foot walkout. There will be no parking on Juan Street. Stan asked if the 28 feet extends all the way down to where it becomes much wider. David showed where the 28 foot started directly across from their building and zigs up right there and goes all the way up to the top of the hill. Stan asked if we ever got the measurement how wide Garmisch is on the curve, how wide is that pavement. David replied 22 feet. Cliff said the space between Juan Street housing and building 2; into the parking garage for building 2 and then a bit of green space between building 2 and Juan Street; are there still retaining walls that break up the space between the 2 buildings. Andy asked if it was the middle and the upper building; if so there was a retaining wall along the edge and at grade it can become green. Cliff said that that was a big concern from COWOP that there was a buffer. LJ asked from the slide the lower one was the Lodge, the middle and the top are condominiums; how do you get into the garages. David showed the garage entrances for each building. LJ opened the public hearing. Public Comments: 1. Paul Taddune said he was here on behalf of Lift One; Paul read from his letter (attached to the back of the minutes). LJ asked if anyone else from the public wished to make a comment, none stated. LJ closed the public comment section of the hearing. 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 Commissioner Comments: Bert asked Ryan if he had asked about more mass and having affordable housing on site. Ryan said he made a comment that he would be in favor of exploring a larger project that contained more free market if it allowed more affordable housing on site. Cliff said that he was paying attention to what Paul Taddune said about the free market being down low and the hotel being above; he wasn't sure that would solve any issues for the 2 middle buildings. Cliff said there was no parking on South Aspen so putting the hotel at the top of the street would bring the daily traffic to the top of the street; there would be some AVSC race traffic up there. Chris captured in the resolution bullet 4 section 3 massing concerns along the north edge of the hotel that could be alleviated by vacating all on part of Juan Street and shifting the lodge building southward. The Commission also encourages the applicant to explore this option. The Commission also encourages the applicant to explore a tunnel rather than a bridge to connect the buildings. Cliff said that he thought what the homeowners were suggesting was to take this big building and move it. Paul said that in addition to that they were also saying that all this time and effort went into COWOP II and a lot of problems were resolved but we end up with this. Paul said he would require some involvement with the City Council. Cliff said inevitably it will be Council's decision. Paul said that COWOP was a good result and at the end was not a bad project. Cliff stated that it wasn't as simple as moving the building 10, 15, or 20 feet; they wanted the building moved to the top of the hill. LJ said his thinking on that was in the winter it would be perfect ski in/ski out; in the summer where pedestrian movement were the 2 issues facing that dilemma; he said that he was not going to make a conclusion of where it should be he just wanted to let you know his thoughts. Cliff reminded him that a hotel get more daily traffic then a condo complex. LJ said that no one was going to walk up there. Stan said that he was confused about all of the handouts and was this last one a change from what we saw; that the hotel belongs on the lower end of the property. David replied that the approved townhome that was approved in 2004; they have dropped the heights from the lower ends. Stan said given that there is another big hotel on the other side of the street that it is prudent to have this parking entrance and the activity of the hotel lowered down and he understands it is not the favorable from Lift One but from a program perspective; he thought it was a better idea on the street since part of it has been vacated it to separate those 2 hotels. 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 U said the free market residential has more units and more square footage than the townhome plans, a private enclave and look at vested townhome plans. Stan replied the vested townhome plans are the approved townhome plans. U answered yes. Stan said the current homes have not yet been approved so we are comparing the approved townhomes. Chris said that he did put a note in there for the second bullet and the commission did have a brief discussion at the last meeting about striking that last sentence. Cliff agreed to strike the word "chilling". Jim stated what was predominately free market but that is the price that we are paying to get lodging. Cliff said through COWOP I and COWOP II started out with as many as 120 hotel units and 8 or 10 free market and now it has come back to us 75 hotel and 35 free market units so it is a big change in perspective. Cliff said when you looks at the project you have 2 very big free market buildings and a very big hotel but that is the trade-off, the first words out of his mouth was this was a predominately a free market project it will become a private enclave and it would have more lights on with a true hotel then is does from condominiums. David stated that COWOP II was 72 hotel rooms. U read this was predominately a free market residential project; there were more units, more square footage devoted to free market residential in this plan than the entirety of the vested townhome plan. U asked Chris if that statement was accurate. Chris replied yes. U said that is all it does is make a statement. Jim said it was an observation. Cliff and Jasmine stated it was a concern from them. Stan asked what metric is being used there that it is predominately free market; is it square foot. Ryan asked the applicant in the last or previous presentation it was presented that there would be some lock-off units that would be rented; would you mind explaining a little more of that. David answered COWOP II was 72 rooms with 20 lock-offs; we are 76 rooms with the assumption that all of the condominiums also have a lock off component but effectively we will be at 72 plus 35 so we are at 111. Ryan said if it was possible to do that we would prefer that but that is not required as you are presenting it to us. David replied correct the hotel operators want them to be put into the pool and we are finding out that at the Grand Aspen they find everybody in the pool but we haven't gotten to that point since we don't have an operator signed up yet. Chris said that he did try to capture that under 3 the second bullet; a desire of the commission of the free market portion of the project be more lodge like. Stan said