Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140812Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, and Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer remarked on a good article in the recent issue of the Colorado Municipalities magazine. The article titled “A New Era in Transportation” discussed how entities need to work together. He stated it focuses on a new approach, not just building highways or HOVs, but to look at the underlying problems. Mr. Erspamer thanked Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki on his contribution to the commission since it will be his last meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan informed the commissioners the long range scheduled is getting shuffled a bit due to a missed notice issue with the Sky Hotel. In addition to the regular meetings, a special meeting is currently scheduled for September 9th. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – June 17, 2014 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the June 17, 2014 minutes, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion carried. MINUTES – August 5, 2014 Mr. Gibbs noted the agenda item listed the wrong address. Ms. Tygre noted Mr. Walterscheid’s name was misspelled. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the August 5, 2014 minutes with the noted corrections, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he had sent an article of his opinion to council regarding the lodge ordinance (Ordinance #19-2014). In the letter, he comments on a reference document included in the packet. Ms. Quinn asked if he has formed an opinion as to the outcome of this public hearing at which Mr. Erspamer replied no. Mr. Erspamer provided a copy of the letter to the applicant and to staff as Exhibit 1. Public Hearing – Boomerang Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a variance request for the Boomerang as continued from June 17th and July 1st of 2014. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Sara Adams, Senior Planner for the Community Development Department reviewed the staff’s memorandum for the proposed amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), amendment to Growth Management approval and an amendment to a Subdivision and Commercial Design Review. The project is vested under the 2006 code referred to as the old code in place when the project was originally submitted. The approved project has vesting through October 20, 2015. The proposed amendment discussed on July 1st had three main concerns the P&Z raised which are outlined below. She also included the minutes from the meeting from the last meeting, the applicant’s response and staff’s recommendation. The first concern voiced by commissioners and staff dealt with the proposed ratio of uses. The project applied under the lodge incentive program but in staff’s opinion as well as the commissioner’s opinion, it is not a lodge project. The free market component was too large in comparison to the lodge component. The applicant responded by committing eight of 14 of the free market residential units to have an owner use restriction similar to a program included in the recently adopted lodge incentive program on August 11, 2014. The applicant proposes eight of the 14 free market residential unit owners will be restricted from using their units more than six months per year. The units would be in the rental pool the remainder of the time. The second concern was the insufficient back of house operational space to support the proposed lodge component. The applicant team proposed an off-site management company to run the lodge and support the condominium component similar to the operations at The Gant. The applicant has not changed their proposal regarding this concern from the July 1st meeting. The third concern dealt with the relationship of project to the neighborhood. Both the commission and staff felt the project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Support has been voiced for a lodge in this location. The project has the lodge preservation (LP) overlay. A historic lodge was previously operated at this location by Charlie Patterson. However, there was a lot of discussion at the July 1st meeting regarding balancing the proposed uses of the projects and the requested variations from the underlying R-6 zoned district. Staff appreciates the willingness of the applicant to commit eight of the 14 units to the ownership restrictions. However, staff feels the steps do not go far enough to warrant the dimensional variances asked for by the applicant. The height variations and overall floor area is still out of context with the neighborhood and the proposed ratio of uses does not support the requested variances. Ms. Adams cited the PUD review criteria 26.445.050 listed beginning on p. 24. Criteria 26.445.040.C and 26.445.050.B & E are not met. In response to the proposal being out of context with the neighborhood, the applicant reduced the four story lodge tower by about three feet (ft). Staff does not feel the reduction of three ft does not go far enough to have the project meet the neighborhood context considering the proposed uses. Staff recommends the entire project including mass, scale and height be reduced across the board, not just the four story lodge component which now makes it about the same height as the free market residential three story components. The floor to ceiling heights (in the lodge component) are between 7.5 and 8 ft. The floor to ceiling heights are very short. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Staff also recommends more back of house operational space be provided in the building to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), economic sustainability chapter and the managing growth chapter. Ms. Adams reminded the commissioners they are the final review the Growth Management amendment up for review. As discussed at the July 1st meeting, the Growth Management review in the 2006 code uses the AACP as a regulatory document. This is contrary to today’s code. Staff feels the 2006 code requirement has not been met. Staff is supportive of a lodge on this site, not the proposed mass and scale considering the uses. The project has the LP overlay and the purpose of this zoned district is to protect historic lodges, especially those in residential areas, to provide flexibility in lodge redevelopment, lodge updating. There are specific requirements in the LP overlay zoned district that help the P&Z and City Council determine the amount of free market residential floor area appropriate for these projects. All the review criteria discussed in the July 1st meeting relate back to the lodge component and the flexibility of the lodge component, types of units, and amenities provided. Staff finds the review for Growth Management are not met, the project does not meet the criteria of the AACP from the 2006 code, specifically economic sustainability and managing growth chapters. Staff is recommending denial of the Grown Management application. Ms. Adams stated if the P&Z decides to support the draft resolution in the packet which denies the requested growth management amendment, the project will not continue to City Council for a PUD Subdivision Amendment review. Mr. Erspamer called point of order asking if the Council can call it up anyway. Ms. Adams responded the applicant has the option to appeal the P&Z’s decision to City Council. It’s a review based on the record. City Council can remand it back, reverse the decision, or uphold the decision. Ms. Adams reviewed the P&Z’s role for the proposal is to review the Growth Management, review amendment to the PUD as a recommendation to City Council, review amendment to the Subdivision as a recommendation to City Council and review the Commercial Design. Ms. Adams stated the proposal meets the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Adams stated the applicant provided a financial analysis study in their revised information based on a study the City hired an outside consultant to perform regarding a feasibility study relating free market residential component to a lodge component and how it drives or does not drive a lodging component. The study was completed to inform the Council, the community and staff about the direction for the code amendments adopted on August 12, 2014. Ms. Adams wanted to be clear that the study included in the application is not relevant for the review criteria for this proposed project. The applicant has the option to submit a new application under the current code, but they have chosen to use the code they are vested under for this application. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for any questions of staff. Mr. Erspamer asked if the back of house space is within the code and the AACP regarding having operations on site. Ms. Adams stated the code does not specify the back of house requirements. She did state the AACP does discuss the economics sustainability and the managing growth chapters do include points on economic sustainability and managing growth as specified on p. 15 of the packet. Not having 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 any back of house operations now creates inflexible situations for future operations of the lodge. Ms. Adams stated these two areas of code are not met because they are not sustainable. Mr. Erspamer asked staff how they concluded the 7.5 ft floor to ceiling height of the proposal was too short. Ms. Adams responded the proposal is vested under the 2006 code and therefore the height requirements are from the 2006 code, not the current guidelines. Ms. Adams stated the application received stated 7.5 ft, but the applicant had communicated earlier in the day the heights would be 7.5 to 8 ft. She assumed the applicant would review those measurements during their presentation. Mr. Erspamer asked where the amount of lodge ratio to free market is provided within the code. Ms. Adams stated the LP Overlay provides specific review criteria to establish the free market residential component. It is a product of the lodge amenities, the lodge unit size, and diversity of space. Lodge projects with a LP overlay are required to go through a PUD review process. The percentage of uses is established during the PUD review. The underlying R-6 zone does not allow for a lodge as a permitted use so it doesn’t provide a percentage of use. Therefore, the PUD review criteria is used to determine what is appropriate for the site. The applicant’s calculated percentages are taking the eight free market residential units with the proposed deed restrictions for the owners and rolling those into their lodge percentage as rental units. The code the application is vested under does not recognize the free market residential deed restricted units as lodge use. The staff memo follows the applicable code regarding lodge and free market uses. Mr. Gibbs asked if the maximum aggregate density described on p. 20 of the packet includes all the uses of the units including affordable housing. Ms. Adams stated there probably is not a definition in the code for maximum aggregate density. Her assumption would be it is an aggregate sum of all the proposed units (density is typically units). He then asked for confirmation regarding the statement “Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD…” on p. 20 of the packet. He wanted to ensure the current review would occur before a PUD review at which Ms. Adams agreed. He wanted to confirm aggregate density does not apply in this situation. Ms. Phelan stated the standards are there for situations where the uses are allowed based on the underlying zoning allows for the standards. For situations where the underlying zoning does not provide the standards, the LP Overlay is there to establish the standards. Mr. Gibbs asked for other similar restrictions on other lodges in town. Ms. Adams stated the owner restrictions within the application were based on the new lodge incentive program and not previous code. Ms. Phelan believes the Christiana may be a similar case, but Ms. Adams stated she would need to perform addition research to respond. Ms. Phelan believed there used to be a restrictive ownership, but it was dropped because owners were ignoring the restriction. Ms. Phelan and Ms. Adams stated the incentive program passed on the day prior to this meeting included a package of incentives allowing for a six month allowance under certain circumstances for free market residential units, not lodge. Ms. Phelan and Ms. Adams stated the code applicable to today and this application allows for an occupancy of 30 days and no more than 90 days throughout a calendar year for a lodge unit. Mr. Erspamer then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. James DeFrancia with Lowe Enterprises appearing with Charles Cunniffe, Marina Skiles and Rich Pavcek from Charles Cunniffe Architects and Michael Hoffman as legal counsel. Mr. DeFrancia stated they are appreciative of the special meeting to help move this project along. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. DeFrancia wanted to emphasize they are seeking to amend an existing approval granted several years ago which did establish height and mass. The applicant is confused as to why staff keeps coming back to these topics. In some measure, he feels it’s been decided and they are trying to amend it by improving it. The process of improving it is being driven by the explicit findings of the city, especially as it relates to lodging. They do maintain it is a dominantly and overwhelmingly a lodging project. The recent findings of the city and staff itself have shown we have lost 27% of the bed base both in lodging and rental condominium units. The rental condo base is aging and declining which is significant because 40% of the bed base is rental condominiums. It’s been established the present quality and diversity of the bed base is rated low, brought up at last night’s meeting by representatives from the Ski Company. The price point for our value is rated low. Mr. DeFrancia stated that speaks to the fact that we are very much focused on an economy lodge, which is really significant to understand the character of this lodge as an economy lodge. It is not just a lodge, but an economy lodge. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating the findings of the city were translated into public policy which is most clearly demonstrated in the AACP. The resulting policy is that the lodging inventory needs to be replenished, which they are very much trying to do. They are also emphasizing a diversity in price points according to public policy. This project is designed to be an economy lodge to protect and restore existing lodging to the extent of the historic element as part of the original Boomerang Lodge. The restored historic lodging is a significant component of what they are doing for this project. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating the modifications made since the July 1st meeting call for the continuance of now 54 vs. 56 actual lodge rooms designed to be economy lodging. The rooms have eight ft ceiling heights, averaging 200 sf so they are purposefully small so they are in concert with the modern market demands. These unit sizes and designs that are proven. They are efficiently designed and designed after proven models. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating they’ve added eight vacation residences and the important thing about vacation residences is that they are under the new code. The applicant is not trying to bridge codes, but anticipating the new code in which the vacation residences are to be considered as lodging. He thinks this is very responsive to what the commission asked for on July 1st which was some assurance the condominiums were going to be put in rental programs. The applicant is prepared to restrict those in concert with the new code so they will in fact be calculated. As a result we get 62 lodge units and vacation residences compares to only six free market units and we’ve also increased the number of affordable housing units to five which fully meets the code requirements. On the sf basis, Mr. DeFrancia stated the existing vested approval had a little over 24,000 sf in the lodge sf. This has now been increased to something over 25,000 sf in lodge sf. The free market sf has been reduced to six units in less sf. The six units are in 8,000 sf where previously we had five units in almost 11,000 sf. This is also purposeful by design. The design of these units, even the free market units, lend themselves to level use similar to The Gant, Aspen Alps and Aspen Square where the smaller units are the ones that rent. The vacation residences are absolutely in because they are going to be restricted and committed. They feel even the free market will lend themselves to being rented, but are not asking those to be counted as lodging. The vacation residences are a new product and breaking new ground with these they are expecting some depressive impact on values and they are not sure how much. They feel they are taking some risk but keep the six as free market with an expectation the character of the product will lend itself to rental programs. 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. DeFrancia stated the preservation of the historic wing is also important. It’s a mid-century modern product valued in the community, internationally known and recognized. He noted the commission’s concern from July 1st that the new lodge wing should not over power the historic wing. The height of the new wing has been lowered below the existing approved height by about three ft. If you look at the historic asset from Fourth St, you will see the new lodge wing is reduced so its impact is sitting behind the historic asset to underscore the character of the historic asset to keep it in its original configuration. Two lodge rooms dropped in the application tonight were located in the historic wing purposefully with a sense of preservation. They found if the reduced large rooms on the south side, they would diminish the historic character. They feel keeping the larger rooms also adds diversity to the lodging base. In summary, the applicant is proposing with this amendment to the existing approval to do exactly what has been called for by public policy of long standing. That is now further facilitated by the new ordinance which they anticipated. They feel they are very much aligned with public policy. Secondly, with the adjusted submission, they have demonstrated they have been responsive to P&Z’s comments from the July 1st meeting and applied these restrictions on more than half of the condominiums causing them to be characterized as vacation residences and committed to lodging and lodging uses. The height of the lodge wing has been lowered of the lodge wing to further diminish any adverse impact on the historic asset. They wanted to emphasize the proposal satisfies the affordable housing requirements on site, and the parking requirements. They have improved the existing approval in regards to breaking up the mass, appearance enhancements including selective materials and finishes and lowered heights. Ms. Skiles then provided slides demonstrating the views from Fourth St with the reduced height of the new proposed lodge wing as it relates to the historic structure. She stated the floor to ceiling height was eight ft as it exists in the historic wing. Another point she made was in regards to the proposed renovated sunken pool from street level and the code height of the new building to the top of the pool deck. From street level, the building is less than 34.5 ft tall which is less than the perceived 39 ft. Another slide demonstrated the gaps between the buildings to break up the mass from a view on Hopkins. Using a slide with a view from Fifth St, she stated the grade increases as you move up Hopkins. The maximum height of the building is 32 ft from the elevation. Looking down the alley, she demonstrated how the building is set back from the alley and ramp to access the parking garage. She then provided a view of the overall structure from Fourth St. Mr. Cunniffe thought the slides showed how open it is between the building envelopes. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to also underscore the height issue. From ground level, it is slightly over 34 ft down to 32 ft. The 38 ft measurement is from the pool deck. Donnie Lee, the general manager of The Gant, stated it has been anticipated Destination Hotels and Resorts would be the same management assuming this project receives approval and is built. Mr. Lee wanted to reiterate some of the points made at the July 1st meeting. From his vantage point of an operator, he sees the entire thing as a lodge. Just like The Gant where it is a free market residential complex operates as a hotel for the past 40 years. He stated besides it being a historic location, it was intended and designed to be operated in this manner. They anticipate the Boomerang to be operated the same way. With the agreement to place burdens on eight of the units to hopefully provide some assurances to the commission they will stay rented. In his opinion, the free market six will also be rented. In term of the back of house concerns, a lot of the administrative office space will happen off site, most likely at The Gant. Laundry will be shipped in and out. Limited space will be provided for a housekeeping and maintenance offices. The full back of house measures will not be necessary. He feels 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 although you can always use more storage, the space allotted is adequate to meet the needs of a limited use establishment. He is excited about the project. He feels although staff must look at it as a free market residential project per code, it will be operated as a lodge. He stated the condominiums in some respect ease off some of the density concerns in regards to the neighborhood. If it was strictly a lodge, the density would be much greater. Mr. Cunniffe felt the below ground space could be expanded if necessary for back of house needs. The proposed project is purposefully designed to have a mix of designs, rental oriented and broad spectrum of customers. Mr. DeFrancia stated in response to the commission’s request from the July 1st meeting on vacation residences have an assurance they will be available to rent. They staff notes while that category does not exist in the code for this project, the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as City Council does have the right to incorporate the restrictions on the units as part of the PUD Amendment. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Goode asked the applicant to review the setbacks. Mr. DeFrancia explained they have not asked for any modifications on setbacks beyond those already granted in the existing approval. Mr. Erspamer then asked Ms. Adams to clarify the graph on p. 21. Ms. Adams stated that in order to clarify the commissioner’s purview for amending a PUD, she referred to an extracted section of land use code on p. 20 of the packet. During the review of the proposed amendment, the P&Z and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to ensure the development will be compatible with current community circumstances. In addition, it talks about including but not limiting to changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the original projects original representations and commitments. It’s the city’s position that everything approved in 2006 is on the table for review tonight according to this section of the land use code. Setbacks, mass and scale, height, percentage of usage is all within the commission’s purview and the decision is based on changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the projects original representation and commitments. So the commission is using an old code, but current community circumstances to make a decision. Mr. Erspamer confirmed with Mr. Goode that he was asking about the setbacks at which he replied yes. Mr. Erspamer confirmed with Mr. DeFrancia that based on the 2006 approval, the minimum front yard is five ft and now its two ft. Side yards are five ft and now its three ft. Rear yards are five ft and now it’s zero ft. Mr. Pavcek stated setbacks are correct and nothing was changed from the July 1st meeting. Any changes are from the original approval. He pointed to the setbacks on the drawing displayed. The two ft is for the actual building, the setback for zero ft is the overhang of the deck above which is allowed to into the setback up to three ft. Mr. Erspamer asked if they had determined what six months the units would be available. Mr. DeFrancia replied that according to vacation residence code states it as the owner may not use the unit for more than six months and when not in ownership use, they are available for rental. Then Mr. Erspamer asked if the restriction would be mandatory for the eight units at which Mr. DeFrancia replied yes. Mr. Mike Hoffman stated a key concession made by the development team was to make it so the unit must be made available for rent when not in use. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked about a study done by Mr. Tomcich and another study done by the Ski Company. He thought this study discussed 10,000 pillows. He asked if the applicant was aware of the study at which Mr. DeFrancia replied no. Mr. Erspamer asked at what height the view from Fourth St was taken. Ms. Skiles replied it was at six ft. He then asked if they had any renderings of relationships with neighboring properties at which Ms. Skiles believed they were included in the July 1st packet, but she did not have them this evening. Mr. Erspamer asked if the lodging or condos were the higher building. Mr. DeFrancia and Ms. Skiles replied the condos were higher. Mr. Cunniffe added they wanted to be equitable to the historical structure which has an eight ft ceiling height, so they wanted all the lodge units to be the same height. Mr. Erspamer asked at what level was the grade. Mr. Cunniffe replied that Fourth St is a little bit lower than Fifth St by maybe two ft. The building is two ft below the road on the Fifth St and even with the road on Fourth St. The historic Boomerang if the first third of the property off Hopkins Ave with an average of 34.6 ft. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Lee how many units are rented as opposed to ownership not rented at The Gant. Mr. Lee answered stated about 85% do rent and 15% do not rent (120 out of 140 rent). Mr. Lee stated those ratios have been consistent for about 40 years. Mr. Erspamer asked where the front desk would be located. Mr. Lee responded it would be located where it historically has been located. Ms. Tygre wanted to know what guarantees that this lodge will remain an economy lodge and are there definitions or criteria for what constitutes an economy lodge. Ms. Adams stated there is nothing in the land use code to define an economy lodge the project is vested under. Mr. Cunniffe stated City Council debated this a year or two ago and it came down to trying to set standards for a rental rate, which was almost impossible to do. So the decision was to let the market do what it does, but by nature and design this is an economy lodge based on its location and the size of the units. When you have a smaller hotel room not in the core of town it will get less money per night. These rooms are currently the same size of the rooms at the Sky Hotel, but those are quite a bit more to rent because of their location. Mr. DeFrancia added these rooms are economy by design based on similar hotels throughout the country. Mr. Cunniffe then added it’s not a full service hotel with no restaurant, turn down service, room service. Ms. Tygre asked what if another operator decides to take over running the hotel. Mr. DeFrancia stated they do not have any reason to think there would be any impact on the operation and there is nothing to prevent it from happening. Mr. Gibbs asked if there will be a Home Owners Association (HOA). Mr. DeFrancia replied there would be a sort of horizontal HOA including the hotel, condominiums, vacation residences, and free markets. The affordable housing will be segregated from the group in response to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) requirements and insuring the affordable housing does not get taxed with undue assessments. Mr. Gibbs asked if the hotel will have some responsibility for the maintenance at which Mr. DeFrancia replied yes. 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked if staff recommended approval in 2006. Ms. Adams replied by the time it reached council and had changed a few times, she believes there was support based on the community sentiment in 2006. Mr. Erspamer asked why staff is not supporting it now since they are asking for just a few more units. Ms. Phelan stated they are asking for quite a bit more free market residential than the original 2006 approval has in it. As Ms. Adams has stated a number of times, the ratios have flipped. There is less lodging and more free market residential sq ft as a percentage. The 2006 approval had fewer free market residences and larger lodging units (about 500 sq ft). It was a lodge that was approved in 2006. Mr. DeFrancia displayed a graph demonstrating the free market component is reduced by about 20- 25%. There are six vs. the approved five free market units in less sq ft. The vacation residences is again because of the restrictions which we are putting on them to characterize them as unquestionably lodge units. As the staff themselves pointed out, permitted and can be done as an element of PUD add to the lodging component. Mr. Cunniffe stated the ratio of free market is less than 10%. Mr. Erspamer stated the applicant is counting 70% of the proposed floor area as pure hotel and vacation residence, but the staff is not including vacation residences. Ms. Adams stated that they are not including it because it is not in the code. Mr. DeFrancia agreed it is not in the code, but stated it could be included as part of a PUD amendment. Ms. Phelan then added what is being proposed would not even meet the most recently passed lodge incentive ordinance as a vacation residence. She then said if the applicant is interested in becoming a vacation residence, perhaps they apply under the new code. Mr. McNellis asked for confirmation in regards to the ordinance passed on August 11, 2014. Ms. Phelan responded there was a lodging incentive package approved. Essentially there is an entire package of requirements for a vacation residence and it is not pick and choose one to create a vacation residence. What is being proposed as a vacation residence at this table would not meet the requirements of the lodging incentive package. Mr. DeFrancia countered that based on the lodge incentive passed on the previous evening, a vacation residence is a unit required to be placed in a short term rental market. It also includes all kinds of incentives such as exemptions from affordable housing, waiver of fees and a bunch of other things. None of which the applicant has requested. Mr. Gibbs asked it the applicant would be amenable to further restrict those six months to not all being the high season. Mr. DeFrancia stated they would investigate it and work with the city attorney’s office to better understand the new vacation residence program. They would not be opposed as long there are reasonable expectations. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comments. Mr. Warren Klug, General Manager for the Aspen Square Hotel and an Aspen resident. He wanted to express support for the proposal because he sees it as an important addition to the lodging community and to help address the 20-25-27% number that has been discussed. Encouraging lodging improvement and renovation, replacement, redevelopment are all important goals for the community and address the action taken be council last night. He sees this project moving in the same direction as the lodge incentive program. He wanted to comment on two key issues. One, city studies have confirmed you can’t build a hotel without free market financing. Two, the proposal is focused on more affordable hotel units and feels this proposal will always support this and not command the rates of locations in the 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 center of town. He feels it is a needed and valuable addition to our lodging picture in Aspen and he wanted to echo Mr. Lee’s comments that it will be a lodge. He would urge the approval of the project as proposed. The Aspen Square has 101 apartments and they are all in the rental program. Mr. Paul Taddune, on behalf of the Christiana Lodge. He stated the setbacks are a concern of the Christiana. He asked the applicant where the view from the alley is shown from. Ms. Skiles stated it would be from one of the apartments on the corner at 6 ft. He thought the view displayed more space than there actually is and wanted to know where the variances are in the view. Mr. Cunniffe stated the building is setback because a good width is required for the parking garage access. The area hidden by the tree is where the deck overhang occurs. Ms. Skiles stated that part of the build is set back 10 ft from the property line. Another part of the building is set back five ft from the property line. No variances have been requested. Mr. Taddune felt the views were misleading because it doesn’t show the Christiana in the view and it would be nice to see the relationship in that area because it is pretty crowded between the Christiana and the proposed project. Ms. Cheryl Goldenberg is a neighbor of the proposed project. She stated she already voice her concerns regarding parking but had a suggestion that if the owners vacate for six months, then they should also vacate their parking space. After looking at the building views, she feels it’s too big for the residential neighborhood. She also agrees with staff. She does not have any problem with the lodge, employee housing, and condominiums. She would just like it small to fit in with the neighborhood. She felt it was originally approved at the size it is because Charlie Patterson obtained approval based on his reputation. Mr. Craig Ward, a 45 year Aspen resident familiar with the property and represented Charlie Patterson when he sold the lodge. Mr. Erspamer stated he and Mr. Ward spoke last week about his letter on the pot clubs, but they did not speak about this proposal. Mr. Ward went on to say Mr. Patterson was not involved with the earlier approval. He stated this is a great amendment to the existing vested right. The height has been reduced, the number of rental rooms have been increased, and it will operate as a lodge. The Aspen Square has no restriction on their units at all and the owners do not use it more than 2-3 weeks per year. He feels it is much needed. Mr. Michael Brown, owns three hotels in Aspen and his office is immediately across from the Boomerang. He has been involved in lodge incentive plan including last night and he feels this proposal is precisely what they do not want. The two members who dissented against the plan was based on the four story development. The three supporting council members did not agree that four stories would be subjected to a very high level of scrutiny which this proposal would not pass. This underlying zoning of this parcel is R-6 zoned parcel. The only parcels that may achieve four stories are those south of Durant St. The applicant’s references to doing what the city wants is a bit misleading. He used an analogy of knowing your opponents in poker as well as their cards. He feels it is important to examine their current entitlements. The current approved units are not large enough to be condominiums, thus salable and too large to be hotel rooms. He feels the individuals sitting in the room tonight for the applicant do not even represent 50% of the applicant. They possibly represent 10-20%. He feels they don’t have the best interests of the community at hand. He stated one thing falling in the commission’s purview is the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) approval. If you read staff’s note in regards to granting an amendment to a PUD, it clearly states the project is subject to the 2000 AACP and P&Z is authorized through the PUD and other amendment to apply the current AACP as a guiding document to this review. If you refer to p. 15 of the 2012 AACP IV (4), zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development compatible and appropriate with the context of the neighborhood. He challenged to be shown one building in the area that is four stories and representative of the density in this neighborhood. He said it is the right of the commission to deny the project and not continue it. 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. Steve Goldenberg, a neighbor to the proposal. Besides echoing the other concerns previously mentioned, he thinks one reason the original 2006 approval doesn’t work is because the applicant has failed to realize the loss everybody took during the recession. If they use the numbers they paid for the property, it doesn’t work. He thinks if they write it down and use the lower numbers, they might be able to build the 2006 approval as it was approved. And if they can’t build it, they need to reapply. He felt there has been so many changes that it is not an amendment, it is a different project. Mr. Bill Tomcich, President of Stay Aspen Snowmass and has lived in the community since 1995. Stay Aspen Snowmass is the result of a merger between Aspen Central Reservations and Snowmass Central Reservations. It is a true lodging community ski resort partnership created in part by Charlie Patterson. He feels the Boomerang was a true classic ski lodge. He also thinks the application is a strong opportunity to move the lodge forward and he strongly supports the proposal. He remarked on the discrepancy in occupancy Mr. Erspamer had brought up earlier in the meeting. At one time, Aspen Central Reservations tracked the ownership percentage based on the number of pillows the properties held. He maintained the data until about 2006 when the evolution of fractions and bed base made it impossible. At the time he was only counting a small fraction of the available bed base in the community. In 2009, Aspen Skiing Company created a benchmark to determine the total transient inventory capacity for this town and Snowmass. They counted everything that may be rented, therefore their numbers were considerably greater than those tracked by Aspen Central Reservations and Snowmass Central. That report was updated in 2012 and is public record. Comparing the pillows report to this one would be like comparing apples to oranges. He is supportive of this project because it is exactly the type of lodging inventory that is in very high demand and lacking since the drop in the small lodges in Aspen. He mentioned to the Aspen City Council four weeks ago about the risks of not doing anything. Inaction will create continued compression on room rates which will cause them to rise and spillage. Those who can’t stay in Aspen will stay in Snowmass Village or down valley. He feels we are seeing this results of this compression taking place now. He received metrics yesterday from DestiMetrics which indicates Aspen’s paid occupancy in July this year was down from last year (76.1% to 71.8%). Even though the town seems busy, there were more owners here during July and the spillage to Snowmass Village. Their occupancies for July were up 21%. This also led to more parking problems here in town. The other impact of compression was the increase of the average daily rate. The average daily rate in Aspen for July 2014 was up 9% over last year to $379. The average daily rate in Snowmass Village for July was only up 2% to a $142. This is why he is such a proponent of additional, affordable rooms to add capacity to reduce the demand for hotel rooms. Otherwise, the increased compression will force the prices up so they will no longer be sustainable and a threat to our tourism economy. Mr. Corey Emloe, General Manager of the Sky Hotel and current chair of the Aspen Lodging Association encourages the commission to support this project. Aspen is the premier winter, mountain destination. But one of the areas that has not been kept up is the lodging. He feels the applicant has presented a plan to update and improve our lodging bed base. He will not argue code because it is not his expertise, but feels this is a very creative and impressive way to create another tier of lodging that really does not exist in this community. Ms. Debbie Braun, President of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. She has not attended a P&Z meeting in a while, but has been following the Lodge Incentive Program (LIP) and the public affairs committee. She feels it is important to start to come down to P&Z before the projects reach City Council. She wanted to address staff’s concern regarding ability to rent the free market condos. Based on the input from The Gant’s GM, The Aspen Square GM and Chuck Frias, these condos can be rented and are hot beds in our community. The chamber stands for our resort infrastructure and support transportation including bus and air service into our community. We also very much support increasing 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 our lodging inventory. Our lodges do so much for our community including the comped rooms for the bike race this week and the X-games, supporting the lodging tax where $1.8 million is collected to market this resort. We need a better price point for our guests with better amenities. She wanted to express her support for the proposal. Ms. Martha Madsen, neighbor of the Boomerang for 54 years. She wants the commission to be aware of the parking problems. With the recent opening of the Jewish Center, there was not a parking space along Hopkins, Fourth or Fifth Streets. She wants the commission to be aware how critical the parking is, particular with the Jewish Center. There just isn’t room. When she was on the HPC, this neighborhood is supposed to be a mix and she doesn’t want it to be predominantly lodge. Mr. John Cali, a lawyer, but not representing anyone here. He has no legal relationship with the applicant and has not been throughout this application process. He has watched this project go on and on and conducted an examination of the vested rights and what is being offered. If he lived in the neighborhood, he would prefer what is now being offered. It is better for the town. Because of the location and nature, it will result in more affordable lodging which he strongly supports. He feels this project has been going on too long and the current proposal is better than the approved project. Mr. Bert Myrin does not live near the proposed project and is not representing anyone. He wanted to stress the ownership usage months allowed shouldn’t be a decision for the commission. The LIP exists to handle this and he suggested the commission not create their own LIP. As staff has suggested, if the applicant wants to apply under the LIP, there is nothing restricting them from doing so. The applicant’s position is that you can’t build a hotel without a free market component. Again, this is something that has been addressed in the LIP. Rather than this commission create a LIP for this one project, he encouraged the commission to follow staff’s recommendation for applicant to come back under the current code. It would be a much cleaner package based on the current incentives. He encourages the commission to follow Ms. Phelan’s suggestion for the LIP to be used which is an entire package to handle defining residences, not a piece meal definition. Mr. Myrin stated P&Z’s process is well defined to include commissioner’s discussion on what criteria has and has not been met in the bullets listed on p. 2 of the memo. For the first item, staff has provided the answer when applying the code. Staff’s analysis of the GMQS is on p. 8 of the packet stating the GMQS criteria has not been met. Looking into the past, GMQS proposals are rarely denied which shows something is astray. He encourages the commission to follow staff’s recommendation and apply the criteria on GMQS. Ms. Adams entered the letters received as Exhibit 2. They have been shared with applicant. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions clarifying public comment. No questions were submitted. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened for staff rebuttal of evidence presented by the applicant and public comment. Ms. Adams wanted to clarify P&Z’s role in tonight’s meeting. She stated P&Z is allowed to review the entire project, FAR height, setbacks. Regarding the questions of the historic landmark wing, HPC has purview over the wing and pool. That section is a designated landmark and will be preserved and restored. Ms. Adams wanted to clarify the proposed owner restrictions on eight of the 14 units on the vacation residences has been discussed in the LIP will be considered free market residential in this application. It 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 is not a lodge use based on the 2006 code the project is vested under. The 2006 has three types including affordable housing, lodge and free market residential. Ms. Adams stated she performed an analysis of the building height based on an elevation provided for the July 1st meeting, which she will include as a drawing identified as Exhibit 3. The pink line is the building outline per the previous approval. There are areas where the proposed building extends above this line. She felt the representation made during the applicant’s presentation did not provide the clearest information. There was an approved roof plan as part of the PUD in 2006 that approved different heights for different potions of the building. This elevation shows the 2006 approved roof plan and what has been presented tonight. The four story has dropped perhaps three ft, so P&Z should ignore that piece, but the rest of the building heights, including the free market units, have not changed. Ms. Adams responded to Mr. Gibbs question regarding restricting the owners to using their units during certain months. She thought P&Z should ask how enforceable that would be for community development to achieve. She feels it may be a bit too complicated to enforce and define for city council. Regarding Mr. Taddune’s question of setback variances, Ms. Adams clarified what was approved in 2006 and what is proposed. This information is located on p. 21 of the packet. Table 1 on p. 21 compares the dimensional requirements. The 2006 approved ordinance and the current proposal are included in the table. For the rear yard, the 2006 approval stated five ft in the ordinance and the current proposal is at zero ft. In conclusion, Community Development staff have discussed this project at length and are very supportive of economy lodge and a lodge in this location. They are very concerned about the mass, scale, height and what it will do to the neighborhood based on the proposed uses. The approval from 2006 was primarily a lodge without hybrid units. The current proposal has hybrid units with unknown impacts. They are under the old code. If they elect to be under the adopted code from last night or the current code, which is entirely their right to bring a project in that meets those requirements. But for this proposal, the commission must look at the2006 code. Mr. Erspamer opened to the applicant for rebuttal of evidence presented by staff and public comment. Mr. DeFrancia responded to both Ms. Goldenberg and Ms. Madsen concerns of parking. They are not allowing any auto storage. The operating policy will first direct all parking to the garage to minimize parking on the street. The project also calls to provide improved new public parking on Hopkins Ave and Fifth St. Mr. DeFrancia stated the issue of four stories of the building is not about the number of stories, but an issue of height. The new height from the street is about 34.5 ft. In regards to the new lodging ordinance, the concern about four stories was with floors with 9-10 floor to ceiling clearances. The mayor made a statement about looking at 60 ft heights. That is not the issue here. Mr. DeFrancia assured they do represent 100% of the ownership and not playing poker, but trying to submit a meaningful project. In regards to staff’s comments, they fully recognize under the 2006 code, there is no provision for a vacation residence. They are prepared to commit those in accordance with the new code. P&Z and council can incorporate those units with those type of restrictions including amplified restrictions as mentioned by Mr. Gibbs. He doesn’t feel the restriction enforcement will not be a big deal. With past discussions with Chris Bendon and other committees over the past couple of years while the new code 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 has been developed. The entire project will be operated as a lodge. Everyone checks in and checks out. Records will be kept for auditing purposes. In response to the suggestion to submit under the new code, Mr. DeFrancia wanted to underscore that if they come in under the new code, 45-55% of free market sq ft as opposed to lodging sq ft. The current proposal is for 10%. The new code provides reductions of affordable housing requirements if not elimination of them. The new code waives the fees, which they are not asking for in the current proposal. They are trying to develop a project that works and makes sense. Mr. Cunniffe responded to Mr. Tomcich comments stating they have seen an increase in bookings with people frustrated with the lodging in Aspen. The old approval only asked for five units and the current proposal is asking for six. This project has been about 10 years in the works. The bottom line asks if this is a good project and good for the city. In regards to the setbacks, the zero setback is only the deck, but the rest of the building is set back further. Mr. Erspamer closed the applicant’s rebuttal discussion. Mr. Erspamer opened for deliberation by the commissioners. Mr. Erspamer then reviewed the criteria for judgment by the commissioners: on p. 2 of the memo. Ms. Tygre stated her issue has always been to decide if this is still a lodge project. Staff’s opinion is that the changes made by the applicant resulted in it not being a lodge project. If it wasn’t a lodge project, it wouldn’t be eligible for those lodge incentive dimensions. For her, this is the critical issue. Can P&Z consider this a lodge project given the change in the types of ownership? The type of ownership doesn’t really bother her and doesn’t feel lodging has to be little hotel rooms. You do need condominiums because people like to rent them. The question for her is how to guarantee these will be available for short term accommodations and she doesn’t’ feel the commission has the correct tools. She is not sure she can rationally decide if the restrictions in place are enough in regards to the units, restrictions and type of lodge. Ms. Tygre stated a condominium can be a short term accommodation. Certainly Aspen Square is an example. If you took a project like the Boomerang and it was all studio condominiums rented short term, would or would that not qualify as a lodge? Mr. Erspamer stated the application is a nice effort. His concern is that it’s not located south of Durant and it’s not in the central core. He is trying to decide if there have evidence in code to disagree with staff about the mass, scale and character of the neighborhood. Staff is not supportive of the requested dimensional requirements considering the ratios of uses within the project in the neighborhood context. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if the commission is considering the eight free market residential or lodging. Another issue he wanted to raise was if the application should be vested under the new code. Is there too much change requiring too many sweeping decisions. Mr. Erspamer responded he wasn’t sure if the commission’s judgment to call or not. The commission is held to the criteria listed on p. 2 of the memo. Further in the memo it states the application does not go far enough to create a long term sustainable economy because of the ratio of uses. Some things are met. But he still questions if a condominium is a lodge, which he doesn’t think so. But condos could duplicate the need for a lodge provided the owners place the units in a pool for rental. Another idea would be what if they sold the lodge rooms similar to the Stonebridge Inn at Snowmass did about 30 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 years ago. Ms. Tygre added the Inn at Aspen did the same thing. Maybe this project should have more lodge rooms and let them sell them as condominium. He has not been convinced a condominium is a lodge room. Personally, he does not like applying the six month restrictions. He feels if they own it, they should own it outright. Mr. McNellis agrees with the commissioner’s comments. He stated what hasn’t been brought up yet are the discrepancies between this application and it jiving with AACP and R-6 zoned district. He has always had concerns with the mass and scale and is in agreement with staff. He is very supportive of a project here, especially an economy lodge. But he is very concerned about size and scale. He feels he needs to look at this through the lens of the R-6 zone. It would have been very beneficial to see a street scape study to see how it compares to the historic resource as well as the other buildings on Hopkins Ave. He has a feeling because the other buildings were built against the R-6 criteria, the structure will seem looming in comparison. He thinks the design is good, but it does not pay enough credence to the historic resource and other street scape on Hopkins Ave. He is concerned how close it is, especially on Hopkins Ave given the height of the structure. Mr. Gibbs stated he is pretty much in agreement with Brian. He did ride the distance of Hopkins on the way to the meeting and given what he understands about the height of the project, he feels it isn’t compatible with the neighborhood. There are no other buildings on Hopkins Ave over two or three stories tall. It is a nice feeling looking down the street. The character of Hopkins Ave on the west side is residential and he doesn’t feel a building this big belongs there. He was not on the P&Z Commission in 2006, so arguments about what was approved then don’t carry a lot with him. He feels his job is to look at this project against the identified criteria and make a decision. And he feels because the AACP is regulatory in this situation requiring compatibility with the neighborhood and economic sustainability, the concept of selling to obtain capital to do a project won’t sustain the maintenance needs of the building. Fundamentally, he objected to the free market component of Mr. Brown’s project that jutted into the R-6 part of the west end. To be consistent with that decision, he must apply the same criteria in this situation. This project would be fine in the core, but it’s not in the R-6 residential area. If it was all lodging, he could be more supportive, but he also thinks it could be smaller on this site. Mr. Erspamer responded the parking is up to code. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki wanted Mr. Gibb’s to clarify his position that the condominium units, despite being rental, are not to be considered as a lodge. Mr. Gibbs feels that should be defined by the code and the code which must be used to review this application does not define any such thing. So Mr. Gibbs feels it is a good idea, but the code does not support it. The problem is how to define and regulate usage restrictions and the P&Z is not to be making that decision. That needs to be a policy decision from City Council. We shouldn’t be making up what sounds good, we need to complete the evaluation based on the code. Mr. Gibbs does not consider it lodging. He considers it to be in the same position as it was in the last meeting. It is too much free market residential, not enough lodging to justify putting a building of this magnitude in that location. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated because it is a PUD and allowing for an override of the underlying zoning, he is not as concerned about the R-6 zoning. For him, there is an argument to be made that there is enough benefit to having an economy lodge there. There are more rooms than approved in the 2006 submittal and a slight value added having those condos in the rental pool. Perhaps that does justify the greater mass and scale. 15 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Mr. McNellis’s rebuttal is that because it is a PUD, you could ignore the R-6. His point is that everything else in the area was built under the R-6 Zoning. The criteria the commission must use to judge this particular project on points directly to the AACP which states directly to respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Gibbs stated the PUD does not get you out of the underlying zoning. Mr. Goode likes the architecture style but thinks he agrees with the other commissioners. He does have an issue with it being referred to as four story building, but as the applicant pointed out, it is only about 32.5 ft tall. Half of the three story buildings being reviewed are higher than that. He thinks the best thing for the commission to do would be to kick it back and see what the new initiative does with it. Mr. Erspamer would like the City Council to see this application. He is not sure what direction they would go, but he doesn’t feel good having this stop here and feels it should go further. He doesn’t want to change his vote just to have it go further because he doesn’t feel the condominium has been changed enough to be considered a lodge room. He agrees with staff. Ms. Quinn reminded the commission in the context of the staff memo and the staff resolution presented, it deals with the first issue of growth management. If the commissioners haven’t found the growth management criteria are met, then deny that aspect of it and the application does not move forward. What happens in the future is not part of the criteria to be used to judge this application. Ms. Quinn stated if there is additional information the commission needs that might add to the discussion, you can allow a continuance. There was discussion earlier about looking at view scapes along Hopkins, but it is up to the commission. She thought the applicant would prefer a continuance over a denial. Mr. Erspamer then asked the remainder of the commissioners if they wanted to continue or go to a vote. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated perhaps providing drawings showing the street scapes and street sections showing relationships to other buildings to the lodge may help reach a conclusion. Mr. Erspamer stated that would help but would not help him decide whether a condominium is a lodge unit or not. Ms. Tygre thought to answer Mr. Erspamer’s question would require some input from staff in terms to how they can judge where the condominium is really a short term unit. An Aspen Square is a short term condominium and it works exactly the same as a lodge unit. She believes the applicant’s intention is to have the vacation residences work that way, but the commission doesn’t have that kind of information. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15, seconded by Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Erspamer asked if they should go to vote or continue and ask the applicant to provide additional renderings and to increase the number of lodge units. Ms. Tygre stated it’s not the number but the use. Mr. Erspamer feels a lodge is a lodge and a condo is a condo and there are numbers to be determined to make the margins work based on the code. 16 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing on the Boomerang to September 2nd to allow the applicant to address issues about height and scale, provide street scapes and additional information about usage and proposals on controlling usage. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Cunniffe stated it is frustrating to keep coming back. Can we narrow the focus of items to be addressed? Mr. Tygre stated she wants to see the regulation of short term usage and the street scapes with compatibility. Mr. McNellis stated the street scape study for a block on each side showing mass and scale. Mr. Erspamer told the applicant they have done a great job, but there are problems with the semantics. Mr. Erspamer called the motion to vote. The motion carried by a vote of 5 aye and 1 nay. Meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 17