Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20131119Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 1 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Walterscheid, Myrin, and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer met with Steve Skadron but did not get a definite date of when P&Z can get a work session with Council. Mr. Myrin asked what the next step is. Mr. Erspamer said the next step is to bug Mr. Skadron again about getting a date for a work session to meet with Council to go over the role of P&Z in government. Mr. Myrin asked staff for a meeting date in January for P&Z to review the lessons learned from the past year and put together a top 10 list of potential code changes. Mr. Myrin also asked about the community development update stating the last one he has is from July. He asked if one will come out before the end of the year and Staff replied yes. Mr. Myrin also said that he has repeatedly brought up that Staff ask the applicants to submit everything electronically. He said the current process is that they submit on paper and the Clerk’s office scans everything. He asked how the P&Z packets get electronically. Ms. Manning replied that the Clerk’s office scans the packet to the web. He asked if the Council packets are submitted internally or electronically by the applicant. Ms. Phelan, Community Development, replied that not everything is submitted electronically. Mr. Myrin said he has asked the same question for at least a decade or more and voiced his frustration that there is no idea of a timeline for things getting to P&Z. Ms. Phelan said that he is getting his packet electronically. He responded that they are getting a packed electronically done by City staff on City time, not a change in code to request an applicant to submit things digitally. Ms. Phelan asked him why he is concerned with how a digital packet gets to him. He said that creating the paper in the first place does not make any sense. Mr. Erspamer commented that he thinks the packet is available electronically to the P&Z and to the public. Mr. Erspamer said he is not sure what the status of having the applicant submit digitally and Ms. Phelan responded that Staff is still working on it. Ms. Tygre commented that despite the so called pacing of construction it seems that downtown is over- run with construction. She said she can’t walk from her home to City Hall without going through at least 2-3 construction sites. She asked how this happened or if this is considered an acceptable amount of construction to be occurring at the same time downtown. Ms. Phelan said that there is no pacing program for issuance of building permits. She said the only pacing is through the growth management quota system. Mr. Erspamer said he thought that during the building permit process a phasing system for construction is created. Mr. Erspamer asked Trish Aragon with the Engineering Department if she would like to make a comment. Ms. Aragon said it is not so much about the pacing but the construction mitigation encroachments and use of the streets. She said that during this time of year they allow the use of this space but will be shut down within a week or so. Ms. Tygre said she was under the delusion that there was an active construction pacing system. Mr. Gibbs said that they did talk about it as part of the AACP and it was a big deal and people did not want to. Ms. Tygre said she was operating under a misconception. She also commented that there was a letter in the Daily News where the writer commented that none of the new RFTA stations have any type of solar energy efficiency. She asked when P&Z saw the various plans for the Rubey Park re-do did any of those include solar. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Aragon was familiar with this. She responded that she was not part of any of the Rubey Park meetings. She also commented that Engineering’s use of smaller flashing light signs have difficulty getting the solar to work. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 2 The panel needs to be so big to run the lights due to Shadow Mountain and that it gets so cold in the winter it zaps the battery. Mr. Erspamer said he spoke to a person involved with a solar farm in Rifle and he said that there is a 35 percent less efficiency in this valley because of the mountains. Ms. Tygre said the solar at Rubey Park is something that should at least be investigated. Mr. Myrin asked how that comment gets from P&Z to the people that need to hear it versus just going into the trash. Mr. Erspamer said he would suggest going to a Council meeting and bringing it up during the public comment period. Mr. Myrin said that Ms. Tygre’s comment to P&Z just goes in the trash. Mr. Erspamer replied that it goes into the minutes and comes back to us. Mr. Gibbs commented that it then goes in the trash. Mr. Myrin asked if there is a different route they can take. Mr. Erspamer said that from his experience it is great to listen to what people have to say at P&Z but if they want any action taken the best idea is to go directly to Council as an individual. Mr. Erspamer said that Ms. Aragon got him interested in safety on Main Street and he wanted to thank her for putting the flashing lights on 8th Street. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan said that there is not anything scheduled for December 3rd. She said that the lessons learned meeting could be scheduled for the 3rd. There is an agenda item to schedule for December 17th. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they would be here for the meeting all said yes except Mr. Myrin who replied that “everything goes in the trash; I’m not sure why I’m here”. Mr. Erspamer said he appreciates it. Mr. Erspamer said he would not be present for a December 3rd meeting. Mr. Walterscheid mentioned he saw the advertisement seeking 4 new members. Ms. Manning stated the ad will run until November 22nd then the interviews will be scheduled. Mr. Erspamer said that if anyone knows anyone interested to encourage them to apply. Ms. Phelan said the December 3rd meeting will be canceled. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. MINUTES Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the September 17, 2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve the October 15, 2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts. 110 West Main, Hotel Aspen-Consolidated PUD Sara Adams, Community Development Planner, said that the reviews on the table are a consolidated PUD review, subdivision review, and rezoning. This hearing was continued from October 15, 2013. There was a site visit today; Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Myrin and Ms. Tygre were in attendance as well as the Applicant and Staff. The proposal includes redeveloping the lodge, increasing the number of lodge units, decreasing the average size of the lodge units, and adding free market residential and affordable housing units to the project. Ms. Adams noted that the Applicant does request a decision from P&Z tonight rather than a continuation. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 3 The project was conceptually approved by the HPC. They looked at the design of the project but did not analyze the specific numbers for floor area, free market unit size and things like that, but looked more at the mass and scale and compatibility with Main Street and the neighborhood. They did not get into the PUD specifics that are asked to be established through the P&Z process. Ms. Adams noted that she emailed out the HPC minutes that were requested at the October 15th meeting. These were added to the record as exhibit H. One of the questions from the last meeting that Ms. Adams tried to address in the staff memo is what P&Z’s purview is. There are some obvious overlapping design issues that HPC addressed that are also part of the PUD review criteria. It is entirely within P&Z’s purview to address the review criteria that are included in the packet. Those include compatibility with the neighborhood, dimensional requirements. She also noted that P&Z can make a recommendation to Council that is contrary to what HPC approved. Ms. Adams noted that page 4 of the packet lists the requested variances including the allowable dimension, the requested dimension and the difference. Community Development is concerned with the size of the free market residential component because it is significantly more than what is allowed by the underlying zoning regarding the unit size. They also think that the overall maximum cumulative floor area for the whole property is also significantly over what is allowed in the underlying zone district. They are concerned that the free market residential portion of the project is not compatible with the neighborhood, which is one of the first review criterion for the PUD, 26.445.050a1.d. Staff finds that this review criterion is not met (page 21-22 of the packet). She also pointed out that the Main Street portion of the property is in the Main Street Historic District which is where the lodging part of the project is primarily located and the Bleeker Street portion of the project where the free market residential buildings are. Along the Bleeker Street block there is the Hotel Aspen and three more residences that are all historic landmarks. The PUD review criterion 26.445.050b1d, on page 24 of the packet, requires a finding that the proposed dimensional requirements are compatible with both natural and manmade characteristics of the property and the surrounding areas including historic resources. Staff finds that the free market residential portions of the proposed project are not compatible with the adjacent historic landmarks and what the Applicant is asking for is just too big. Staff does recommend that the Applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the adjacent landmarks. Moving on to page 29 of the packet she noted the PUD review criteria addressed architectural character. She summarized the review standard to “be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources”. Ms. Adams noted that this is where staff got a little stuck. They believe that the lodging portion meets this criterion and is compatible with the Main Street Historic District. She said the mass and scale and the proposed architecture works with what is happening within the block along Main Street. She noted that their concern is with the free market portion and the proposed size of the units and the mass. She stated that a third of the overall floor area is proposed in the form of the four free market residential units. She said that they find this concerning and the review criteria above is not met. They think that the large unit size and the floor area create challenges to fit in with the Bleeker Street side of the neighborhood. She noted that Staff and HPC really struggled with whether the amount of floor area fit into the context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and having adverse impacts on the neighborhood. She stated that the redevelopment of the lodge is a good thing but how do they deal with the free market residential component that is necessary for the project. She said it really came down to the fact that the review criteria cited are not met in the PUD section of the code. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 4 Ms. Adams stated that the Applicant is also requesting a Subdivision recommendation from City Council. She said that staff believes that the Subdivision review criteria are generally met with the exception of compatibility. They are also supportive of the rezoning request. She stated that they find that the review criteria are met for a rezoning. She noted that the beginning of the staff memo explains what the LP overlay zone district means for this property and how the Mixed Use zone district and the R6 zone district did or did not play into this property and why Staff thinks that Mixed Use be the underlying zone district for the entire property. She stated that the dimensional requirements will be established through the PUD review and that any dimensional requirements in R6 will not play a factor in the property. The allowed uses in R6 do not allow this type of development and do not allow multi-family residential and does not allow lodge. The LP overlay does allow this. She stated that they find the rezoning to be appropriate to have the underlying be Mixed Use and leave the LP overlay and the Historic District overlay in place. She stated that she has included a draft resolution in the packet which approves the project with some of the conditions including parallel parking in the City right of way, detached sidewalks and such. To conclude, Ms. Adams stated that Staff finds that the review criterion are not met and recommend a continuation to restudy the free market residential component and the maximum cumulative FAR to bring it closer to the relationship of what is happening in the surrounding neighborhood. However, she stated if the Applicant is unwilling to engage with P&Z in this review, Staff recommends that a denial be forwarded to City Council at this time. She said that Staff finds that the review standards are not met. The next steps for the project are City Council for consolidated PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning then go back to P&Z for Growth Management review then back to HPC for final commercial design review and final HP review. Ms. Adams concluded her presentation. Mr. Erspamer stated that he has a point of order before questions. He asked Ms. Adams when she wanted Ms. Aragon to speak or to just answer questions. Ms. Adams stated the Ms. Aragon is here to answer questions. Mr. Erspamer opened the floor for Commissioner questions to staff. Mr. Gibbs asked that because of the Lodge overlays the Applicant could build multi-family without doing any kind of rezoning. Ms. Adams stated that the rezoning relates to adopting a PUD and according to the code right now having a PUD requires the rezoning. Mr. Gibbs asked if they did not have a PUD and no rezoning, is it possible for a project like this to be built here because of the lodge overlay. Mr. Clauson responded that the LP zone district requires a PUD no matter what and there is no possibility of any action being taken on the property without a PUD. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Adams what her opinion is. She stated that what she interpreted Mr. Gibbs asking is if free market residential multi- family housing is allowed in the LP overlay, and she stated that it is. She said that it does require the adoption of a PUD to set the dimensional standards and there is no way around the PUD. Mr. Gibbs asked why the PUD wasn’t put in place when the lodge overlay was made. Ms. Adams stated that they typically do that with this type of situation. The rezoning requires a PUD placed onto the property and the existing condition is the PUD until they come in for a redevelopment. Mr. Gibbs said that the LP is the PUD and Ms. Adams stated that the existing condition is essentially the PUD. They do not require everyone to go through a PUD process just to establish an existing condition when we do a blanket rezoning. Mr. Gibbs said it sounds a little bit slack because they are fundamentally different and do have what would lead to some differences in uses, and just assuming that this is now a PUD is maybe not the most strict. Mr. Gibbs also asked how many people are on HPC and Ms. Adams replied seven and an alternate. Mr. Gibbs brought up the difference in opinions from HPC members from one meeting to the next and there was no real consensus. He noted that four people voted for the final resolution and Ms. Adams stated that it was unanimous. Mr. Gibbs questioned HPC’s authority outside a historic district and why they have authority over the Bleeker Street part of the property. He Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 5 wondered why they have such a big role to play when it is not a historic district. Ms. Adams replied that the front half of the project is reviewed by HPC and when it was talked about at the Staff level they went through the pros and cons of cutting the property in half and having HPC review one half of the building and P&Z review the other half and it didn’t make any sense. They had HPC conduct the commercial design review and the major development. Mr. Gibbs stated that he thinks they are mixing things up with what the plan is and then saying no now because the existing condition is divided. In his mind he stated that there are two different projects and that for the future it should be thought about in how projects are regarded when the existing conditions would indicate two different approaches towards development. He stated that it seems the jump was made to what was proposed so quickly that P&Z did not have the chance to look at what was already on the ground. Ms. Tygre asked if the project was in a Lodge zone and wanted to do a PUD why would the property be rezoned, or not. Ms. Adams stated that a PUD requires rezoning and that is what the code states. Ms. Tygre asked if a lodge project in a lodge zone wanted to do a PUD how could it be rezoned to what it currently is. Ms. Adams said it would stay lodging and the adoption of the PUD is essentially the adoption of zoning. Ms. Phelan said that the Lodge zone district has dimensional standards for the development of a lodge and the only reason a PUD would be pulled in is if they were asking for variations from the underlying zoning. She stated that the problem with this property and the LP overlay is the R6 zoning does not give dimensional standards to multi-family development. Ms. Tygre said she understands that but asked that rezoning should not be required if it is the same type of use and want to rezone to the same thing. Ms. Phelan stated that if the piece of property is in the Lodge Zone district and someone is proposing to build a lodge they would not need to go through a PUD if they are meeting the dimensional standards. Ms. Tygre asked what rezoning a lodge in a lodge district would have to apply for if they wanted