Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20191203 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2019 Chairperson McGovern called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, James Marcus, Brittanie Rockhill, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Don Love Absent: Rally Dupps Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Mike Kraemer, Interim Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Kraemer stated that the December 17th P&Z meeting has been canceled and moved to the December 18th date due to a conflict with City Council Meeting. There will two hearings. One will be a land use hearing and the other will be a small cell update. He asked if anyone wants an update on small cell from Mr. Anderson now. Mr. Love asked for an update. Mr. Anderson stated that this Small Cell project is in response to changes in FCC rules and State of Colorado Rules about the use of the right-of-way by the telecommunications industry. The City has hired the engineering firm HR Green to help with design guidelines. Staff is starting to draft a document. The City has been engaged in a public outreach effort to talk to people. Most of the people who have shown up and commented are people who are concerned about health issues and the new 5G technology. Qualitatively, staff have had really good conversations with the public. The next step in process is drafting the set of design guidelines. On the 18th, staff will come with a short set of slides to introduce the topic and what their thinking has been. They also will present a bulleted list with some of the design parameters they’re landing on, just to get feedback. Staff will be talking to HPC as well. They’re going to take the boards’ feedback to City Council in January. From that, if everybody says that sounds good and makes sense, staff will have a finalized set of design guidelines and some changes to the land use code some time in mid to late February. Staff will be asking for a formal recommendation sometime in February with the hope that it all gets adopted prior to right-of-way opening in the spring. The City has already received applications from AT&T. Before there are more, staff would like to have these design guidelines in place. The Commission’s input will be really helpful. Mr. Kraemer stated that there are land use items scheduled for the month of January. January 7th, there will be one land use item. That meeting, the Commission will also need to elect a chair and vice chair. He suggested that they add an item onto this meeting’s agenda to discuss potential candidates. The land use code does state that the chair can be re-elected but is silent to the vice chair being re-elected. He will check on that. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Marcoux voted to approve the minutes from November 19th, 2019. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Dupps had previously recused himself from attending the meeting due to a conflict of interest. He was not present at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Mountain Chalet Lodge – Elevator Extension Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development, Commercial Design Review Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a planner with the City. He stated that there are only two reviews that apply to the project. Those are Commercial Design Review and an Insubstantial PD Amendment Review. He stated that Mountain Chalet Enterprises is the applicant and Mr. Bacheldor is the president of Mountain Chalet Enterprises. He will be making a change to that part of the resolution to make that more clear. He introduced Scott Smith from Charles Cunniffe Architects as the representative. He stated that the proposed project is the extension in height of a proposed elevator by one story to provide direct access to a lounge and common area on the top floor. He showed the location of the Mountain Chalet Lodge on a map on the slide. This elevator is on the front façade of Mountain Chalet Lodge on Dean Street, facing the entrance to the St Regis. The applicant can say more to the importance of this project to the functioning of the building, but there was a major addition renovation and Planned Development established for the Mountain Chalet in the early 2000s. There was an existing elevator there, the additions were made, and the elevator remained unchanged at that time. The elevator didn’t make it up to the new top floor. He showed the existing configuration on a rendering on the slide. It’s confusing for guests and requires navigation that’s perhaps unnecessary. This would extend the elevator to provide access to the top floor and add a little floor area, but well within the allowable floor area for the Planned Development. Mr. Anderson showed an image of the proposed elevator compared to the existing. He stated that the new elevator extension is proposed to be consistent with the height of the roof of the existing lounge space. The maximum height in the Planned Development is 51 feet and the land use code allows for an additional five feet for elevator overruns. This is well within the height limits that the land use code allows for the elevator tower. Mr. Anderson showed the south elevation looking from the entrance of the St Regis. He stated that one of the important review criteria for design guidelines is around materiality. There’s going to be an effort to match existing stucco and paint color, bring the window and shutters in consistency with the windows that are below, make timber and roof beams consistent, fashion materials consistent, and shingled roofing consistent with the rest of the facility. Mr. Anderson showed renderings of the existing conditions. He stated that there is an addition of mass