that language is overstated. Cliff suggested why don't you state that there is more free market than in COWOP 11. Jasmine said we are in a sense comparing this project to the last one but we are trying to evaluate this project as a PUD and compare it to what is already approved rather than what goes back to COWOP II and she didn't think that it was 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 02, 2012 appropriate. Jim said the project is dominantly a project with a free market residential project with a lodging component. Jasmine said it was okay. Stan said we are getting good lodging and proposed there is also more free market residential than in the current vested townhome plan. Stan said that he agreed with Jasmine the vested townhome plan was the only thing approved so we should be comparing the current project to that what we know exists. Bert said that Denis Murray said that this looked like a townhome and lodge project. LJ reiterated they need to come to a conclusion on the project that it is predominately a free market residential project with a lodging component and asked who agreed. LJ said that the motion passes. Section 2 was to support the movement of the garage entrances onto South Aspen and were supported by the commission. Chris said the vacation of Juan Street needs more explanation because there is likely to be utility issues so he was comfortable leaving the encroachment into Juan Street as a suggestion while we are recognizing the applicant is receptive to that it is not really entirely within the applicant's control and we haven't gone through a detailed engineering review where we typically do. Stan said below in bullet 4 add that the applicant is willing to consider that option. LJ said the entrance on the middle building; you are going to have to drive through the pedestrian to get to it aren't you. David answered no the pedestrian area was the other direction toward the edge of the circle and there would be bollards. LJ asked why couldn't you just use the upper garage entrance for both. David replied that the 2 garages weren't connected and there are a lot of curb cuts on Aspen Street and the elevations are significantly different. Andy said that would have to downslide the affordable section, show how different levels those 2 garage levels are located. LJ said you could have the garage entrances anywhere on Aspen Street. David responded one garage would be below another garage. Andy said there was 85 feet of fall in this site. Ryan said that he would like to see it the way it was worded and would like to see more of the free market units managed as lodging units. Stan said the second bullet does that. LJ said Stan got it. Cliff said the second one doesn't say anything; a condo is a condo with a lock off room. Ryan agreed to strike the first bullet; 4 people agreed. Chris suggested on the second sentence this could be achieved through fractional interest, different operation of the lock-off units and other mechanisms. Chris suggested and additional sentence at the end of the next was that the applicant agreed to pursue this option. Stan said the last 2 bullets should be combined and to include both on and off site at the end of the first sentence and the last 2 bullets will go away. 11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 02, 2012 Bert said there is nothing in the toolbox that after this hotel is approved and that is something that he would like Council to continue to work on. Requested 3 should be 4: Requested Clarification and Section 4 should be 5 and Section 6 should be 7. Jasmine said Bert's point was important because there were trade-offs to get the lodging facility; the applicant is doing this because Council requested they do it. Jasmine said that what we want or the community wants according to Council's direction lodging on this site, the hotel operation cannot possibly be guaranteed. Section 4 bullets 2-5 were deleted. Chris stated that we have not been before the Development Review Committee so we do not have comments from Engineering and other departments on this project and all those will be at Final. Section 5 Limitations was good. Jasmine asked about reliance for the applicant but then it says the limitations of Section 26.445.030.D. Jasmine asked what are those. Stan asked the same question of reliance. Chris answered Stan that it would be in the approval stage and at conceptual you see it and like it then at final you see the comments from Engineering and it is a great question. Chris said the limitations 26.445.030 states: Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for a PUD or permission to proceed with any aspect of the development. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall only authorize an applicant to submit an application for a final PUD development plan in accordance with the City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval. Unless otherwise specified in the Resolution granting conceptual approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1)year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan. The City Council may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant an extension of the deadline, provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Development on any land within a Planned Unit Development may occur only after all land use approvals are received, all requisite documents, agreements and plats have been filed and the applicant has received all necessary permits as required by the Municipal Code and any other county, state or federal authority with jurisdiction over the land. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to continue the meeting until 7:15pm. Seconded by Jim DeFrancia, Approved 5-2 (Jasmine and Bert no). 12 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 02, 2012 Chris said the reason that he brought that up because when the Limelight was on the sale block that they could automatically convert to condominiums; condominium is a form of ownership and has nothing to do with use; they would have to come in to convert that lodge use to residential use. Chris noted the condominium use in the form of use but that doesn't give you the right to live there; you can stay there as a guest; so they could not convert. Bert asked if we could say the opposite if we have the authority. Chris said that they were willing to exercise all authorities maintenance of this use as lodging. Jasmine stated that you can't force an operator to keep losing money so the worst thing could happen is that the whole building would be empty. Chris replied yes; we don't see a lot of that but in a scenario that a property owner walks away and says unless you are willing to let me do something or another I'm just going to let it sit there. Ryan said the Inn at Aspen is all condominiumzied then you