variations. Ms. Phelan stated that it would be to get the PUD overlay on the property because there is no overlay on it right now. Ms. Phelan stated they would have to request to get a PUD designation placed on the property and that triggers a rezoning of the property to designate the overlay. Ms. Tygre asked what it would be rezoned to then. Ms. Phelan stated it would be Lodge with a PUD overlay. Mr. Myrin mentioned that Staff went back and forth on how to divide up the property and asked if they considered restoring the alley and making it a traditional West End frontage along Bleeker and a traditional infill project along Main like two separate projects. Ms. Adams stated that was not what was proposed so it was not what Staff was discussing. She stated that they reviewed the project the Applicant came in with. Mr. Myrin said it reminded him of the Forrest Service parcel where a piece was transferred for a single family home to fund redevelopment of another parcel. He asked how that was done. Ms. Quinn, Assistant City Attorney, said that was a different issue since it was Federal Government property. Mr. Erspamer asked if Staff could define compatibility in a specific context and how it applies to this application. He stated that Staff said it is compatible with architecture but not with mass and scale. Ms. Adams stated that when she is talking about compatibility she is referring to the context of the neighborhood, what are the heights and forms, what is the style and concepts that are in the PUD review criteria. Mr. Erspamer stated he is looking for a dictionary definition. Mr. Erspamer said Ms. Adams talked about how the free market units are determined by the size of the lodge units and if they have 300 square feet or less, they get a certain amount of free market housing they can build. Ms. Adams stated it is free market floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked what the free market area they are allowed to build is. Ms. Adams stated it is on page four of the packet, table one, maximum free market multi-family floor area, allowable in mixed use LP zone district takes you to the Lodge Zone district which says it looks at the average net livable lodge unit size and a percentage of the total net livable Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 6 area for lodge and affordable housing can be the maximum residential floor area. Mr. Brown, the Applicant, interrupted and stated that Ms. Adams should make the distinction between the net and gross. Ms. Adams said that from the table there is 10,419 square feet of floor area for free market development or 60% of total net livable area. For lodge units which is 17,365 square feet, and is allowed. The maximum allowable free market residential floor area is 10,419 and the Applicant is proposing 11,000 square feet or 581 square feet over. Mr. Erspamer asked about line one for maximum cumulative floor area and the Applicant is 9,500 square feet over allowable. He noted that is well over what is allowed in that zoning and asked where they could put that. He stated if they are allowed to go over the 2,000 square foot where would they put that extra square footage. He asked if they can put it anywhere or if they have to stay within the 2,000 or 2,500. Ms. Adams stated there are a couple different things that are happening including a floor area number and a net livable number. The net livable cap is the 2,000, and the floor area is a separate bucket so the maximum cumulative floor area the Applicant is requesting is 36,500 square feet and they are allowed 27,000. The net livable is where the unit size cap comes in. Ms. Phelan stated if the Applicant was meeting the underlying floor area allowance of item one they could make smaller units to meet the 2,000 square foot cap. Mr. Erspamer stated the duplexes have a flat roof and that HPC went back and forth between the gabled and flat. Mr. Erspamer said he had a question in the Resolution, page 12 section 2, and this goes back to the HPC “180 days shall commence upon the granting of final commercial design and final major development approvals” but what if they changed that. If P&Z votes for something and HPC, at final, changes what P&Z voted for, is it appropriate since P&Z is just a recommending body. He asked if HPC can oppose or change their decision. Ms. Adams stated that HPC final design review will just deal with materials and fenestration. She said that when Council adopts their final PUD plan for this project she believes that HPC will be bound by that. Mr. Erspamer stated he had another question on page 13 “the applicant shall condominiumize the units after substantial completion of the project” and asked how substantial completion is defined. Ms. Adams said that this is boiler plate language and Mr. Erspamer asked that it is typically done before the CO. Ms. Phelan said typically the building needs to be built enough to be surveyed. Mr. Erspamer stated that the formula for parking stated they are allowed 15 spaces for the hotel when actually seven of the spaces are for free market and affordable housing. Ms. Adams said on page 25, the code allows a project to maintain a deficit of parking and right now they don’t have any parking so they only have to mitigate for what additional uses they are adding to the property. She summarized that the proposed development requires a total of 11 ½ parking spaces and the Applicant is proposing 15. She said half a space is required for each new lodge unit and one space is required for affordable housing and free market residential units. Mr. Erspamer asked since the Applicant has to come back to P&Z for GMQS why can’t they decide that tonight and alleviate another step. Ms. Adams said that they need to have certain approvals before they can apply for Growth Management on either August 15 or February 15. Mr. Erspamer noted that on page 25 Staff says that “overall Staff finds the proposed open space as appropriate for the proposed PUD” and asked what does overall mean. Ms. Adams said that HPC granted a waiver of the public amenity space and they want to respect HPC’s condition and are in support of it. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Aragon on page 25, 3a “the probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses” how the probable number of cars per Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 7 hotel is determined. Ms. Aragon replied that is the Community Development department. Ms. Adams stated the code addresses the number of parking spaces that are needed for this type of project. She stated the code does not have any calculation for probable number of cars but they relate back to the number of required parking spaces. She stated that this is in the right of way and City owned property and will not be parking spaces that are signed or solely used for the hotel. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms. Aragon said that for safety reasons they want parallel parking instead of head in parking. He asked where she got this criteria from. Ms. Aragon said that when she talks about the right of way she is just not talking about the road itself but the road, the parking, curb and gutter, landscape strip and the sidewalk area. She stated that what the City is trying to do with this public space is to ensure that all citizens and visitors can safely walk, bike and have safe access to transit as part of their daily life. She stated that they are looking at the streets and instead of saying the vehicle has priority over the other uses, all uses are on the same playing field. She stated that what Engineering prefers for parking configuration is parallel parking in the areas close to the core. She said the reason is that 40 percent of our accidents are attributed to head in parking. It is unsafe for the vehicle as well as bikes. She stated that this particular intersection is a prime candidate for a signal. Mr. Erspamer noted that the packet states the neighboring parking is parallel but he noted that across is head in. Ms. Aragon said that does not mean they will not try to pursue the orthopedic building when they apply for redevelopment. Mr. Erspamer stated that a person that stays in a 300 square foot unit is going to be a lower demographic and stated they would be more likely to drive into Aspen rather than fly. He said that they would be here with a car and where would they park. Ms. Aragon said it is her understanding that Staff has spoken with the parking department and they were ok with converting to parallel and the neighborhood has enough parking to handle the change from head in to parallel. Mr. Erspamer said that there are a lot of things mentioned in the DRC such as sanitation and asked if it was in the resolution. Ms. Adams replied that it is. Mr. Erspamer said that page 41 exhibit D asked that the trash bins be increased due to the size of the development. He asked the reason why for the 5 foot increase. Ms. Adams stated that the DRC was before HPC in January and when they were going through the commercial design process the Applicant worked with the Environmental Health department and resolved the questions they had about the trash enclosures. She stated that Environmental Health is supportive of what is proposed. Mr. Erspamer asked if a TDM is planned to be completed as part of the project. Ms. Adams said that there is no requirement for a TDM plan. Mr. Erspamer said that “APCHA board is recommending against the deficit being satisfied by fee in lieu”. Ms. Adams said the housing portion of this project needs to be handled at Growth Management review which will happen latter. Ms. Quinn read the definition of compatible from Merriam-Webster “Able to exist together without trouble or conflict, going together well, or capable of existing together in harmony”. Mr. Gibbs noted that the table on page 4 where it talks about cumulative floor area and what is allowed by Special Review, he asked if that is a different review than what P&Z is doing. Ms. Adams stated it is. She said if the Applicant did not request a PUD review they could still request more floor area through Special Review. Mr. Gibbs stated that the PUD makes the Special Review moot. Mr. Walterscheid said that there are four units that are over and asked if the Applicant could have done more units to get the net livable down. Ms. Adams replied absolutely. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is anything that would prohibit them to go to six or eight units. Ms. Adams replied no, they could add Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 8 more units to meet the unit size cap without having an issue. She stated that the Applicant is requesting a slight variance in the free market floor area so that would not change unless they wanted it to change. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the City is going towards parallel parking for properties that are being developed in the core and if it will be a requirement moving forward. Ms. Aragon replied yes, in particular for high volume areas and intersections close to Main Street. Mr. Myrin noted that 40% of accidents attributed to head in parking stands out in his mind and asked if that is within the City. Ms. Aragon stated yes. Mr. Erspamer asked where the accidents were and if they were on the sidewalk. Ms. Aragon said it was from backing out, small fender benders and includes all modes of transportation. Mr. Erspamer asked if she knew what percentage of accidents occurred at the Hotel Aspen. She said she has not pulled the data on that and is not sure. They had a consultant study, over a three year period, the types of accidents that occurred. The recommendation was converting head in to parallel parking. Mr. Erspamer stated that the type of driver at the Hotel Aspen would not be getting in and out of their car as much as the type of driver at Carl’s. Ms. Aragon agreed with this. Mr. Erspamer asked the Applicant if they had any questions for Ms. Aragon before she left. Mr. Clauson stated that they are prepared to accept whatever the City chooses to do with its property. He said there is an issue with the conversion of head in parking to parallel parking where you lose approximately six parking spaces per block. In this particular instance it is not only parking for the Hotel but the adjacent park. He stated that after he heard the recommendation for parallel parking they provided a compromise with the front two thirds remaining head in parking and the back would be converted to parallel parking. Mr. Brown said that one thing that will help is across the street at Aspen Orthopedics if the City entered into some type of agreement that all of those spaces are for guests of the clinic only. The doctors all come in early and take all the spots adjacent to the Hotel and their guests use their dedicated spots that are in the City’s right of way. He stated it would be helpful if these spots were signed for the hotel. Mr. Clauson indicated the signage could include 15 minute drop off zones and Mr. Brown interjected or dedicated. He said they are currently spending thousands of dollars a year distributing passes to their guests so they can park during their stay. Mr. Clauson said that the issue with Carl’s is that the parking is on the opposite side of the street from them and turning vehicles are in conflict with vehicles backing out. He said at the hotel there would be plenty of room for a vehicle to stop and wait for someone who is pulling out of a parking space. He said it is a little better a condition on the hotel side of the street than on the opposite. Mr. Brown said it was at least 50 times better. He also mentioned the gas station opposite Carl’s and the increased traffic due to it. Mr. Clauson said there is an advantage to having a split parking condition so that the crosswalks would align. He said they would appreciate some dedication of parking spaces as being part of the recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid asked if P&Z has the ability to make that recommendation. Ms. Adams responded absolutely. She stated that the parking department would be ok assigning a loading zone but did not want one space dedicated to the hotel. Mr. Erspamer turned over the floor to Mr. Clauson and his presentation. Mr. Clauson said that the statement in the Staff recommendation, second paragraph states “The Applicant has indicated a desire to proceed to City Council and to not engage with P&Z in this review” sounds a bit arrogant and they are most definitely engaging with P&Z but have some very significant requirements to move forward. He stated that the project was first pre-applied March 29, 2012 and spent a very long time at HPC where they worked through issues of compatibility at great length. He stated that they initially hoped to make the August 15th Growth Management deadline and now are Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 9 hoping to make the February 15th application. He stated that they have had a very disappointing memo from Staff. Mr. Clauson reminded the board that the Aspen Area Community Plan strongly recommends a formulation of a strategy to improve the lodging base and bring new lodging forward. He stated that this has not happened. Mr. Brown stated that there is a lot of rhetoric between what Staff says, what Council says and what everyone in the community is saying about helping small lodges redevelop. He said that this is a project that meets that goal but has received no support from Staff. Mr. Clauson stated that HPC provided conceptual approval for mass, scale, height and proportions of the project. Mr. Clauson said they had extensive meetings with Staff to thoroughly consider the architecture. He stated that Ms. Adams has attempted to make a distinction between the architecture, the scale, height, proportions, mass and the actual numbers that are involved. He said that at every turn HPC knew the numbers that were involved and knew what it would produce, and at the end of the day they approved it after extensive deliberation. Mr. Clauson also stated that Staff requested many modifications to the architecture of the residences, all of which were made. Including at one point providing gabled roofs and then deciding they did not want them. He stated it is in part an appeal to the fairness of P&Z and the process in general as they continue to move forward. Mr. Clauson said that Staff is recommending a denial by the P&Z based on the following PUD criteria, A1- compatibility of the mix of development, dimensional requirements appropriate to character, E1- compatible to existing and future land use B1- compatibility to the visual character of existing and proposed architecture. Mr. Clauson said that these are the three area where Staff has been clear that the Applicant does not meet the criteria in their opinion. He said that these criteria all essentially go to the architecture and the bulk and massing as it was reviewed by the HPC. He stated that they have discussed this problem with Chris Bendon and Chris said that maybe they should have joint meetings, but it is a conundrum and Staff never did request the HPC, in conceptual approval, change the net livable area of the free market units or the overall floor area. Even though there is a suggestion that HPC did not have purview over the quantitative aspect it is impossible to separate them. Mr. Clauson stated the PUD process has a significant amount of double jeopardy between HPC and P&Z. He also stated that they are not only at P&Z for PUD but will be back again for growth management. He said he is surprised that Staff is recommending denial of the project based on the issues already approved by the HPC. He stated that Staff makes it clear they object to the approved architecture rather than to the specific zoning variances requested. He quoted from the Staff memo “the requested floor area increases, net livable and set back reductions may be appropriate with the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi-family housing is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks”. He then asked if the variances are appropriate or not. He asked if the architecture as reviewed by the HPC is appropriate or inappropriate. Mr. Brown stated that it was Staff that asked them to move the building to the lot line on the east side and Mr. Clauson replied that they did. He commented as to whether this was a debate over pitched roofs and the side by side architectural compatibility of modern multi-textured townhomes and Victorians is not clear. He said that HPC weighed in and said the architecture was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated that the word compatibility is being used in a convenient way for this memo. He stated that HPC looked at the neighborhood as being a collective area not one adjacent building. He stated that Staff has honed in on the one adjacent building as making it not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Clauson stated that the concept of an alternative that would have regular R6 development occurring was based in the Staff memo on an imaginary lot split that would not take place. The imaginary lot split had one third of the property allocated towards residential and two thirds towards lodging. He said it is based only on the way it is currently site planned and not necessarily on the way an alternative would Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 10 occur. The lot that is actually zoned R6 is one half of the lot or 12,000 square feet and would allow for two single family homes with 3,240 square feet of floor area each. The net livable area that results from 3,240 would be 5,600 to 6,000 square feet per unit, based on Mr. Weil’s experience. Alternately, closer to what they are proposing, two duplexes with approximately 3,800 square feet of net livable could be built on the 12,000 square foot lot. He stated that the net livable being requested is not really out of line with what might happen if the property were divided between the Mixed Use zone in the front and the R6 in the back. He said that this is the more realistic dividing line which would create two 6,000 square foot lots with single family homes on them. Mr. Brown stated the important thing to recognize is if you end up with two potential 6,000 square foot homes those unit sizes are considerably larger than what is being proposed. In addition, the amount of lot area available to hotel use would be about half the size of what they are proposing. Mr. Clauson said that the proposed project would maximize the size of the lodge, retain the pool and the deck area, and create significant public space in the form of a restaurant and bar leaving only one third of the total lot available for the residences. He said it could have been half the lot. An alternative would be to restore the 12,000 square foot R6 lot to build two significant single family homes or two duplexes and fashion a smaller hotel with fewer amenities for the remainder of the lot. He stated that the Staff memo raises the possibility of prospective code changes that incentivize larger rooms with lock offs. He said that they find this extremely problematic because they submitted quite some time ago under the existing code that had incentives for lodges with smaller rooms. He stated that was the law of the land and to say that there are now studies to suggest otherwise really denigrates from the code that is in front of them. He said that they started the process two years ago before any changes were contemplated and they do not know where those changes are going to go. He said that the actual code enforced now incentivizes the smaller rooms and the 60 percent residential development is an important part of that development and this is what they are trying to take advantage of to make the development feasible. Mr. Brown stated that those incentives are consistent with what his experience in owning 10 percent of the lodging inventory in the community, and how they see people staying and the various types of guests. Mr. Clauson referenced the Molly Gibson Lodge, also owned by Mr. Brown, and that some of the smaller rooms actually have significantly higher occupancy than the larger rooms. Mr. Brown said that they chose the Molly because the room square footage is more stratified than the Hotel Aspen. He stated that the 291 square foot unit and the 190 square foot units run the highest occupancy of any of the room types. He said that staff is trying to “move the goalpost” and say the small rooms shouldn’t get the incentives when in fact that is code. He said that he has been hearing all types of things Staff has been attempting to do for lodges to help this application yet he hasn’t seen the benefit of any of those. He said if Staff wants to use hypotheticals in the code there is a lot that they would offer as well. Mr. Clauson then referred to the studies commissioned by the City, he thinks the key is higher quality lodging inventory with better amenities and that is precisely what this project is trying to bring about. The room sizes could be called a red herring but he wouldn’t change the way he looks at the code because of recent studies and the uncertain outcome that the study might result in. Mr. Brown stated that one significant point the studies indicate is that people coming here don’t want 50 year old hotels. He stated that is the future of the old lodges in Aspen unless somebody makes an effort to see them redeveloped into what the people visiting here would like to stay in. He said that is what the crux of what the AACP is saying, smaller but new rooms. Mr. Clauson quoted from one of the studies “predictability in the development process, the unpredictable and political nature of the development process creates additional risk for developers and investors which increases development cost and the feasibility gaps for development. While conceptual Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 11 development is not binding, projects have received conceptual approval and later been denied after considerable time and expense based on broad conceptions, considerations of the general idea of the project was approved at conceptual stage. If the City wishes to maintain or expand the bed base it will need to identify locations where that is appropriate and support projects proposed in those areas.” He stated that is why they find the memo so disappointing. To address a few other considerations, Mr. Clauson stated that the area under the canopy and the parking enhancements, whatever they are, will improve the experience of the open spaces considerably. He did state that the area under the canopy cannot be considered open space anymore because of the definition of open space. Mr. Clauson said that compatibility with the neighborhood when considered as blocks is clearly not incompatible. He points out that the lodge is a large massing there are also large massings on Main Street. He said that this does not seem to be the issue but more so the residential compatibility, which does not seem out of line from a massing standpoint. He also indicated the front yard setback which generally maintains an alignment with neighborhood buildings. He stated that the code now introduced a build to line trying to get buildings to come forward to meet the street. Mr. Clauson said that it becomes difficult to characterize the West End when you look at the various building types. He stated it is not exclusively a Victorian neighborhood but there are many residential forms including chalet style and some that cannot be easily characterized, mine shaft architecture and a variety of styles and periods. He stated that the contemporary design of the proposed project is as compatible as anything else if not more so because it really is in itself a beautiful design. He noted that height wise there are some things that are lower but on the other hand they are generally in line with height. He pointed out design motifs that were taken from various buildings that are replicated in the contemporary design. He said that they are taking some historical precedence and drawing them into contemporary architecture in a way that is quite compatible. Mr. Brown stated that this was in an effort to satisfy Staffs request to be more compatible. He said he thought they achieved this with Staff as well as their main concern of the gabled roofs, which they also opined to. Mr. Clauson stated that the requested PUD variations, and there is no getting away from the PUD, is somewhat confusing with the four applicable zone districts; Mixed Use, R6, Lodge zone district and LP overlay. He stated that when they initially met with Amy Simon they were uncertain how to handle it. He stated that the rezoning needs to happen and the PUD needs to happen to accommodate this development. He reiterated the four variations, cumulative floor area, maximum floor area for free market, unit size and side yard setback. He stated that they are actually requesting 36,500 proposed cumulatively which is an eight percent increase over the maximum allowable per zone district but perfectly allowable within the PUD. Mr. Brown said the important thing to emphasize is what is being delivered for the overage in FAR and how much square footage it actually is. He stated it is brand new additional hotel rooms that are truly affordable in this community. Mr. Clauson said that the maximum floor area for free market is based on the 60 percent allowance and it is 500 square feet over and was actually encouraged by Staff in order to provide some float in case in the final analysis of floor area there was some extra. He stated they could actually forgo that but Staff believed at the time and told them to include it. Mr. Brown asked to give some context on the 60 percent and how it is calculated in gross and it is quite penal in how it is written. He stated that the current code penalizes the Applicant for adding nice amenity space because it does not give the free market based on the amenity space added to the facility but only the rooms. The way the code is currently written encourages you to build a box of rooms with a small front desk and does not speak to the kind of hotels this community wants long term. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 12 Mr. Clauson said that the 60 percent is calculated based on the inside area of the rooms and also affordable housing, but only that. The other portions of the lodge are not counted. Floor area for residential is based on 60 percent of the inside area of the rooms and the inside area of the affordable housing. Floor area is the outside area. Mr. Brown stated it is about a 15 percent loss. Mr. Clauson stated there are two free market units proposed with 3,750 net livable and has already spoke to what could happen if there was free market development on half the lot. Allowable in the mixed use zone district is 2,000 to 2,500 with a TDR. The cost of placing a TDR on this would be prohibitive and negates the possibility. He brought up the question if they could build six or eight units under 2,000 square feet, which is yes but in terms of compatibility would you prefer four townhouses looking like townhouse and what happens in the West End, or eight units in an apartment block. He stated the answer seems so simple and easy to come to, no you would not want to see this. He stated that town houses are the appropriate and compatible use. Mr. Brown stated would you rather see for the community two 6,000 square foot houses. Mr. Clauson said that the unit size supports the redevelopment and without adequate unit size the lodge is not going to happen. Side yard setback has been discussed and encouraged by Staff in order to separate the buildings more and is facilitated by the width of the right of way and does not seem to be a significant issue. Mr. Weil stated that they could find the three inches for the minor front yard setback. Mr. Clauson stated that this is an important lodge project that will benefit the City and refurbish a very tired building. He stated that there is an approval resolution in the packet and would appreciate very much P&Z considering and respectfully request they consider passing an approval Resolution. He stated if P&Z feels the need to have a condition that City Council should review issues related to those things Staff has brought up to add it. It is not that they do not want to engage with P&Z but they need to move forward or will miss the opportunity to be timely and come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Brown stated that they are coming up on the two year anniversary of what looks like not even 50 percent the way through and to be quite honest with P&Z the amount of dollars they expended are extraordinary. He stated it is 50 percent more that the total budget when they set on to do the project and are not even half way through. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to respond to the Applicants statements. Ms. Phelan stated that the HPC review did not look at great detail at the dimensions of the unit sizes and it is not their purview. She said that some of the detailed numbers that were provided in the packet were not provided to HPC. Ms. Adams explained the quote in the memo saying why variations may be appropriate, page 8. She stated what she was trying to express is that Staff is supportive of this project development and are trying to balance everything that is being asked for and support lodge redevelopment. Ms. Adams said she was trying to say that variations may be appropriate and that is the purpose of the PUD. They also wanted to take into account the neighborhood and the impact on this area of town and ensure that the variations being asked for are the right ones. She stated she was not trying to be contradictory but that Staff recognizes variations are needing to happen on this project and what are the correct numbers so they work with the rest of the neighborhood and this project. Ms. Adams stated the reason she included the sentence about the lodging study was just for background. She said it is not included in the Staff recommendation and is not a review criterion but to provide background to P&Z to let them know what is happening in the community. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 13 Ms. Phelan said that we live in a community that analyzes every project to a great degree and Staff’s recommendation has been that they feel the lodge project fits the context of the location and neighborhood and it would be remiss on their part if they didn’t look at how the project as a whole fits into the neighborhood and community. She stated that Staff’s honest recommendation is they have been concerned with the free market component of the project in size and some of the dimensional variances requested. Mr. Erspamer asked for questions for Applicant and Staff. Mr. Myrin stated that the size and dimensional requirements of the free market seem to be the only sticking points for Staff and asked if that is something they can resolve. Mr. Brown replied that they find the development is consistent with the code that 60 percent of the net livable floor area can be allocated towards free market. He stated that if you are supportive of the lodge but not the free market you don’t agree with the incentives that were put in place to facilitate the PUD. He said that saying you support lodges, which is what they are hearing, and then actually supporting them is not what is happening. He said it is “let’s get the hotel that we want and make sure it is not financially feasible for the Applicant because we don’t care”. Mr. Erspamer said the packet talks about snow on page 31 “the Applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner”. He stated that these are flat roofs and the snow would be accumulated somewhere and would the snow be moved somewhere. Mr. Weil stated that the new building codes allow for tremendous amount of snow to pile up. He said that older buildings have to be shoveled because the roofs are not stressed for 4-6 feet of snow. He said that these roofs will be stressed for that amount of snow. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comments. Steve Garcia from Victorians of Bleeker said that he stated his comments at the last meeting but was not privy to the packet that went out after the site visit. He asked if there was a recommendation that came out from the last meeting. Ms. Adams stated that the recommendation was to continue and if the Applicant wanted a decision it was a recommendation of denial. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comments. Mr. Erspamer opened the board comments. Mr. Myrin commented that using the free market residential to fund the remodel has made this a very long process. He said that is what the code is currently using to do it, but it is not something he necessarily agrees with because it doesn’t work for generation after generation. Mr. Myrin said he agrees with the AACP recommendation and they have been trying to implement some of them but is having challenges implementing them. Mr. Myrin said he welcomes the decision from the Applicant to turn over the public right of way to the Engineering Department for whatever they want to do with it. He supports turning that over to Engineering as well as the Parking Departments decision for a 15 minute loading zone. He asked if it was off of Main or Garmisch. Ms. Adams replied Garmisch. Mr. Brown said he doubt’s it’s off of Main because of the bus lane. Mr. Erspamer asked how many spaces and Ms. Adams said one. Mr. Myrin said he leans to Ms. Aragon’s parallel parking recommendation. Mr. Myrin said that he agrees with Staffs position and it is pretty consistent with the rest of his decisions over the years. He stated he agrees with the affordable housing recommendation even though it is not part of the decision tonight. He stated that he wishes that it was not relied upon free market to fund lodging but that is the reality and it is not sustainable. Mr. Myrin said he is more frustrated with it on Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 14 our part because the code allows it and we haven’t figured out a way in the code to separate the two to create a sustainable future. He stated he is willing to meet on December 3rd to speed things along. Ms. Tygre said that she agrees with a lot of what Mr. Myrin said and that the board is disturbed with the necessity of free market to fund a hotel because all it does is get the building built and does not sustain the hotel over the long term. She stated there are a lot of philosophical problems that have been raised by the Applicant and are valid. She said she does not like to see the Applicants getting bounced between HPC and P&Z but there is a code requirement that says P&Z is charged with evaluating the proposal based on the criteria that Staff has outlined in Exhibit A. She stated that those criteria include dimensions and P&Z can’t disregard it just because HPC has already reviewed it because the code specifically says they do. She stated that she is basing what she is saying on the analysis of the criteria in Exhibit A and she agrees with Staff. She thanked the Applicant and Staff for having the site visit. Ms. Tygre stated that she would like to reassure the Applicant that no one on the commission has a problem with the hotel but it is the free market residential. She stated that these are two different properties even though they are under the same ownership and part of the Hotel is on the Bleeker side of the property. She said it is almost like two completely different neighborhoods and that what Staff has tried to do is say that the hotel portion is compatible with the hotel side, Main Street which has hotels and commercial properties. She stated that the Bleeker side is more residential and has a different type of use and architecture. She said that she disagrees with them on the zoning because you need to look at what R6 allows in the residential portion but she is not redesigning the plan. She stated that the packet indicated the way the Applicant has chosen to address these issues and given this application and criteria she has to agree with Staff. She stated she would be willing to meet with the Applicant on December 3rd. She said it would be really nice to have an exceptional project in this location. Mr. Walterscheid commented that with an R6 zone there could be four different houses here and built to much larger than what the Applicant has asked for. He stated he earlier asked about the multiple divisions because there could be eight condos here. He said he has no problem with the size of the back end. He stated that this is the way people are coming up with money to fund a project. He said the room sizes are completely appropriate for what they are asking for. He said that being 300 square feet is a good three star hotel room size and is exactly the demographic the Applicant is searching for. Mr. Walterscheid said there are probably ways around the free market numbers to make it work and he does not have a problem with the way it was presented. He said that P&Z could go back and forth and probably kill the project. He said the last hotel that was back for four meetings died. He said it is insane to get an approval in Aspen and the process drives the cost up. He stated that he would vote for recommendation and send to Council because they will debate it again and then come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Erspamer asked if he would move it forward with any conditions. Mr. Walterscheid replied that they get some form of designated parking. He said the parking would go back to Engineering and there is a repetitive cycle where things like parking get filtered through a microscope and it is at times comical as to what is focused on. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms. Tygre’s comments. He stated he has a hard time with the mass on Bleeker Street and that it seems inappropriate. He stated he understands the reasons for it but does not think the development is compatible with the neighborhood. He would not vote for rezoning and it should stay at R6. Mr. Gibbs said he has a problem injecting Multi Use into the R6 zone district. He said there is a very uniform boundary between Multi Use and R6 and there is some value to maintaining order and logical organization of the City. He said the rezoning makes perfect sense for this project but is not appropriate. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 15 Mr. Erspamer commented that he has a concern with the Victorian next to the proposed multifamily buildings and asked if they could put a row of lilacs along the property line to hide the development. He said that the sizes of the buildings are compatible with the Victorians at Bleeker but not to the Victorian next to the development. Mr. Erspamer stated that the sizes of the units are perfect for what P&Z believed in when doing the AACP. He stated it will bring a broader demographic to the community and will build a better cliental through the years. He said that they will have more cars and park in the neighborhood. He stated he is concerned with the parking and noted that angle parking is safer. He said he would like to take out the parallel parking and put angle parking in and would like to see it as a condition of the approval or denial. He said he was not supportive until he heard the Applicants discussion. He said it was a nightmare process but does not want to approve it just to send it to Council. He said that Mr. Walterscheid made some good points. He brought up the point of if they made eight units instead of four they would be to code. Ms. Phelan said that for unit size yes but they are still asking for more floor area than what the free market units allow. Ms. Phelan said that the Applicant is still asking for more by 581 square feet. Mr. Clauson said that it was a recommendation from Staff that they incorporate the additional square footage and it is an issue of trust. He stated that when they get a recommendation like that and have a certain conversation with them and it seems like things are going in a certain direction and they are going to be supportive, and then Staff goes to a Staff meeting and whatever they do in that Staff meeting it seems to result in some new negativity being brought forward. Ms. Phelan stated that this is ridiculous and Mr. Clausen said it is true. Ms. Phelan said that they have an obligation to review projects and compare them to standards which is what they have done. She stated that they have never said they will fully support this project and have, as a Staff, provided a recommendation. She said that everyone has a process for how they do things and she apologized that the Applicant does not like their process. Ms. Adams stated that as far as the numbers go when speaking with Kim and Patrick, she said to ask for what they need. She said they did not want to go back and amend the PUD once it is approved. Ms. Tygre said she thought they were to vote on the application that is before them and not try to redesign it here and now. Ms. Tygre said that the overage of 581 square feet is a criteria that is either acceptable or not acceptable but they are not going to redesign the project here. Mr. Myrin commented that is why he proposes the December 3rd meeting. Mr. Gibbs said that the 27,000 is the actual allowable and the 36,000 is a variance on the number which they should only go for which is 33,700 via special review and they are already giving them more, if you go for the special review allowance and a variance above it. Mr. Gibbs said if it was 27,000 and the net livable to floor area ratio was about the same as they proposed that would allow a net livable of 12,000 and .6 of that would be 7,707. So instead of 11,000 square feet they would have 7,700 allowed. He said they are compounding allowances on top of variances and getting to the big numbers where if everyone stuck to 27,000 as the actual number then all the other numbers get much smaller. He said the numbers are all built upon variances and special review allowances. Mr. Gibbs said that getting down to the basics and what is the actual requirement of the code, it is 27,000 square feet of cumulative floor area and assuming the net livable ratio is about the same then it would be 12,845 square feet of net livable instead of 17,365. Mr. Gibbs said he understands the justifications but for lack of a better word it’s a bad application because it relies on a continuously escalating series of numbers. He stated that he does not agree with the 36,500 and he does not agree with the special review. He said there is no way to accept this application unless you go with the special review and a variance above that. Mr. Gibbs stated that he thinks there is too much going on and too much requested. He stated that this project is a good example of where they have all kinds of subjective requirements they have to consider and for Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 16 him it comes down to he does not think the back half of the project should be as big as it is because it is in a R6 district. Mr. Walterscheid said he is curious why you wouldn’t want to go from 27,000 to 33,750 with an existing lodge. He asked Mr. Gibbs what would be his judging factors for a project like this to get it to 33,750. Mr. Gibbs said it would reduce the net livable for the multi family. He said it would have an impact that he thinks is important. He said he goes by the neighborhood all the time and thinks it is too much. Mr. Walterscheid said if the free market floor area was limited to 10,000 square feet there are essentially four lots in the back and if they did four separate Victorian looking homes they would have 25,000 square feet of FAR. He stated that each unit would be well above 3,750. Mr. Myrin moved to continue the meeting till 7:15 seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion approved. Ms. Adams clarified that in the R6 district they would only have the ability to do two single family homes with a 12,000 square foot lot. She said it would be a traditional lot split of 6,000 and 6,000 and there can only be a single family of 3,000 square foot with a historic lot. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Clauson to rebut. Mr. Clauson stated that this is a project where the code allows for 60 percent and the provision in the code that require a certain density of hotel rooms and provisions that require affordable housing all come together to create a project that is beneficial to the community and not incompatible. He said that HPC, even though they were not charged with reviewing the numbers did have them in front of them. He said that they think this is a good project and a beneficial one. He stated that if P&Z could move the Resolution with conditions that would be helpful. He stated that they could not redesign the project by December 3rd even if it were economically feasible. He stated if the board felt there was some reduction in floor area that they wanted to quantify or some other comment they wanted to make to move it forward to Council to please include it. Mr. Weil stated that when he was going over the floor area numbers with Ms. Adams it wasn’t so much that Staff requested that they put float in but more of a mutual recognition that as the process moves forward and goes to building permit with zoning, those people are not part of this process. He stated he would like to say that the floor area definition of code is objective but it really isn’t. He said there are plenty of areas that are subjective and how they are interpreted. He stated that they intend to build the project that is drawn here but are not sure how the people who review floor area at the building permit are going to interpret certain parts of the building code and the floor area definitions. He stated they need a little bit to make sure they can build the project they intend to build. Mr. Erspamer asked for a motion and conditions. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Erspamer made a condition to remove the parallel parking and replace it with angled parking. Seconded by Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Myrin accepted as a motion. Ms. Tygre did not accept it. Voice vote: Mr. Walterscheid aye, Mr. Gibbs nay, Mr. Myrin nay, Ms. Tygre nay, Mr. Erspamer aye. Motion failed. Mr. Erspamer said he is close to approving this but with the mass and scale and the ambiguity of the number in the code but would probably end up voting for denial at this time. Roll call motion to approve as written. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 17 Mr. Erspamer no, Mr. Gibbs no, Ms. Tygre no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr. Walterscheid yes. Motion failed Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to pass Resolution 21 with the amendment that the FAR for free market be further vetted by City Council. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Mr. Walterscheid said he would be in recommendation of everything else with Council further discussing the free market. Mr. Myrin said he thinks it is the obligation of P&Z to further discuss this and he is not comfortable dedicating just one meeting and then handing it off to Council. He stated he thinks it is the responsibility of P&Z to address it. Ms. Tygre said she is going back to evaluating a project based on the criteria that is in the code and it does not mean that to be determined later square footage is appropriate. She stated that P&Z is abdicating their responsibility by passing it on to Council. Mr. Erspamer said he would be in favor of reducing it but it cannot be concluded at this meeting. Roll call: Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr. Gibbs no, Ms. Tygre no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr. Walterscheid yes. Motion failed. Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written. Seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it still goes to Council with a motion to deny. The answer is yes. He said it is not a motion to continue but to send it to Council to watch it die. Mr. Erspamer said Council can do whatever they want to it. Mr. Walterscheid said he just made a recommendation to send it to Council but have them look at the free market and instead of that it is going to be sent to council by denying it. Ms. Tygre said they are sending it to Council saying that P&Z feels it should be denied. Mr. Myrin recalled his motion and made a motion to continue. The Applicant could not agree to this. Mr. Brown stated that two of the board members stated that they were prejudicial to the project because the free market funds the hotel. Ms. Tygre interjected that that is not what they said at all and objects to his characterization of that. Mr. Walterscheid said to Ms. Tygre that is exactly what was said. Mr. Erspamer called for order and asked Mr. Brown to state this in a more respectful way. Mr. Brown stated that what he heard from the members of P&Z is that they fundamentally disagreed with how the code is written in that free market funds a new lodge redevelopment. That is the basis for the AACP and the LP overlay and his application. He stated that from his perspective how can they continue and please the board given that is the reality of the development. He stated that they need the free market to pay for the hotel. He stated that even though they don’t like it and don’t agree with it that is the harsh reality. He said there has been discussion that the board does disagree with the code but that is the set of guidelines they are playing by and were adopted by Council to facilitate the redevelopment. He stated that the alternative discussed is to build homes and end up with half the size hotel. He said that maybe they don’t even rebuild the hotel and leave it as a 50 year old hotel and build new homes. Ms. Tygre stated that every comment she has made she was basing her decision on the criteria in the land use code. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting for five more minutes seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny Resolution 21. Mr. Myrin stated that if P&Z denies it the Applicant just starts over and asks the same question to Council. Mr. Walterscheid asked if this body does not want this to happen period. Mr. Gibbs said he thinks that is exaggerating and is not making any judgment, subjective or otherwise, based on whether he thinks it is a good idea to have hotels or any of that sort of thing. He stated he is looking at what the Applicant proposed and what the code says and his interpretation of what the code says. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19, 2013 18 Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Roll call Mr. Myrin wanted to express how frustrated he is that they have only had one meeting on this and the Applicant has pinned it on P&Z by saying they don’t have time for a second meeting. Mr. Erspamer corrected that the Applicant stated that they were not prepared for a meeting on December 3rd. Mr. Clauson stated that Staff decided it would only be their presentation at the last meeting and the Applicant would have been ready to have a substantive discussion at the prior meeting. Ms. Phelan stated that based on the Applicants request they have continued scheduling this meeting from July to October. She stated that when the Applicant implied that it was completely Staff’s fault she stated it was not just Staff’s scheduling issues that has dragged the process out. Mr. Brown stated he wanted to respond to Mr. Myrin’s statement about not wanting to come back. He stated that he has been a part of several meetings where they thought they met what Staff wanted and then Staff goes back and has a meeting with the entire Staff and they get a different message. He stated that they have attempted to work with individual Staff members at times and they go into a meeting and come out with a different message and he called it “moving the goalpost”. He stated it is very difficult for them to come back and forth thinking they will get anywhere. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny application Resolution 21. Seconded by Ms. Tygre Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Ms. Tygre yes, Mr. Myrin abstain, Mr. Walterscheid no. Motion passed 3 to 1 with 1 abstention. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning