Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20141007Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – September 9, 2014 Mr. Erspamer felt a sentence was incorrect on p 2, last paragraph. Ms. Tygre provided a spelling correction that was acceptable to Mr. Erspamer. Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the September 16, 2014 minutes with the requested spelling correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNellis. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, except Ms. Tygre who abstained, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he has known Mr. John Sarpa for a long time and his wife assisted his children with school in the past. He also stated he recently hired Mr. Alan Richman to address a personal real estate matter. None of these issues have a bearing on the Sky Hotel hearing. Public Hearing – 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel – Planned Development Mr. Erspamer continued the hearing for the Sky Hotel – Planned Development. Ms. Garrow proposed for staff to complete their presentation and then allow the applicant to complete their presentation. Mr. Erspamer agreed. Ms. Garrow continued staff’s presentation including a number of land use reviews. She displayed a vicinity map of the area identifying the location of the Sky Hotel. She entered into record the site visit which occurred earlier in the day. There were a number of neighbors in attendance along with P&Z members including Mr. Walterscheid, Ms. Tygre, Mr. McNellis, Mr. Erspamer, and Mr. Gibbs. There was detailed discussion regarding the alley and she expects it to be brought up in the meeting as well as discussion from the applicant regarding the proposed changes to the alley. There were also questions related to public amenity space. Ms. Garrow noted the Sky’s current location at the base of the mountain next to other lodges including Aspen Square, Alps, St. Regis, Hyatt and Little Nell. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 In terms of the review, P&Z is a recommending body on seven different reviews: 1. Planned Development 2. Commercial Design 3. Conditional Use Review 4. Special Review 5. Timeshare Review 6. Subdivision Review 7. Three Growth Management Reviews The current Sky Hotel has 90 hotel rooms and the proposal includes 102 new lodge units and keys. There will be 103 lodge bedrooms. They are proposing 3,380 sf of commercial space which is a slight decrease from the current sf, so they are not required to obtain a growth management allotment for the commercial replacement. They are proposing five affordable housing units set as a category 3 which will be rental units so lodge employees could live there. Eight free market residential units are proposed. Seventy subgrade parking spaces proposed as well as just over 15,000 of public amenity space including a combination of ground floor space, first floor or site space, second floor as well as a roof top deck. All the space will be permanently publicly accessible. There is a dimensional data chart (Table 1) located on p 16 & 17 of the packet showing accurate and up- to-date values. Overall, the proposal includes just over 97,000 sf of floor area. In the lodge zoned district for a lot of this size, 92,783 sf would be allowed. They are requesting a slight increase through the planned development process. The lot allows for 2.5:1 floor area and they are requesting 2.6:1. Sixty (60%) percent of the building is proposed be lodge, four (4%) commercial, five (5%) affordable housing, twenty (20%) will be free market residential and there is between eleven and twelve (11-12%) that is non-unit space including corridors, lobby, and similar type of spaces. In terms of ratios for the different uses, the proposal is under the amount allowed for the lot. In terms of height, the project is proposed to have varying heights. The lodge zoned district allows heights of 38-40 ft. The applicant is requesting 45 ft at the highest point as the code measures the height. There are varying heights she believes the applicant will discuss further. The proposal also includes one setback reduction for the east side yard. They are requesting 2.8 ft when 5 ft is identified in the code. She provided a drawing displaying the area in the setback difference. In regards to the net lot area calculations, there is a detailed discussion in the memo related to net lot area. Net lot area determines the allowed floor area ratio. In today’s code, areas that were formally vacated right-of-ways are not included in the net lot area calculation. Areas in easements are also not included in the net lot area calculation. For this property a number of street and alley vacations occurred in 1961 and 1962. At that time the code did not require those areas to be deducted from the effective net lot area. Staff and the applicant have gone back to research what happened at that time. Staff is recommending City Council amend the original vacation ordinances to clarify the issue regarding the exchange of property at the time. What was Spring St is now where the Sky Hotel is built. And where Spring St is currently located used to be property. This is an example of the exchange that occurred between the City and property owners at 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 one time. It is staff’s position those areas should be included in the net lot area calculation. In terms of the floor area numbers, staff included those areas. The net lot area does not include an Alps easement which included some parking on the Sky Hotel property. Another area not included in the net lot area calculation is an area partially used by the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The applicant has agreed to remove this area from the net lot area calculations. There are three areas the applicant has requested to vary from the planned development process including floor area, height and the east side yard setback. For the commercial design review, it is a chalet inspired design including varying roof forms. Staff has suggested some simplification of some the roof forms. Staff likes and supports the direction of the chalet inspiration and feels it fits within the character of the area and within the community. The application exceeds the public amenity requirements by quite a bit. Staff feels this is an appropriate location for some lodging massing. Staff is comfortable with the direction of the massing proposed in the floor area and height, but they do think the applicant needs to take a look at the east wing abutting the Aspen Alps, Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont properties. Staff would like to see additional height mass and height variations. Staff does not want them to simply decrease ceiling heights. They would prefer to see additional decks, setbacks. The conditional use review is required for the replacement of the commercial space in a lodge zoned district. There is currently just over 5,000 sf of commercial space in bar areas, restaurants, kitchen, and ski shops. These are all proposed to be replaced in smaller size for a total of just over 3,000 sf. Staff supports the replacement of