are releasing the burden from the operator. Jasmine said Bert's point is the amount of mitigation that we are asked to consider to get a lodging use. Cliff said there is a big difference between condominiums or townhomes and true lodging units and it is why he wanted to keep some of those bullets earlier on but it has to do with lights on and being an active vital part of the community and at some almost gated part of town that doesn't feel like the resort. Cliff reiterated that we want a hotel. LJ said it was an easy ideology but what does it function; we know we are dealing with what we know so little about. Jim asked Bert to tell them what he was proposing again. Bert said the commission recognizes there is no tool right now in the land use code to establish the sustainability of a hotel. Jim said that is true but didn't know if it were meaningful to say that. Bert says his concern stems from what Jasmine talked about whether I wanted to take a leap of faith for lodge preservation program for the Little Red Ski Haus where his concern at the time was whether it could be converted to single family use; this was in 2002. Bert said he was concerned that they could get bigger so they could operate as a lodge so we did allow them to add a little more square footage to achieve the community goal of lodge preservation and it seems like what is happening again tonight. Bert said that has been proposed. Ryan asked if they could propose an amendment to this zoning to abandon everything along this single parcel except for the lodging; is that possible. Chris said that is how he would set it up that the lower parcel would be its use. LJ asked for 10 years or forever. Chris said no, until they come back to change it. LJ asked for the verbiage. Jim didn't think there was any point in it. LJ said they were not really agreeing on this project they were just moving it forward. Jim said everything is done to move it forward and this part was a hotel. 13 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 02, 2012 Bert asked if we could put something in there about the price we are paying for lodging which is predominately free market. The other commissioners said that was struck. Chris said he had a statement that might be useful "if a lodge is developed on lot 1 the commission recommends removing the right for free market residential on the parcel unless otherwise waived by City Council for a good cause" and will be put into the resolution as Section 8. Jasmine wanted to type up language in the affordable housing section for the applicant to know what to expect and what might be expected in terms of the amount of mitigation. Stan felt it was the most important concern that they have. Stan said that when you vote on this proposal and you don't think that it has enough teeth then don't vote for it. Cliff said the last sentence under bullet 3 under Section 1; why don't we instead of questioning something make a recommendation that we are expecting more mitigation. Ryan said why don't we say the applicant is to increase additional affordable housing options. For the record LJ said this is not an approval by the P&Z Commission but a vote to move this onto City Council. Bert said there are 30 parking spaces on site leased to the Ski Company; if the community really wants a hotel maybe it is time to do away with those extra 30 parking spaces. LJ replied that we can't it was an agreement between private parties. Bert said the 2 private parties can negotiate any agreement they want. LJ said that was according to City Code. David said that lease was signed 34 years ago and inherited; they asked Ski Co if they could get rid of them and Ski Co said those were the only parking spaces in Aspen. No one else on the Commission supported Bert. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved the approval of Resolution 18-12 pursuant to the amendments made this evening. Stan Gibbs seconded. Roll Call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Stan Gibbs, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-1. Adjourned at 7:30 pm. e kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 The two proposals before you this evening will have a significant adverse effect on Lift One, particularly the proposed hotel on Aspen street immediately uphill of our buildings. But also the Hotel Durant which not only seeks to increase its height, but to install a recreation area on its roof just across the street from Lift One. 1. Lift One is a 31 unit condominium that rents out its units when not occupied by owners. The average has been 2500 multi-bedroom rental days per year. Thus Lift One provides the City with beds and supports the City's wish to have hospitality uses in town. Lift One has a lobby and front desk, provides daily maid service, has a pool and hot tub and pays the City the same hotel taxes as these hotels which are petitioning for relief from the established zoning standards. Lift One's operations and contribution to the local economy are indistinguishable from those of a lodge or hotel. Yet when we were refurbishing our complex five years ago at a cost of over four million dollars, you would not allow us one foot of vertical tolerance from our 28 ft height limit, and all we sought was to put some decorative wood on our roof. Now we are being buried beneath the two proposals before you tonight, losing our views and light, all,an:,._- the name of encouraging Aspen lodging. We are also Aspen lodging; we deserve tF'a same respect and accommodation as the new proposals as well as the protection from the Council and that reasonably anticipated from the zoning ordinances. There is no need to so severely impose on us. The hotel component of the development to our south (uphill of us) does not need to be at the bottom of the development, only 10" from our lot line and, at 50 feet, about 25-30 feet higher and a full 20' higher than current zoning allows -- a 60% expansion on permitted zoning. The Lift One Lodge on the east side of Aspen street is at the top of the street, apparently not finding a contrary need in hotel operators. Our own researches indicate that location at the bottom is not only not necessary, but not the most desired. And COWOP 2, through which the entire community voiced its opinion, located the hotel above Juan Street and at a lesser height. Also, the need/desire for a hotel comes from the Council. The developer has indicated that a hotel use is a losing proposition and seeks accommodation on various fronts to offset. Thus the Council has the ability to balance its desire for additional beds against the damage that will be inflicted upon Lift One. For example, the Council could accept fewer rooms, less density and a lower height. We encourage you to keep us in mind when reviewing these two proposals, and to protect us. Thank you.