and height on the south elevation. This project is in the mid-ground of the Wheeler view plane and that allows these kind of things to get exemptions from view plane review. There’s also a requirement that it sets back an additional 20 feet from the property line. Under those conditions, staff determined that it was exempt from view plane review. He showed an image on the slide from in front of the Wheeler and showed that you can’t really see the top of the Mountain Chalet. He stated that Commercial Design Review is primarily related to materiality. Architectural character that’s consistent with the mountain base. Staff finds that, in both cases, both architectural character and materiality, it’s meeting the list of review criteria. He included the comprehensive list of those in the packet as an exhibit to the memo. If this building was being designed today, staff would probably not want this elevator as the defining part of the front façade of the building, but as an existing feature, the elevator is being incorporated nicely into the project. Mr. McKnight entered the meeting at 4:47 pm. Mr. Anderson stated that this property is subject to a Planned Development. Any changes of any significance are required to go through the amendment process. In this case, this is an Insubstantial Amendment. If it was being done by itself, it would be an administrative process, but it was combined with a Commercial Design Review for P&Z consideration. To meet the criteria, the change has to be consistent with the use and character of the development. Staff found that to be true. The changes do not significantly alter original representation. There are no changes to dimensional requirements or allowed heights or floor areas. Staff is recommending approval of both of these reviews and the extension of the elevator. With that, Mr. Anderson turned the hearing over to commissioner questions. Mr. Love asked why the elevator was not put in when they did the remodel. Mr. Bacheldor stated that the elevator was built when the St Regis was built. There was no fourth or fifth floor at that time. Robert Melville put in four floors. There is no discernable reason why they didn’t extend the elevator then. They are due for a modernization to go digital on the elevators, so it’s a good time to do it all. Ms. Carver asked if the front façade is really in the back of the building. Mr. Anderson stated that there are two access points to the lodge. But it is the back. Ms. Rockhill asked if there are any other items in the 2001 approval on top of the elevator that they’re considering doing. Seeing no further questions, Ms. McGovern turned the hearing over to the applicant presentation. Mr. Smith stated that what Mr. Anderson showed was a good description of what they’re trying to do with the minimal addition to the top level. Currently, people have to get off the elevator on the outside, enter on the floor below and go back into the building to get to the lift which goes to the level below. It’s a roundabout way of trying to get someone up there who can’t use the stairs. That’s the reason for this project. The only other thing to add is, in terms of the massing for the extension up to the top floor with the elevator shaft, the applicants are trying to keep that as small as possible. The height is dictated by the minimum overrun by the elevator company. They are allowing for a minimal roof structure and trying to keep the roof slope matching the other roof slopes on the property. They are trying to make it fit as well as they can and provide a badly needed service for the public meeting room that is heavily used. A man from the public seating stated that this is one of the most heavily used spaces in town for public meetings. It is affordable. Credit goes to the ownership of Mountain Chalet for being that kind of community partner. Ms. McGovern turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Ms. Carver stated that she has noticed that there is sometimes a tent over the back patio. She asked if they are planning to put a roof over that. Mr. Bacheldor stated that they are not planning on it. Ms. McGovern asked if there are any more questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Commission Discussion Ms. Carver stated that she thinks it’s a great idea and really needed. Mr. Marcoux stated that he agrees. Mr. Anderson stated that the resolution will be amended to give clarity to ownership and applicant. Mr. Waltersheid motioned to approve Resolution 13 with the staff change. Ms. Rockhill seconded. All commissioners voted to approve Resolution 13. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kraemer stated that he thought they might want to have discussion about election of chair and vice chair coming up in January since there are eight P&Z members here. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would like to see Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern be re-elected. Ms. Carver asked for clarification on the purpose of this discussion. Mr. Kraemer stated that this would only be a discussion about if Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern would like to continue in their roles or if there is a desire for a change. There is no decision point at this meeting. Mr. Marcus asked if Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern if they would want to stay. Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern stated that they would love to continue. Mr. Kraemer stated that he forgot to follow up on the Com Dev Director interviews. He stated that Ms. McGovern could not make it so Mr. Dupps will be attending. ADJOURN Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:04 PM. Ms. Carver seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager