Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20141021Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid and Keith Goode. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer stated he objects to the current method used to obtain feedback from commissioners. Instead of email, he feels it should be handled in in a public meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow wanted to notify the commissioners she had sent out emails to them regarding the outreach for lodging. Staff is trying to obtain additional feedback prior to making changes to the previously named lodge incentive program. There will be four meetings upcoming the last week of October. She asked the commissioners and the public to RSVP to her. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he had written a letter to council regarding the Triumph Study previous to the Sky Hotel application. He feels it was done by a special interest group and should be disregarded in its entirety. Public Hearing – 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel – Planned Development Mr. Erspamer opened the continued hearing for the Sky Hotel – Planned Development. Ms. Garrow provided a review of the application. The property is located at the base of Aspen Mountain along Durant Ave and Spring St. 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 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 She stated the applicant has modified their proposal. The project now includes 106 units and keys with 107 total bedrooms for an increase of four units. The number of commercial and affordable housing units remain the same. They have decreased the amount of free market residential units by two. Seventy subgrade parking spaces are still in the application along with 13 at-grade spaces dedicated to the Aspen Alps. The public amenity space is slightly above 13,000 sf. She then showed slides depicting the dimensions for the original and revised proposals. Overall, the sf has decreased. There has been about a 5% increase in the lodge space to about 65%. There was a decrease in free market residential space. The proposal still has varying heights with the highest point being 45 ft. They are requesting a variance for the elevator overrun of 4 ft where 50 ft is allowed. This is clarified in the resolution. This is needed to provide ADA access because it is a publicly accessible roof. There have been various height reductions in the roof lines. On the Dean Alley side there is a changed roof form along the east side. There is also a lowered gable along Durant Ave. There are some decreases in the fourth floor footprint along the alley towards Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont as well as the area facing the Aspen Alps. She displayed a slide showing the outline of the building where it was in the original proposal and where it is in the current proposal. Additional slides demonstrated the differences between the original and current proposal for the Dean Alley side as well as the Aspen Alps side. Staff feels the changes made went a long way in addressing concerns from staff and the commissioners. The applicant continues to ask for a small setback variance along the alley. The net lot area is the same in this proposal as the original. It does include the former vacated rights of way from 1961 and 1962. Staff feels this is an appropriate location for some lodging massing and the applicant has addressed the mass and scale, particularly on the east wing. The current proposal decreases the amount of commercial space, but the same character of what currently exists. The current proposal includes 70 spaces in the garage. Fifty-one spaces are required for the project. Because of the way stacked spaces are counted per code, the calculated total is 48, which is three spaces less than required. Staff believes the number of spaces available is appropriate based on the nature of the garage and valet operation. In regards to the timeshare review, the original proposal requested three fractional units and the current proposal requests five fractional units. There were two free market units that turned into lodge fractional units. In regards to the Growth Management Review, the current proposal is requesting 34 lodge pillows with 17 lodge bedrooms, six free market residential units, and five affordable housing units. With the changing in the massing, they now meet the affordable housing requirements. They are meeting the FTE requirement in both the lodge and free market residential areas. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Some of the other issues brought up in the previous meeting: • The Engineering department had concerns around the valet area and the garage entrance. The project team met with the Engineering department and have created valet parking on the property instead of the street. The building has been pulled back on Spring St to accommodate the valet area and parking spaces. The Engineering department feels this issue has been resolved with these changes. • There were a number of noise concerns by the members of the public as well as the P&Z. Staff has conferred with the Environmental Health Department and have added a condition to the resolution recommending a detailed noise study be required as part of the detailed planned development review. The applicant has provided a noise study as part of the revised proposal. The Environmental Health Department feels this a good first step. The applicant will review the study in more detail. • Members of P&Z requested shadow studies from the previous meeting which have been included in the current proposal. • Other issues were raised previously regarding the alley. Ms. Garrow stated Dean is an alley and not a street. In regards to the direction on Dean Alley, the Engineering Department recommends maintaining the current direction of traffic on Dean Alley which will be incorporated into the resolution. Ms. Garrow provided a slide showing a snapshot of a 1969 engineering map depicting Dean as a street. After block 102 it turns into an alley. • P&Z had requested a copy of the mudflow map which is now included in the packet. Ms. Garrow provided a slide showing a portion of the Sky Hotel in the mud flow area. The applicant is required to address this as part of the detailed review. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the project. The P&Z’s recommendation would be recommending Council to approve the project. Ms. Garrow has provided a red lined version of the resolution. There were a few scrivener’s errors regarding the numbers in the table that have been corrected. Ms. Garrow wanted to point out the additional section on p. 9 of the resolution in the packet requiring the applicant to meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place, specifically all ground floor affordable housing units having access to the interior corridors to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Garrow also wanted to point out they have received a few letters from the public. These additional letters are included in exhibit E.7. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for any questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked when the noise study p 6 of the packet would be submitted. Ms. Garrow stated the study would be submitted as part of their detail review of the Planned Development Detail review. Mr. Gibbs asked for the study be required at application. Mr. McNellis asked about the standards for the public amenity space and design standards in the Planned Development review. Ms. Garrow replied standards are included in the packet starting on p 26. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked what it would take to convert the entire lodge into a fractional. Ms. Garrow stated a Land Use and Subdivision Review would be possible. He then asked if there was anything in the code currently to prevent lodges from being converted to fractionals. Ms. Garrow stated a fractional is a type of ownership, it is not a type of use. In regards to renting the fractional units there are protections in place for the owners and renters. Mr. Erspamer asked for a definition of the commercial design simplifications as listed on p 20 of the 9/16/2014 packet. Ms. Garrow stated there were a number of forms along the Alps side of the project. Staff asked the applicant to reduce the number of forms which they have in the current proposal. Mr. Erspamer asked for the definition of open space. Ms. Garrow stated public amenity space must be open to space. The applicant is proposing a combination of at grade public amenity space, second floor space and rooftop space. All the spaces have public access. Mr. Erspamer stated he looked in the resolution and did not see a time identified for the public amenity space. He asked if there should be a time when the public should not have access to the area. Ms. Garrow stated although resolutions do not typically include a time limit for public amenity space, a recommendation could be added. Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Erspamer if he wanted to distinguish a time for the public and one for people staying at the hotel. Mr. Erspamer wasn’t sure if something shouldn’t be added for non-usage in regards to security. Mr. Erspamer asked about a requirement for the lodge to be open for six months. Ms. Garrow replied that nothing from the rescinded Ordinance 19-2014 is included because it was not codified. Mr. Erspamer asked what the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be if this was a rectangular building with a flat roof. Does a flat roof increase your FAR value? Ms. Garrow replied they would be about the same. Mr. Erspamer stated he did not understand the statement in Section 6 of the resolution regarding the snow remaining on the site. Ms. Garrow stated it is a requirement from the Engineering Department of the Detail Review of the Planned Development and it concerns neighboring properties. Mr. Erspamer asked if the transportation matrix was developed utilizing any scientific analysis or standards. Ms. Garrow stated this had been discussed at the previous meeting. The relatively new transportation system was adopted in April this year. It was a two year process with a nationally known consultant who helped make it Aspen specific. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant needs to submit a bond before they break ground and Ms. Garrow replied this is covered in Section 7 of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is required before a building permit at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. The applicant has submitted a preliminary Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and will submit a final plan including the monitoring portion before the detailed review. The monitoring plan will be a condition of their certificate of occupancy (CO). Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the required height of the elevator shaft to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Garrow stated the code requirement is ten ft above the height of the building which is 50 ft and the applicant is requesting 54 ft. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked if the direction of the Dean Alley was included in the resolution at which Ms. Garrow replied it is included in Section 8.5. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. He stated they wanted to go thru the proposal in more detail including their response to the commission’s and public’s previously made comments. He stated there are four main areas they want to cover including: 1. Traffic and Parking 2. Noise 3. Shadow Studies 4. Architecture Changes In regards to traffic and parking, they have been talking with LSC Transportation Consultants for some time regarding the all the streets and alley, and traffic patterns involved with the project. Both LSC and the City Engineering department identified a few ideas for the project team to consider. They were happy to adopt the City Engineering’s approach which is included in the packet. In regards to noise, the project team is conducting an extensive study. Mr. Sarpa feels it is a great idea to add a section to the resolution to include ambient noise in the detailed noise study. The project team is working with D L Adams on the study in the second floor lounge area and the rooftop. They also have some mitigations to discuss in the meeting. The new shadow studies will display how the shadows hit buildings. Part of the architecture changes were a result of the shadow studies. They have changed a number of the roof forms causing the shadows on Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. They will also review the important architecture changes including height reductions of the highest peak and the east wing. Two residential units have also been changed to hotel units increasing the number of keys. The top floor has been squeezed due to increased setbacks to improve the sight lines. Mr. Scott McHale, project manager, then discussed the traffic circulation patterns. He showed slides of the existing traffic patterns including the Sky and surrounding buildings, streets, alleys, parking, garage entry and trash. The current configuration creates congestion at the entry. Cars remain in the right-of- way on the street upon arrival. The trash pickups block access to the area. He also showed a slide demonstrating the required turn radius for a fire truck in Dean Alley which is not possible with the current space configuration. The project team met with the City Engineering department who asked them to review three options regarding modified traffic patterns. Mr. McHale provided a slide depicting the first option. The option takes into consideration the best way for the guests, pedestrians, deliveries arrive to enter the building. The new design shows both the vehicle and pedestrian entrances on the same location to reduce the amount of conflicts on other areas of the site. This option eliminates the cars from the alley altogether. Deliveries, laundry, and trash trucks for the neighbors. This provides the space necessary for the fire 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 truck to turn. The new configuration includes three arrival spaces in front of the hotel and one departure slot for the valet to pick up and drop off cars from the garage. Mr. McHale went over a typical path a guest car arriving is typically driven now including time on Spring St, Durant Ave and garage access for arrival. He also described the path typically driven now for a departing car which includes Dean Alley, Original, Durant Ave, and then on Spring St including a U-turn at the end of Spring St. Mr. McHale stated there is significant impact by moving the entrances to Spring St. By moving the entrances, the resulting traffic improvements compiled by LSC includes a 21% reduction on Spring St., 56% reduction on the cul-de-sac (end of Spring St), 51% reduction on Durant Ave, 89% reduction on Dean Alley for Sky Hotel traffic. Mr. McHale then discussed the sound study conducted by DL Adams, acoustic consultants out of Denver. They looked at the two major areas of concern including outdoor events on the rooftop and the lower level patio. One slide showed the decibel level readings for the lower patio identifying the only noncomplying area for the daytime hours is the impact on the Little Nell which is measured at 60.6 (just over the level of 60 as defined in the noise ordinance). In order to be compliant, the consultants stated they could increase the sound barrier or wall to a total of seven ft. One option they are studying currently is to have a temporary three ft transparent wall made of glass or some other material. The wall could be installed for special events so it would only be there when needed. Mr. Sarpa stated they are sensitive to the visual impact, so this barrier would only be added for special events. Mr. McHale continued with noise assessment on the rooftop stating most of the activity is on the north wing between the Chateau Dumont and the Little Nell. The pool and deck are recessed within the roof form, 3.5 ft down, forming a natural barrier. Speakers would be built into the sides of the barrier. The result on the Little Nell side is measured at 62.4 decibels. On the south end near the Little Nell, it is measured at 58.2 decibels. The Chateau Dumont side is measured at 61.5 decibels and near the Chateau Chaumont and the Alps it is below the 60 decibel level. The temporary barrier would be installed on the west and east sides to reduce the decibel levels. Slides were then shown to demonstrate what the barrier may look like. The sound wall for the outdoor lounge would have a solid wall of 3.5 ft with a 3.5 ft tall temporary barrier added on top. On the upper roof deck the roof form provides a 3.5 ft wall with a 4.5 ft temporary barrier added. They have also been speaking with local audio\video consultants to investigate the design and engineering of the sound system to allow them to constantly monitor the sound. Monitors would be installed in different areas to monitor the decibel levels outside of the Sky property. They are confident they can work with their engineers to come up with a solution to accommodate the local noise ordinance. Mr. McHale stated they have also added special event space on the main level for louder events. Mr. McHale then displayed slides of the current roof plan of the Sky depicting areas less than and over 40 ft. They increased the setbacks on the north and south sides including the side facing the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. The setback on the alley side at 13 ft and setbacks of five, seven and nine ft on the other side. On the north façade there is a 13 ft setback. Mr. McHale then displayed a series slides of three dimensional shadow studies for June, September, December and February. The sun is at its highest point in the year during June and at its lowest point of the year in December. The slides depicted the shadow on the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont from the current Sky Hotel and the proposed Sky Hotel (and neighboring Glory Hole property). Their analysis identified this part of town during December is in shadow by 2:30 PM from Shadow Mountain. During 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 February by 4 PM this part of town is in shadow. They also utilized Aspen Skiing Company’s camera of the city to see when the city is covered by shadow. In September by 5:30 PM town is in shadow. In October by 4:50 PM the area of town is into the shadow. In November by 2:40 PM that area of town is in shadow. In December, the shadow covers the town by 2:30 PM. Mr. McHale stated they do not feel the proposed new building has a substantial impact on the shadows. Ms. Sara Broughton, principal of Rowland Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the proposal. They have made some significant architecture changes based on the comments from the commissioners and the neighbors. She feels the modifications she will present tonight keep up with spirit of Aspen. This is important to be compatible with the balance of community, neighbors, resort and natural environment. Ms. Broughton briefly reviewed the background and modern use of the chalet style including sloped roofs, horizontal detailing, wooden balconies, and the use of wood and stucco. She then reviewed the floor plans. The basement includes underground parking, public area, and lodge uses. On the ground level on the Spring St side, the building has been pushed back five ft to accommodate the changes made for the transportation pattern modifications. The ground floor includes public areas, hotel lodge, affordable housing and a fully enclosed special event space. This space can be used by the public, guests for very loud events. The second level includes public area (community living room, indoor\outdoor lounge), hotel and lodge uses. The third level includes a public area and hotel and lodge use. On the fourth level they increased the setback starting on the north wing with 13 ft setbacks facing the alley and setbacks averaging seven ft on the south side facing the Aspen Alps. They have reduced the residential by two to six units. They have increased the lodging by four keys to 106 keys. The fourth floor consists of public, hotel and lodge use and residential. The roof deck is significantly smaller because of the increased setbacks. They are still maintaining on the west side the more active part of the roof deck with a large pool and outdoor lounge area. This is the main entertaining area. The more passive portions of the roof deck are significantly smaller (almost 2,000 sf smaller than the previous proposal). She next covered the modifications on the alley starting with the roof. They moved the roof by 90 degrees. The gable height was reduced by five ft. Similarly along the Aspen Alps side, they broke up the mass, increased the setbacks, introduced 2.5 story elements to break up the overall scale and lowered the overall height of the building. On the corner of Durant and Spring St, the overall height of the building has been reduced by almost two ft. Additional modifications have been made along Spring St including a new entrance and wider sidewalks. They feel the modifications further articulate the chalet style with the entrance. In summary, the modifications include lowering the highest peak on Durant by almost two ft, reconfiguring the entry/arrival on Spring St, increasing the setbacks along Spring St. resulting in a reduction of the overall floor area and drastically reducing the net traffic around the building, reducing the south façade facing the Aspen Alps of setbacks of five, seven and nine ft to break up the mass and scale of the building as well as the height, reducing the north façade facing the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont resulting in reduced floor area with setbacks of 11 and 13 ft to minimize the shadowing on the neighboring structures. The three story chalet peak element was reduced five ft. The fourth level chalet roof form on the northeast corner has been revised for better sun angles to minimize shadowing and increase sun exposure. The revised inventory mix now includes two residences, each reduced by 500 sf; two residential units, each reduced by 250 sf; two residential units were changed over to fractionals so they are now included in the lodging inventory of 106 units. The setback revisions to the fourth floor reduced 1,880 sf on the roof deck to minimize its impact on the neighbors. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Mr. Sarpa concluded the presentation by stating they have invested a great deal of time in the design of the new hotel, listened to try to fit the project with the neighborhood. He feels they are trying to revitalize a very important sector, the mid-priced market. He expects a reduction to the impact on the neighbors with the new design and latest technology to mitigate sound and traffic situations. Mr. Erspamer asked the board for questions of the applicant. Mr. Goode asked the applicant to confirm location for the trash removal. Ms. Broughton pointed out the location and noted stated code requires trash to be inside the building. Mr. Gibbs asked how the management would decide ahead of time when a noise barrier would be necessary or not. Mr. Sarpa stated they are looking into a retractable wall to be mechanically raised and lowered. Mr. Gibbs wondered if continuous monitoring would allow the noise barrier to be raised on its own. Mr. Sarpa stated when an event is booked, they have a pretty good idea based on if the event is a band and what type of band. Mr. Sarpa stated segments of the wall could be rolled out and in place to be installed if necessary. Mr. Corey Enloe stated they are looking at lots of options for the wall. He also stated there are other factors to consider including the height and direction of the speakers. Mr. Sarpa stated technology will also allow the Sky to use their own equipment instead of the band or DJ bringing and controlling the sound equipment. Mr. McNellis stated he is still a bit fuzzy on the comparison of changes presented. Ms. Garrow stated the new FAR is 96,100 sf. Mr. McNellis then asked for the ratio at which Ms. Garrow replied it is 2.59:1 and code states 2.5:1. Mr. Sarpa stated the space lost was added back in the special event space (approximately 1,800 sf). Mr. Sarpa confirmed the special event space will be subgrade. Mr. Erspamer referred to p 18 of the packet and asked if APCHA has rules regarding the affordable housing units being vacant for more than 45 days. Ms. Garrow stated this is a standard APCHA regulation. APCHA will work with the Sky Hotel to ensure the units are not vacant more the 45 days. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Sarpa if the parking with the neighbors has been resolved at which Mr. Sarpa replied they are still in discussion with Mr. John Corcoran representing the Aspen Alps. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Engineering department took away on Spring St and if it would be a detriment. Mr. Sarpa stated they did not take away any parking on Spring St. In fact, they added spaces. The new building has been pulled to the east to allow for four parking spaces on Sky property. He stated the only spaces going away was the one space on Durant the Engineering department had deemed illegal. Mr. Erspamer asked what contributed to the 21% reduction in traffic on Spring St. Mr. Sarpa stated eliminating the constant need to turn around at the end of Spring St. Mr. Erspamer ask why the traffic study was done in September. Mr. McHale stated the traffic consultant accounted for peak times to determine four spaces identified on Spring St. Mr. Erspamer asked why the temporary walls could not be permanent. Mr. Sarpa stated they wanted to reduce the visual impact and they would not be needed most of the time. 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. Mr. Jody Edwards, representing Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont, stated the noise study is very important and we would like to see the final by the time the application reaches City Council. He also requested one of the shadow study slides to be displayed and then asked if the new Sky building is depicted as three stories when it should be two stories. Mr. Sarpa stated it is two story. Mr. Erspamer then asked Mr. Edwards if anything had changed related the many suggestions noted in a previous meeting at which Mr. Edwards replied no. Mr. Bill Tomcich, president of Stay Aspen/Snowmass, stated he has worked in the Aspen area central reservation business since 1995. He has seen a lot of change in the lodging sector, but the Sky Hotel. It is an absolute prime property for a successful lodge. He feels they have done a masterful job of maintaining the site, given its size. He feels the design is impressive and well thought out. Most of the properties built in the 60s and 70s don’t have historical significance. The architectural design for the new hotel will greatly enhance the experience of the guests and neighbors. He strongly supports the project. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Tomcich to confirm the date of the last official study regarding the lodging occupancy and number of pillows. Mr. Tomcich replied there are two different measures. The pillow counts are updated about every three years. There was done in 2009 and another in 2012. The occupancy studies are done every single month. The baseline of the occupancy figures was conducted in 2012. It wasn’t until 2009 that they included a very detailed account of them. He stated his counting of the number of pillows as represented by Aspen central reservations became a futile project in 2006. This was originally done to calculate the number of shares of the properties within the organization. It was never a complete or exhaustive bed count. Ms. Linda Hayes is commenting from a professional and personal point of view. She has been visiting here for 25 years. She and her husband built a very environmentally friendly, at the time, house in Old Snowmass. She feels the house reflects the land and responds to the land. From a professional level as a freelance writer about lifestyles as well as architecture and design for local and national media, she feels the design addresses the impact on the land and community. She feels the project team has been responsive regarding to all concerned including Aspen as a community. She feels the design supports tradition and she supports it. Mr. R J Gallagher, part of the applicant team, wanted to submit the first resolution from ACRA Board of Directors showing support for the project. The resolution will be included in Exhibit E.7. Mr. Simon Chen, General Manager of the Little Nell, personally feels it is a great design. He travels six weeks a year to try to sell Aspen and he hears Aspen does not have modern accommodations. He feels the design of the Spring St entrance shows they thought about their neighbors. He strongly supports the project. Mr. Chris Klug, professional snowboarder, wanted to say has had the opportunity to travel the world as a snowboarder and has probably visited every ski resort in North America and many in South America, Europe and Asia. In regards to hotels in these other areas, the competition is tough. Other resorts are working very hard to lure our guests and be the next Aspen. He feels Aspen puts on many events to attract Gen X and Y and ecos. The challenge is to appeal the next generation and he feels this project will attract a younger demographic. His family is in the hotel business and many of the downtown, core properties are from the late 60s, early 70s era consisting of low ceilings, dark. He stated if you visit a new project like the Viceroy in Snowmass, you can see what higher ceilings and more light can do. He 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 thinks we need another project similar to the Limelight. He feels this location is key to our town and he feels the project strikes a good balance between our guests, visitors and locals. He supports the project. Mr. David Perry, Aspen Skiing Company, supports the redevelopment of the Sky Hotel. He feels it is a critical hotel in the community and it is very important our bed based does not decline and remains current and attractive to both national and international customers. As a neighboring property, he realizes there will be impacts, but welcomes a better looking building. He has used the same sound engineer and trusts their work. He feels the applicant has taken adequate measures to mitigate the impacts of the building. As a building, project and use, the Aspen Skiing Company support the project. Mr. Bob Lipsitz, Chief Engineer of the Sky Hotel, stated it has been a challenge to the keep the current building running. He understands the industry standards for hospitality. The Sky today does not meet any of the standards for Aspen, ADA or industry hospitality standards. The owners have done a good job as keeping it at a Kimpton hotel, but just this week he heard a guest state the Sky is not keeping up as a Kimpton hotel. There is no way the current facility can be brought up to meet those standards. He feels the ownership and design team has made huge efforts to minimize impacts to neighbors and make it look like it belongs in the neighborhood. Mr. Erspamer asked for board clarifications and comments regarding public comment. There were none. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer asked for staff rebuttal. There were none. Mr. Erspamer asked for applicant rebuttal. Mr. Sarpa stated they would be happy to provide a full sound study before appearing to City Council. Mr. Erspamer opened for commissioners comments. Mr. Erspamer feels it is a good application. He has some exceptions which will be worked through on the amendment process. He feels the rooftop deck is the most troubling issue. It is a public amenity space. What if the passive part of the deck could be reduced so they couldn’t replace it with the active part of the deck? He wants to try to avoid potential noise problems by placing the active side closer to the Little Nell. He would like to see an amendment that covers the sound from the deck. Mr. Erspamer also questions the height. According to code, it should be 40 ft. The elevator overrun will be pretty big. He feels the shadows have been solved. Mr. Erspamer reviewed the criteria for judgment by the board. Mr. Erspamer stated he is very concerned about fractionals because the code states fractionals are considered a lodge, but you can’t make a reservations until 30 days ahead of time. He feels the code takes away from being a lodge unit. He would prefer there were no fractionals, but it won’t change his decision. He feels they have met the GMQS requirements. He asked the other board members to comment on the seven criteria. 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t think the applicant should have to redesign the deck. There is a decibel regulation to meet and they have to meet it. How they determine to do that is up to them. There are numerous automated solutions, including monitors on adjacent buildings, which may be utilized. He feels it is a great application and he likes the façade. He is understanding of the elevator overrun. He doesn’t have a problem with the height. He does not have any exceptions. Mr. Goode seconds Mr. Waltersheid’s position. He loves the rooftop deck and thinks it’s a shame it is now smaller. He loves the concept of the building and has no issues. Mr. Erspamer asked the board members about a recommendation to council about sound and audio. Mr. Walterscheid stated the applicant will complete the noise study and feels there are many ways to control the noise and he does not think it is necessary to control how they mitigate noise. Ultimately, if they are breaking the noise ordinance, there will be another issues and they could be shut down. It’s not in their best interest to allow that to occur. He feels they have gone out of their way to approach surrounding neighbors. He understands the impact to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont and unfortunately they are as close to the mountain as the hotel and that is the value in their property. He understands they will have some loss of views but ultimately the neighboring building will be much better. Mr. Erspamer asked the board members about recommending a time schedule for the rooftop deck. Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t think we should legislate the management of the hotel. It is a public amenity space. There is nothing in the code to regulate it. Mr. Erspamer noted the deck on the Dancing Bear, but Mr. Walterscheid did not believe it is open to the public. Mr. Gibbs asked staff if the resolution has a statement regarding the vacated rights-of-way. This is something that is of concern to him and he would like to see something in the resolution to ensure it is dealt with. The P&Z approval is assumes City Council will modify the vacated rights-of-way. Ms. Garrow stated it is not included in the resolution but it can be added. Mr. Gibbs confirmed that P&Z would see this project again for final once the conceptual approval has been completed. Mr. Gibbs thinks it is a great building and feels it is very needed. His greatest concern are the impacts to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. He feels those residents will take the brunt of the impacts. He feels the project team has done a wonderful job thinking about how to minimize the effects. He feels the Sky has an opportunity to be a leader with this project. He thinks it’s an opportunity to shine and show how a project can be very compatible in operation with the community. He wishes there were no impacts to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont but he doesn’t see how he can vote against the project given they have responded admirably to their concerns of the residents and the commission. He wished all applicants did the same. He thinks a great project. Mr. Gibbs wondered if the alley could be snowmelted. He knows this is not popular in Aspen, but considering how narrow the alley is and the lack of light. He feels it would improve the access to the alley. Mr. McNellis gave kudos to the design team. He feels they have done a great job addressing concerns. He has the same concerns as Mr. Gibbs. He felt the concessions he mentioned in the previous meeting were not supported by the residents of the Chateaus so is backing off from them. In regard to the height, he feels this is a highly sought after urban area and high density should be expected. He appreciates the concessions by bringing back the top floor. He feels the 45 ft is appropriate and iconic 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 21, 2014 for the building’s location at the end of a street. He feels the building blends well with mountain. He is happy solar access is still available to the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. Views are important, but not nearly as important as solar access. He is also happy the traffic will be improved and should improve the quality of life for the chateaus. Mr. Erspamer is still concerned about the rooftop deck. He is concerned about the human element. He would like to see a timeline. He feels the deck should be closed at 10 PM. Mr. Goode stated there are no other rooftop decks open to the public. Mr. Erspamer stated he wants the parking issue with the Aspen Alps resolved prior to or at City Council. Mr. Gibbs stated parking issues are not typically resolved until the final review. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the hearing until 7:15 PM, seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Erspamer asked for a motion. Mr. Gibbs moved to approve resolution 14-2014 approving the applicants request for redevelopment at 709 E Durant with the changes noted by Ms. Garrow. The motion was seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include a timeline on the rooftop deck at 10 PM. Mr. Gibbs rejected the proposal. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include the applicant snowmelts Dean Alley. Mr. Walterscheid did not know if the board has purview and rejected the proposal. Mr. Gibbs stated he would agree if it was a recommendation to City Council to inquire with the applicant. Mr. Erspamer proposed to amend the resolution to include a recommendation for City Council and the applicant to consider snowmelting Dean Alley. Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Walterscheid agreed to the proposal. Mr. Erspamer requested a roll call vote. Goode, yes; McNellis, yes; Gibbs, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion carries with a four to one (4-1) vote. Mr. Erspamer adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 12