the commercial space. The special review is required for the parking calculations. There is an easement for Aspen Alps including 13 parking spaces proposed to be maintained. There are 51 parking spaces required for the project and the applicant is proposing 70 spaces in the garage. However, 22 of the spaces are stacked, so only 48 spaces are calculated based on the code. Staff supports the special review request based on the assurances from the applicant that all 70 spaces will be available for visitors of the lodge utilizing valet parking as it is today. There is a conditional approval that each affordable housing unit receives a parking space in the garage. Subdivision and timeshare reviews are required for the timeshare or fractional units. There are three fractional units with a proposed 1/10th interest for a total of 30 interests available for sale. Each interest owner would have five weeks of use and they are required to be available for rental to the public when they are not being used by the owner. Staff supports the timeshare proposal. It is very typical and meets all the applicable code requirements. There a number of growth management reviews. They are required to receive allotments for the 26 new lodge pillows, eight free market residential units and five affordable housing units. There are adequate allotments available to accommodate the request. In terms of mitigation, for the new lodge and free market component, there are 2.15 FTEs required for mitigation of the lodge (additional 26 pillows) and there are just over 3,000 sf of net livable area required to mitigate the additional free market residential space. The applicant is providing five units, including 1.75 FTEs in a one bedroom unit to mitigate for the lodge requirement. There is a .4 FTE deficit the applicant is proposing to make up thru either a cash in lieu of payment or thru housing credits. In terms of the free market residential requirements, the applicant is exceeding the required amount of sf mitigation requirement. The housing board has reviewed the application and recommended in favor of their proposed mitigation and for the applicant to using housing credits instead of the cash in lieu of payment to make up the .4 FTE deficit. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 There were a couple of issues raised by the Development Review Committee (DRC) during its review. One issue is related to parking along Durant as mentioned in the memo on p 23. The packet went out prior to meeting with the Engineering Department. The original DRC comments received from the parking department included five on-street parking spaces at the corner of Durant and Spring, which they wanted to be maintained. In speaking with the city engineer, one of those spaces does not meet our model traffic code or the engineering code in terms of sight lines. The space should probably not be there now. The applicant’s proposal includes significant enhancements at this location including removing the ‘illegal’ space. From the planning department’s perspective, there is not an issue because the applicant will be replacing the four spaces that currently exist per code. The second issue is related to the subgrade garage entrance located on Spring St near the Alps. The Engineering Department has concerns related to access of the garage because it requires traffic to go in a direction it is not supposed to go. The applicant and Engineering Department have met this week to work on alternatives. The Engineering Department is supportive of the direction the applicant has indicated they are going. More detail will be presented on the October 21st meeting. Ms. Garrow provided two additional public comment letters in support received as well as a letter from the applicant’s attorney, Gideon Kaufman (Initially entered as Exhibit E.3, subsequently re-entered as Exhibit E.5 on the October 21st agenda packet). Mr. Kaufman’s letter is in response to Mr. Jody (Joseph) Edwards’s letter included in the packet in Exhibit E.2 (p 102). Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners had any questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow to further describe the location of the variance on the east wing at the end of Dean St that is 2.5 ft. Ms. Garrow described the variance as being in the alley and pointed it out on a drawing displayed on the screen (Exhibit C from September 16th packet). The proposed building extends out further than the existing building. Ms. Garrow described it as the east side yard setback. Mr. Gibbs pointed out it is identified as the easy wing setback in the table, at which Ms. Garrow replied it would be corrected. Mr. Gibbs referred to p 20 of the packet under the Lot Area – Alps Access Easement section. He asked if the 38,913 sf figure represented effective lot area and if it is different from net or gross lot area. Ms. Garrow explained the figure represents the area of the Alps easement. The effective lot area is the same as the net lot area and the actual number is 37, 113 sf. The 38,913 value was an intermediate calculation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) upgrades are required or not. Ms. Garrow responded there is a new transportation mitigation system which was approved by City Council in April, 2014. This is the first application brought forward under the new system. The applicant has included a transportation analysis in the back of their application for the TDMs and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) plan. Their plan has been reviewed by both the Transportation and Engineering Departments and the applicant is exceeding their requirements. Part of the mitigating points for their trips they are receiving stem from the enhanced sidewalk areas, crosswalk areas, and bike racks. Mr. Erspamer asked what qualifications the city requires for those creating the TDMs. Ms. Garrow stated council wanted to in part ease the burden on applicants in the sense they didn’t have to hire their own traffic engineer or set up a situation for dueling traffic engineers at City Council. The city conducted traffic counts for all the land use types and there are standardized trip generation numbers 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 for all the land uses. An applicant can plug in the land use types into the interactive tool to obtain trip generation TDM and MMLOS measures to be selected for mitigation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the resolution included fractionals or not. Ms. Garrow referred Mr. Erspamer to Section 3 of the resolution in which timeshares are explained. Mr. Erspamer asked about employee housing included in Section 5.2 of the resolution on p 28 of the packet. Regarding item d., he wanted to confirm if the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) made the proposal, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed it was an APCHA condition. She stated they typically do this for hotels. Mr. Erspamer wanted to confirm who is responsible for submitting the Subdivision/PD agreement. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant is responsible for this task. This is their project review for the planned development. The applicant goes from P&Z to City Council to obtain approval and then they have to make a second application for a planned development detailed review and final commercial design review which is reviewed by P&Z. Mr. Erspamer asked if there are any regulations for operating a roof-top deck. Ms. Garrow stated there are noise regulations specifying hours. She stated some applicants in the past have stated there would be no usage after a specified time, but it was not a city requirement she is aware of. Mr. Erspamer asked how the city approached identifying Dean as a street or alley. The North of Nell has windows and entrances on the south side. How did the city approach that as according to their definition of streets and alleys, now we have storefronts on an alley or street? Ms. Garrow stated on that side it is a street. She referred the commissioners to Exhibit E.3. An attachment (last page) to Gideon Kaufman’s letter is from a 2006 staff memo addressing this issue during the applicant’s last request for redevelopment. There is detailed information related to how Dean is sometimes labeled on maps, but this is an alley between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont properties. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Garrow was familiar with the Fox Crossing instance when Race Alley was changed to Race Street and wanted to know if it was the same philosophy. Ms. Garrow did not believe it was. This instance was part of the 1896 Willits map, so it was just how it was platted and how areas were annexed. From a city perspective, this is an alley. Mr. Erspamer asked if any of the requests are memorialized under DRC. Ms. Garrow stated the applicable comments have been incorporated into the resolution. Requirements related to oil and gas, separators and other technical requirements are included. Mr. Erspamer referenced on p 111 the drainage number one is in the mudflow zone. He asked if the applicant would have to mitigate the request. Ms. Garrow stated something like the example provided would be reviewed in the detail review. She referenced p 30 of the packet, Section 8.1 of the resolution which includes a detailed requirement for the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. If there were any issues it would be caught either during the detailed plan review or building permit application. Mr. Erspamer asked about the DRC comments referencing something being illegal. Ms. Garrow stated it was the fifth parking space on Durant mentioned earlier in the meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked what determines a lodge. Ms. Garrow stated it’s the usage. A lodge is meant for short-term rental. The land use code has some limitations on how long you can stay in a lodge unit, which is 30 consecutive days at one time and up to 90 days in a calendar year. For a residential unit, 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 there is no such limitations. He asked for a clarification on fractional or free market be considered a lodge unit. Ms. Garrow stated a free market condominium is a free market residential unit. The fractional units are considered lodge units or fractional lodge units. Mr. Erspamer asked if they would need a front desk, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals only require 30 days advance notice of availability at which Ms. Garrow stated she believed that to be correct. She further stated in a proposal like this, the fractional units are taking advantage of and using the same front desk, food and other services of the traditional lodge units. Mr. McNellis asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement on the calculations at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He also asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement about the requirements for fractionals being used at which Ms. Garrow replied yes and that it was included in the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if all the numbers are correct at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He then asked if there was any six month availability on the free market condominium units. Ms. Garrow replied the free market residential units are wholly owned and one person can live there full time. They may rent it if they want under the short term rental program, but they are not required to rent the unit. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. He recapped their partial presentation from the previous meeting starting with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls out for lodges including a diverse bed base, diverse price point which this project is all about. The obsolescence of the build was discussed. He displayed a picture of the roof that needs to be fully replaced. In summary regarding the architecture, they want the building to look like it belongs in Aspen. A couple of key points covered previously include their desire to keep the same clientele and the mid-priced rate. The hotel is all about public spaces including the roof and second floor. He mentioned APCHA has already unanimously approved their affordable housing plan. About 66% of the building in regards to height, meets the current dimensional requirements which means it is 40 ft or less. The highest peak on Durant St. is 52 ft and has a 45 ft by the City’s measurement. He re-emphasized the Triumph report, commissioned by the Community Development Department. He feels it is a good look what is required to build a 100 room hotel and make it mid-priced at the base of the mountain. The report looks at height, floors, composition of units. The eight residential fit the current code. They are either 1,500 sf or 2,000 sf done with transferrable development rights (TDRs). They are not asking for variances. Their outreach was discussed previously including hundreds of people using their website. They have had extensive outreach with the Glory Hole and the Nell. The applicant was able change a few things objected to by the Glory Hole and the Nell. He wanted to encourage the commissioners to look at the letters coming from a broad range of individuals that have come in since the last meeting. Ms. Sara Broughton, principal of Rowland Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the proposal. She walked thru their design process by first displaying the 1896 Sanborn Map showing the existing Sky Hotel and neighboring properties including the Little Nell, Aspen Alps, Glory Hole, 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The team viewed this early vicinity map to determine the pattern of development at the time. She showed there was a zero lot line development. They then performed a figure ground study displaying the footprints of the buildings in the City core and analyzed their heights. From the map displayed the buildings in gray are one to two story. The buildings in yellow are three story structures. The buildings in red are four story structures. The buildings in purple are five story structures. She pointed out landmark or iconic buildings defining Aspen including the following. • Court House (3 story, 47 ft); • Hotel Jerome (3-4 story, 54 ft) • Elks Building (3 story, 48 ft) Buildings neighboring the Sky Hotel included the following. • Aspen Square (4 story, 41 ft) • Limelight Hotel (4 story, 42 ft) • North of Nell (4 story, 35 ft) • Residences of the Little Nell (4 story) • Little Nell Hotel (45 ft) • St. Regis (58 ft) • Mountain Chalet (combination of 4 & 5 story, 52 ft) The pattern of development as you move south and closer to Aspen Mountain, the building are taller and particularly as you move up Galena St, there are some four and five story buildings including the Gant and the Aspen Alps. She also pointed out the Wheeler which is 64 ft tall. The next comparison she shared was an analysis of the lot of the Sky Hotel. The viewed the size of other Aspen hotels on the Sky Hotel lot to make sure they are compatible. She displayed the footprints of several hotels including the Hotel Jerome. This study pointed out they were consistent in regards to size and mass with other hotels. She then showed a diagram used to analyze different size rooms. Currently the Sky Hotel has an average size of 342 sf which does not meet current hotel standards. They are proposing 417 sf hotel rooms, which is still considerably smaller than the Limelight’s rooms. She then discussed their approach to the architecture was to bring back the chalet style. This was a popular for early American ski towns in the 1950’s. They wanted to bring a modern interpretation of the chalet style back in the design. She identified and displayed examples of the characteristics of the chalet style including wooden balconies, horizontal design features, stucco and wood, sloped roofs, open views, wood siding. She also displayed examples of modern interpretations of the style throughout Europe. They also looked at nature to inform them on patterns, scale, and textures. She then provided slides showing design perspectives. It was important to fit it in with the context of Aspen Mountain. It was also important to fit the architect with the context of the local neighborhood. The design utilizes horizontal designs, balconies, and sloped roof lines to break up the mass of the building. The front door opens to a double height lobby and lounge space including a community living room. The pool sits below the roofline so it is not visible. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 She then walked through the floor plans. On the ground level, they are increasing the width of the sidewalks, resolving some of the current grade issues. On the second level, there is an indoor/outdoor lounge area. It is reduced in size from the current outdoor pool area and it is moved west and up one floor. A buffer wall has been included as a sound buffer and visual separation from the neighbors. On the roof top, the area is never less than 10 ft from the side of the building. It is separated in to three zones, all accessed through the elevator and the stairs. There is a main lounge area and further east there is a relaxation area and continuing east is the quite area. This will be a public area. She then discussed the uses for each level. The basement level which will include parking, public ski lockers, meeting areas, fitness area and lodge and hotel uses. On the ground level there is the front door entering into the public area, lobby, affordable housing units and hotel lodge use. On the second level, there is the indoor/outdoor lounge, kitchen, public areas and hotel lodge use. On the third level is mainly hotel and lodge with some public area. On the fourth floor there is more public area, hotel lodge use and residential units. She then discussed the lobby space and displayed visuals of the space. John Sarpa then discussed the neighborhood compatibility including views, height and mass. In this lodge zone there are quite a few other buildings 45 ft and taller. This project is in the lodge zone where it belongs. It’s not a lodge preservation area where the criteria is much different. He then read the definition of a lodge zone from the code. High occupancy lodging is the primary purpose of zone. When trying to balance the community interests, they started by looking the underlying zoning. He stated they have tried to work with staff and be sensitive to the issues of height and mass. In regards to views, he recognizes there are protected view planes in Aspen, but this not one of them. He then walked thru the shadow study view planes based on three times in a year and three times during one day. The view planes showed the existing and new shadow areas. He recognized the alley is icy and dangerous now from the existing building. In regards to heights, he stated they worked with a number of neighbors to improve the building from when it was first submitted. It was submitted in June. The Glory Hole residents asked them to consider pulling a unit back to open sight lines. The current application reflects this request. They are very aware of discussion of concerns from other neighbors based on a previous consideration of the hotel. Knowing this, they pushed back the units on the alley side. In regards to mass, their current mass is 43,000 sf. The new mass is 97,000 sf based on the following. 1. Increased average size of rooms 2. Removal of exterior hallways 3. Inclusion of four affordable housing units 4. Addition of residential component In regards to noise, Mr. Sarpa stated it is an important concern. He wanted to point out there are good codes in place. The Sky needs to be lively fun place, but with a sensitivity to the neighbors and community in general. The operator in Kimpton is seasoned and have been running the hotel for 12 years. They have also been working with acoustic engineer for many weeks and will submit a study by next meeting including what is projected in decibels and the impacts to all the neighbors. They are also 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 working with sound specialists on the equipment to minimize the projection of the sound. The plan includes a quiet zone on the roof. He also reminded the commissioners the pool deck is 42 in below the roof line which will act as a barrier. Mr. Sarpa then discussed value & fairness. There has been discussion about the applicant stealing dollars and value from neighbors and putting it into the Sky building. He stated there are no code provisions for economic transfer from neighbors. He believes building a new hotel is a positive impact. Mr. Sarpa then discussed traffic and parking. They have been making good progress with the City Engineer. They are refining the plan and they will be providing a plan once the engineering staff approves it. The area in the alley is very busy with 19 surface parking spaces, underground parking entrance, trash trucks and delivery trucks. They plan to eliminate their parking spaces in the alley and once the entrance is moved to the other side of the building, the traffic will be reduced dramatically. Based on a request by a Chateau Dumont owner to make the alley much more park-like. Mr. Sarpa proceeded to plan with this request in mind. The design team proposed to both the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont to move three parking spaces and leave one. They offered to put the three spaces in the garage for free. The other owners did not want this and wanted to keep the surface parking spaces. The design team had also proposed changing the direction of the traffic. The design team is open to taking whatever direction determined by the City and the neighbors. They have no strong preference. Another issue was the determination of Dean Street or Dean Alley. He stated it has been defined as an alley. Mr. Sarpa stated when they first applied, they did not request a floor area ratio (FAR) variance. After Mr. Edwards and his clients stated they have the right to drive over the Sky’s land which he pointed out on a map displayed. Mr. Sarpa stated they took that part of land out of the FAR calculation and by doing so, it requires them to ask for a variance for roughly 5,000 sf. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions of the staff and the applicant. Mr. Gibbs asked staff about the research into the 1960 thru 1962 ordinances, did they get a sense of the land exchange ratio. Ms. Garrow stated unfortunately not because the records in the 1960’s are less than complete, the minutes are not clear and the actual text of the ordinances simply declare an emergency and the land is exchanged. There are copies of the ordinances in the agenda packet and the application. She further stated it is clear from the records we do have, there was some reason City Council felt it was important to move the location of Spring St and that is when the exchange mainly occurred. Mr. James True, City Attorney, also added that it is hard to tell what the ratio was but it appears the Spring St right-of-way was wider than the new Spring St. It doesn’t look to be equal, but it is hard to tell because there is not enough data on it. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant how they will enforce the quiet zones. Mr. Sarpa stated management is aware and when an event is booked, they have to know what the regulations are involved and share that information. If and when an event exceeds acceptable levels of noise, then management will directly deal with it. So part of it is contractual and part of is management must be vigilant to ensure they are adhered to. 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to confirm there will be three levels of sound for the three zones on the rooftop and how would the standards be set for the zones. Mr. Sarpa described the two zones, one being public and the quiet areas as non-public. The non-public areas are designed to be quiet. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to repeat the shadow studies, not assuming the footprints of the buildings. He wants to see the shadows as they show on the buildings. Mr. Sarpa replied they could provide the study. Ms. Tygre asked if the pool would be open to the public at which Mr. Sarpa replied yes. She asked what would happen if the public became so popular in the summer that everyone brings their kids to play and it interferes with enjoyment by the guests. Mr. Cory Enloe stated they currently deal with this now and it depends on the time of day. There are also spend requirements during peak usage times. He stated it regulates itself. If it gets too rowdy, parents will leave. The new design provides a quiet area for the guests. Ms. Tygre has a concern about conflicts between public and private. She also wanted to clarify if the free market residential units on the top floor include TDRs. Mr. Sarpa stated there are five units that need TDRs and three that do not. The displayed footprint includes the units requiring the TDRs. Mr. McNellis asked the applicant if the neighboring properties including the Alps and the Chateau Dumont deal with similar spring runoff issues including seepage of water into foundation areas. Mr. Sarpa stated he cannot answer for how the surrounding properties deal with the issues. Mr. Sunny Vann relayed the story about part of Aspen being evacuated from a threat of mudflows from a very wet spring. Subsequent to that event, City undertook a 100 year mud flow evaluation and mapped various zones of increasing vulnerability. One small corner near the garage (southwest corner of the building) encroaches into the mud flow zone. All the engineering department asked the applicant to demonstrate the construction is sufficient to mitigate potential impacts. An analysis will be conducted to handle the pressures. A drainage plan will also address upslope draining as well. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Garrow if she had a copy of the map. Ms. Garrow stated she would ask the Engineering Department for a copy of the map including the entire runoff area. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant had considered snowmelting for Dean Alley. Mr. Sarpa stated snowmelting of that size is typically frowned upon because of the energy required. You can’t use solar so you would have to use boilers. From an energy standpoint it is not feasible. Mr. Sarpa stated they would be open to snowmelting certain areas to make it safer. Mr. Erspamer asked about the Triumph study and asked Ms. Garrow to confirm that staff had stated not to pay attention to the study. Ms. Garrow replied she intended to attach it to the packet, but had not. She will attach it for the next time. It was a report the City commissioned related to the feasibility of lodge development in the lodge zoned district. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant to confirm if the previously stated 60% was the percentage of units or floor area. Ms. Garrow and Mr. Sarpa both stated it was the floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any mechanical (elements) on the gabled roofs? Mr. Sarpa state it will be located on the ground. 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked where the elevator overruns would be located. Mr. Sarpa replied they would be about 12 feet from the roof deck to the top. The roof deck is sunken 42 inches. Ms. Garrow stated they would look at this and clarify for the next meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any LEED certification. Mr. Sarpa stated it has not yet been contemplated and they have not selected a LEED level yet. Mr. Erspamer asked if they know who the acoustic engineer is for the applicant. Mr. Sarpa stated the acoustic engineer is D L Adams from Denver. Mr. Erspamer asked if the top of the gable roof was lowered to 40 ft, would it eliminate the extra 5,000 sf they are asking for. And would it bring the edges below the ground? Ms. Broughton replied they would have to study it. Mr. Erspamer asked if the application needs to meet zoning and vacated areas code, specifically code section 26.710.024. Ms. Garrow stated that section does apply to the application that is why there is a discussion in the memo related to the vacated rights of way and the city’s code changed in 1988. Prior to 1988 areas in vacated rights of way were not deducted from lot area and after 1988 they were deducted. That is why staff is proposing the City Council amend those ordinances to clearly state the lot area should not be deducted. Mr. Gibbs then asked if we can make this a condition of the approval. Mr. True stated it would have to be done. Mr. Gibbs asked what if City Council decides not to amend the ordinances. Mr. True stated that would be a different issue. Mr. True stated you would have to assume City Council would amend the ordinances for the application to be approved. He stated P&Z could put it in as a recommendation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant has firm sf numbers instead of approximate in regards to the net leasable square footage. Mr. Vann stated the amount of sf was reduced significantly, he stated approximately. It is irrelevant because they will be building back less than what exists today. Ms. Garrow stated they currently have about 5,200 sf and they are proposing 3,300 sf. Mr. Erspamer asked if the spa is for the public or for the owners. Mr. Sarpa stated there is no spa. Mr. Erspamer asked the height of the railings. Ms. Broughton stated 42 inches which is international building code. The rooftop creates a railing around the top to the building. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals would be made available 30 days before to the public. Mr. Vann stated it is a requirement of the city code. Their time share use plan must be in compliance with the City’s timeshare regulations. They are not requesting any variances. Mr. Erspamer asked if they have a computer rendering of the neighborhood including Dean and Spring. Mr. Scott McHale stated they have not been fully rendered. Mr. Sarpa stated they have one looking down at the Chateau Chaumont looking from original back down the alley toward the building. Mr. Gibbs wanted to clarify on the shadow studies to see the west side of Dumont as well as the south. Ms. Broughton agreed. Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Ms. Kathy Weiss has a unit in Chateau Dumont on the northwest corner. She asked Mr. Sarpa if the shadow study included the area between the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont. Mr. Erspamer stated Mr. Sarpa would address the question after public comment has been closed. She would like to see a shadowing on the restricted easement between the buildings. She also wanted to point out the new building would shroud the two Chateau buildings in shadow if built as proposed. She feels it is not being sensitive to the neighbors. The corner where the current entrance to the 39 degree bar is located is very busy. She stated there are many times with cars with local plates have parked in their four spaces. Mr. John Corcoran is the general manager of the Aspen Alps. He wanted to acknowledge he has worked with the design team and holds them in high regard. He referred to a letter their attorney sent to Mr. Sarpa back in June outlining some concerns of the Aspen Alps about the project. He wanted review a couple of them. Mr. Sarpa has met with Mr. Corcoran, the board president and the representative of building 100. The first concern is the height of the building, specifically on the east side. He was pleased to hear staff’s comments regarding the size and mass of the building. He fells it will have an excessive affect by eliminating existing views, ambient light and the residences in the 100 building are concerned about a tunnel effect that may occur. The architecture on the entire side was telling of accommodations made. He does not feel there have been any accommodations made on the Aspen Alps side of the building. He feels it is a bit monolithic and walling us off from community. The construction plan he viewed on August 8th included a fencing off of the parking spaces at the 100 building. He understands the applicant has proposed the parking arrangements for 10 months during the construction. But he has been told that the blocked access can only exist with an agreement and there is no such agreement. Mr. Corcoran then stated the noise is a big issue. He can hear the noise from inside the building. He acknowledged he and Cory have tried to work on the issue. Sometimes their mitigating efforts work and sometimes they don’t. He knows it is a difficult and negative element. There are people trying to sleep that are closer to the music than people working in the Sky Hotel. One of his concerns with moving the pools up without mitigation will be that the problem will be moved past the 100 and 200 buildings up the hill to the 500, 700 and 800 buildings. Mr. Corcoran is also concerned about the stability of the soils. The Aspen Alps has experienced movement in the buildings in the past. His final concern is in regards to the traffic on Spring St during the season is a nightmare. Delivery Trucks, vans, cars. Mr. David Perry with the Aspen Skiing Company, is representing the Aspen Skiing Company. They also own and operate the Little Nell Hotel as well as the Limelight Hotel. He feels there is a very strong need for redevelopment, replacement of the lodging sector. The minimum figures show for the past 20 years or so the community has lost in the excess of 2,000 pillows of rentable bed space and more than 20 small lodges. The lodging base has been in decline. Comparable areas have had their lodging base increased. In tracking the next generation of visitors, we need moderate priced lodging and a young, vibrant property. He also described his three bubble chart as it covers the tourism economy. The three sectors that have to be in balance for everything to work properly include access (air, roads, etc.), facilities (mountain, restaurants and activities), and lodging. Lodging is slipping out of balance. They hear it from guests, surveys, international tour operators. The offerings here are inconsistent. He is also speaking on behalf of the Little Nell, the Sky’s direct neighbor. The Little Nell is a four story building that is 45 ft high. The third and fourth floors facing the Sky Hotel will absolutely be directly impacted by the size of the buildings. He anticipates the construction to impact and the view planes will be negatively 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 impacted. He expects noise from the roof to be an issue and he stated the project team has been receptive to comments. He stated they support the Sky Hotel development and will accept the tradeoffs of the issues. Mr. Michael Neuman owns a unit in the Chateau Chaumont and has been coming to Aspen for 50 years. He and his wife have skied all over the country and Europe and the chose Aspen when they decided to buy. He asked Ms. Garrow if she could display a picture of Spring St towards the mountain as it exists today. She replied she did not. Currently he is thrilled to see the mountain as he drives up the street. He feels people come to Aspen to see the mountain, not the hotels. He has noticed over the years, the buildings are getting larger in height and mass. He stated it was ‘Vailinating’. He stated the displays shown by the applicant of other buildings in Aspen did not show the distance between buildings. He is purporting the vertical side of the proposed hotel is very close to the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He thinks it should be part of the discussion. He also noticed the applicant was kind enough to set back the fourth floor. He also noticed the setback does not run the entire length of the building. Mr. Sarpa asked if he was referring to the top or the bottom. Mr. Erspamer stopped the conversation and asked Mr. Neuman to phrase a question the applicant can respond to later in the meeting. He also wanted to know if the setback on the top floor runs the entire length of the east-west wing of the building. His last question was in the dramatic increase of sf of the proposed building, it provides for an increase of 90-102 beds or pillows. It seems like an awful lot of new space for a relatively small percentage gained in rooms or pillows. Mr. Martin Mata, an architect in the valley for twenty-something years, referred to a shadow study completed at the request of the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont. The study shows some of the impact the Sky Hotel will have on the two neighboring properties. The study was divided into three categories including visual impacts, shadow impacts, and urban space impacts. Although there are not protected corridors, the impacts to the two properties are very, very real. No matter where you are looking at the new building from the two properties (third floor, first floor, inside, outside, etc.), the existing views of the ski trails and gondola are pretty much gone. In addition, the new building has in effect a fifth story roof top deck. The emergency stair towers, elevator shaft, the shaped structures will be visible from the second and third floors of the Chateau buildings. The largest impact they believe will be sound. It will be interesting to see what the engineers say about it, but we all know sound carries extremely well, especially on a quiet night. All it takes is two people have a conversation can be very annoying to someone trying to sleep. With the Sky looking for the young clientele, it doesn’t combine with the family oriented uses in the surrounding neighbors. The shadow impacts show the shadows interact with the façade of the two buildings. The things to note here are these impacts will start sometime in late September through March. The impacts cover the entire winter season, forever. The microclimate of the Dean St. will be colder and the ice situation worse. The urban space impact involves the main entrance to the Chateau buildings. He compared Dean (alley/street) between the Sky Hotel – Chateau and the more open North of Nell and residences of the Little Nell building. He commended staff for asking the applicant to address the height. Mr. Gibbs then made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:30 pm. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs, Mr. McNellis, and Mr. Erspamer vote yes. Ms. Tygre votes no. Motion carries with a vote of 3:1. Ms. Cindy Dillon lives on the third floor of the Chateau Chaumont. She and her husband chose their condominium to relax and to obtain rental income. She feels the Sky’s proposal will eliminate both of these reasons. She leads a busy life and needs the tranquility her unit provides. Many of their reviews on 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) mention the views and how quiet it is. They usually rent their unit to one to two families or eight people. The proposal eliminates the two reasons for purchasing unit. She spoke with CJ Oliver regarding the noise ordinance. He stated from 7am to 11pm, there is a 65 decibel level in Aspen. It drops to 60 decibels from 11pm to 7am. According to CJ, just two people have a normal conversation is 60-65 decibels. She stated 45 decibels can wake a sleeping person. She provided other examples including a dance club with 110 decibels, rock music has 110-130 decibels, and idling truck has 72 decibels from 24 ft away. This is a very big concern for her. The noise carries more in the mountains due to the low humidity. Currently she can be awakened by two people talking outside at 2am. On Labor Day, the police were called at 2am because 5-6 people were talking in the court yard. There were also called on the same day because maybe 10 people were sitting in a Jacuzzi playing music. Their buildings are very subject to the noises with elderly and families. They don’t want their views to disappear or the noise to be heard. They understand they need to renovate, but not at their financial and emotional expense. Mr. Todd Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit purchased in 1975. He has the same concerns that have been mentioned about height, size, views, and sound. Another concern he has is the amount of setback from Dean St for the proposed building. He doesn’t feel they can marshal all their building equipment, supplies and activities on the proposed setback without shutting down Dean St which their only means of access. Previously, his wife had to call the rescue squad for him. The ambulance came down Dean St for him. If in the future an ambulance cannot access the building and someone dies, it will be because of the Sky Hotel and the P&Z commission allowing the building without the setbacks. Ms. Carrie Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit #14. Everyone visiting their unit enjoys the views of Aspen Mountain. The bedrooms have views and light coming in. She is an artist and often paints with the light. Years ago, their 90 year old Mothers visited and she cannot imagine walking down Dean St if it were any icier. She is concerned about the shadows affecting the melting ice and snow. Several years ago her husband collapsed and she called 911. If the street had been blocked by vehicles, it’s questionable if he would have received the timely treatment he needed. Dean Alley is their main access. Mr. Jody Edwards is representing Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He will not regurgitate the letter on p 102 of the packet, but he asked P&Z to please read it. He wanted to comment on the Triumph Report. It seems to be very short on detail but it appears to assume you are buying the land and you need the free market units to make it work financially. That is not the case here. More importantly regarding the assumption of the mid-priced hotel unit, there is nothing in the application stating they are going to deed restrict the price of the units. What they are going to do, is that they will charge whatever the price they can get. If it’s $1,000 per night or $400 per night, that is what they will charge. This is not a mid-priced location. In regards to compatibility with the neighborhood, Gideon’s letter he received at 3:35pm, he quotes the standard stating the project should be compatible with or enhance the cohesiveness of the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development pattern. He told that is what P&Z should be thinking about. The development patterns are a little different than the other 40 ft tall buildings. The patterns here include 2-3 story buildings on three sides. In regards to Dean St, an eight year old staff memo does not operate to set aside or trump existing code. He referenced his letter describing the code as defining Dean as a street and not an alley. Given that it is a street, the applicant should address the special review criteria for trash and delivery areas. If it is done it will make more sense to relocate the trash and delivery area. On the direction of travel, during the site visit representations were made that the applicant does not care which direction the traffic flows. The Chateau owners need clarity. If the traffic goes clockwise, it will force exits onto Durant which would be 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 dangerous. The eastern wing should remain the height it is today which is compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Casandra Foister is the Director of Marketing at the Sky. She wants to follow up on what Mr. Perry stated previously. She travels everywhere to sell the Sky and she always sells the destination first. The way it sits right now, she is having a difficult time selling it. She is losing it to other resorts, not competitors. We are not getting the young crowd. She knows others are worried about it, but that can’t keep going with the way it is. Mr. Peter Grenney agrees with Casandra. The town doesn’t match the building and it is a dated facility. It is a progressive community and we need to work with the owners and rehab the building. It is a vital asset for visitors and locals. He supports the application. Mr. Skippy Mesirow has lived here nine years and lives a couple blocks from the Sky. He understands this is not a perfect project. He sees a continued encroachment on height on the town as well as free market residential in yet another building. It is the economics and the laws that we have. We have gone into a direction of incentivizing projects that we need as a community. In this way, the applicant has approached this within the letter of the law and we need to respect that and perhaps revisit this as a community. As it stands, it is a great project that speaks to the history and future of Aspen. This project speaks to bring back the vitality that is part of Aspen’s soul. If this project is not built, there’s going to be something that is shorter and smaller but will be prohibitively expensive and keep young people from coming to this town and will continue the trend of the aging of Aspen. He encourages everyone to work with the applicant. He supports the project. Ms. Crystal Logan, director of the Aspen Community Programs at the Aspen Institute, is representing the nonprofit sector from the ACRA board. She grew up here in the valley and she agrees with Mr. Mesirow, Mr. Grenney, and Mr. Perry. She feels the city staff has been thoughtful and responsive. She feels we need to find ways to update the bed base. She feels we have lost a considerable amount of moderately based lodges in town. Instead of leaving things to market forces, we should be proactive in supporting the lodges that are in a position to upgrade. She is in favor of the project and feels it ads vitality to the resort. Ms. Briana Von Ohlen is the Food and Beverage Director at the Sky Hotel. She has worked there for five years at 39 Degrees. She feels it is a unique property in that it welcomes locals and tourists making it a unique place to blend and for everyone to interact. In regards to the lounge, there are multiple times it will rain during après ski inside, not outside. The building and product no longer reflects who they are and they cannot stay competitive. She is in favor of the project. Mr. Malik Enloe is the son of Corey Enloe who is the general manager of the Sky Hotel. He agrees with Mr. Mesirow and feels we should focus on the big picture aspect because we are competing with the big resorts. A lot of what he has heard tonight is that some want to keep Aspen as it has been for many years. He has learned lately that humans do not like change and what they want Aspen to be may not what Aspen needs to be. Mr. Erspamer then asked the board for any questions or clarifications regarding public comment. Mr. Erspamer requested that Mr. Edwards client’s issues were included in the minutes. 15 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Erspamer then opened for staff rebuttal and clarification of the evidence presented by the applicant. Given the remaining time available, Ms. Garrow requested the commission provide direction so she can provide clarification at the next meeting. Mr. Sarpa agreed. Mr. Erspamer closed staff and applicant rebuttal Mr. Erspamer stated it was an awesome presentation. He finds it challenging to know when you provide a benefit to one party, it takes something away from another. The project is good and has all the bells and whistles for what the community wants. He feels they have no criteria to evaluate regarding the views. He encouraged the applicant to listen to the requests of the neighbors as stated by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Erspamer stated he would like to see a 10pm deadline on the roof top. He feels it would be the only way it would fly in the community. He understated the Sky wants to provide a fun atmosphere, but neighbors want to sleep. He encouraged the applicant to be aware of the quality of life as included in the AACP. He is also concerned about circulation and wondered what would happen if the building was dropped five feet. Mr. McNellis likes the project and the direction it is going. He felt the site visit revealed a lot to him. He hears what the adjacent property owners are saying and agrees there should be a greater nod the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. He’s not sure what that is, but would like to see the applicant accommodate their needs better. He likes the possibility of the vitality the project could bring to the area. He is likely to vote in favor if some of issues could be accommodated. It was stated the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont don’t want their surface parking removed. He would like to know if there could be improvements made to Dean St to make it a social and community amenity for the Sky Hotel, Chateau Chaumont, Chateau Dumont and the entire community. He would also like to see it explored if there are any mud flow accommodations that could be made for the Aspen Alps as a nod to them. Mr. Gibbs feels the shadowing on the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont are the biggest issue in his mind. He thinks quality of life is important. While they don’t have an explicit criteria in the code, it’s certainly part of the AACP which underpins all P&Z considerations. He wants to look at the shadowing in more detail. Ms. Tygre has a real problem with the roof pool. She feels there will be real conflict between public and private uses of the building. It seems to her the building is upside down. A lot of the problems would be resolved if the applicant did not have the roof top pool. She also questioned the amount of free market space and would like to hear a justification of how selling free market units one time will continue to fund a hotel operation for the next 20 years. This has never been answered to her satisfaction. She would also like to see story poles. Mr. Gibbs moved to continue the meeting to October 21, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 16 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 17