Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20141216Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode and Jason Elliott. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow and Sara Adams. Mr. Gibbs acknowledged Elise Thatcher, reporter from Aspen Public Radio, attending to cover the continued Base 1 lodge public hearing and make meeting attendees aware she may be recording parts of the meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Jessica Garrow stated Staff was planning for 2014 and wanted to formalize some meetings to capture feedback from the commissioners regarding long range planning, code amendments and policy discussions the Council has requested. She asked if the commissioners would prefer a third night in a month or periodic lunch meetings. Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Tygre and Mr. Goode stated evenings were better. Mr. McNellis and Mr. Walterscheid prefers lunchtime meetings. Mr. Elliott stated he could work with either schedule. Ms. Garrow stated they would continue with lunchtime meetings and see if it works. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be recusing himself from the Base 1 Lodge hearing because of an ongoing relationship with Mr. Hunt. Public Hearing – Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment Mr. Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment. Ms. Quinn stated she had the affidavit of notice for publication was appropriately provided but the affidavit of notice was not and asked the applicant when it was posted was there a photograph, did the mailing occur according to the list and affidavit will be available by the end of the meeting. Mr. Mitch Haas, representing Aspen Club and Spa LLC, stated the mailing and posting was completed as necessary and his employee will bring the remainder to the meeting. Ms. Quinn stated with the stated representation, P&Z could proceed with the hearing. Ms. Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Long Range Planner, will be reviewing the PUD Amendment and Growth Management Review for the Aspen Club and Spa owned by Michael Fox and represented by 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, Bob Daniel of Gateway Management and Matthew Smith from Poss Architecture. Ms. Garrow stated there are three reviews in front of the commission: 1. PUD Other Amendment review in which P&Z is a recommending body to City Council. 2. Affordable Housing Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority. 3. Lodge Development Growth Management Review in which P&Z is the final review authority. The bulk of the request is related to changes in the garage. The applicant is requesting to remove the currently approved garage. The planned parking in the garage will be replaced onsite. She then reviewed the currently approved site plan, the applicant’s proposed changes and the various amendments. Ms. Garrow then reviewed the current day and approved entrances to the club. The lower curb cut serves as the main entrance off Ute Ave. The parking consists of surface parking, landscaping, and an entry feature. Another mid curb cut entrance off Ute Ave is the approved ramp down to the subgrade garage. A third approved entrance provides access to the temporary parking spaces for the affordable housing units as well access to the service yard. Ms. Garrow then reviewed the proposed site plan keeping the three curb cuts. The middle curb cut providing access to the garage ramp is changed to an exit so all the traffic would enter from the lower curb cut. The ramp itself will become parking spaces. There are additional space and reduced landscaping proposed where there were already approved spaces. The turnaround area at the end of the parking lot has been expanded to accommodate a fire truck. The upper curb cut providing access to the temporary parking spaces and service yard will remain and also provide access to the valet parking spaces on the roof of the club. With the proposed parking changes, there is no net decrease in the amount of parking spaces. Staff and the Engineering Department do have concerns of the amount of impervious surface as a result of the amount of paving that will occur. They included a resolution condition for a reduction of five parking spaces to accommodate increased landscaping, particularly in the center of the site. With the elimination of the garage, the applicant estimates a reduction in construction impacts with a reduction of about 6,000 truck trips and decreases in the overall construction schedule by about three months. The City’s Engineering department has completed an analysis and estimate about a six percent (6%) trip reduction for the project. Ms. Garrow then described and pointed out the other proposed changes within the building including adding two lodge bedrooms to Unit 21. This triggered the growth management review for lodging requiring four lodge pillow allotments which are available for the project. It also triggered an affordable housing review. The applicant previously over mitigated their previous approval so they have a credit of full time equivalents (FTEs). The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has reviewed the proposal and recommends the applicant be able to the use the credit for the addition of the two lodge bedrooms. Ms. Garrow stated the other changes involve setbacks. She displayed and pointed out the changed areas of the project. An approved stairway access currently has a 20 ft setback and the applicant needs an 18 ft setback. Near the affordable housing units, the applicant is proposing to move the storage spaces for the affordable housing units inside the building. This will require an access stair, so they are requesting a 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 25 ft setback where the approved plan has a 29.25 ft setback. There will be a perpetual access agreement for the storage units. The next change is related to a State required fence\wall around the pool for safety. This had not been caught in the Design Review Committee (DRC) Comments in the original application. The applicant requests this to be memorialized. A portion of the fence\wall will be located on the townhome parcel 15-D so there would be an access easement for continuing maintenance. Ms. Garrow then described the applicant’s request for height variances. The club building is approved at 28 ft. The applicant has completed their construction plan they have found their building is actually 30 ft 6 in. The issue is that the building was memorialized less than it actually measures. They are keeping the existing club building. The amendment would memorialize the actual height of the building. The applicant is also asking for an additional 8 in to accommodate a reroof. The affordable housing unit have also been approved at 28 ft and the applicant has requested a height of 30 ft to increase the livability of the top floor units with higher ceilings. Staff is recommending in favor of the Growth Management Requests and the PUD amendment. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners for questions of staff. Ms. Tygre asked for clarification regarding the temporary parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Ms. Garrow stated there are 12 approved affordable housing units and approved for 17 parking spaces. There are five temporary spaces closer to the units and 12 spaces towards the middle of the parking area. Staff’s recommendation for a reduction of five parking spaces would eliminate the five spaces as temporary. They would become assigned permanent spaces for the affordable housing which would assign one permanent space for each of the 12 units with a net decrease of five units to be used for additional landscaping. The remaining seven assigned spaces would be located below the five spaces. Ms. Tygre asked how the spaces would be assigned and Ms. Garrow stated it would be up to the applicant to assign the spaces to the units. Mr. Gibbs asked for total sf of the proposed paved area. Ms. Garrow stated the proposed paved sf is a net decrease of the existing condition, but an increase from what was approved. Mr. Elliott asked to confirm the location of the assigned parking spaces at which Ms. Garrow pointed out on a slide. Mr. Elliott asked if the 6% reduction was used to calculate the 6,000 truck trips. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant calculated the number of trips from an estimation of the impacts to the construction site plan including dirt and materials. The Engineering Department took an estimate of the number of average trips on Ute Ave from August 2013 and then calculated the percentage of decrease. Mr. Gibbs noted the average number of trips was not based on a time period of construction though. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant. In attendance with Mr. Michael Fox, the applicant, was Mr. Mitch Haas, Mr. Bob Daniel and Mr. Matthew Smith. Mr. Bob Daniel, representing the applicant, reviewed the applicant’s proposed amendments. He stated the Aspen Club and Spa wants to retain their off-street parking. They are reducing the project by about 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 30,000 sf by eliminating the garage which equates to about 560,000 cf of space. They will be able to reduce construction related trips by 6,800 trips including larger trucks in their initial estimation. The proposal improves the affordable housing by increasing the heights, providing access to parking and storage, add four pillows to the lodge program, keep the same number of curb cuts, simplify the access and include completed reviews with the fire and building departments. Mr. Daniel stated the existing club has about 123,000 sf of impervious area including roofs, parking areas, and tennis courts. The previously approved plan has about 115,000 sf of impervious area. The proposed plan is about 122,000 sf. Of the approximate 6,000 sf increase, only 1,400 sf is lawn. The proposed plan also reduces the built area along the back and front of the club. They felt the approved plan’s traffic flow was confusing to the customer and provided four access points to the club. The proposed plan simplifies the traffic flow in the parking area, access to the club and the valet service point. The new valet parking area will be built about 2 ft above grade on top of another structure. Mr. Daniel then showed slides of the existing, approved and proposed structures including heights, view planes and site lines. Mr. Daniel explained they had PCL Construction work with them to determine the estimated reductions in materials (concrete, snowmelt piping, mechanical systems and etc.), equipment (pumper trucks, delivery trucks, etc.). He displayed a slide listing the estimated items and amounts to be reduced. Mr. Matthew Smith reiterated the improved access to storage and parking for the affordable housing units. For the club, the two primary improvements include better site circulation for vehicles and a significant reduction in construction. Mr. Haas stated there will be a lot less material including a tremendous amount of concrete. The visual impacts are significant as well. Mr. Daniel also noted a significant reduction in the wall with the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Daniel stated they are concerned about reducing parking. They are not sure what the long term impacts might be and do not want to impact the neighborhood. Mr. Gibbs then asked the commissioners for any questions. Mr. McNellis asked if the entrance was on grade with the existing grade. Mr. Daniel replied yes, there will be some walls built as the parking lot extends into the property to accommodate the changes in grade. Mr. Smith stated the overall change of grade from top to bottom was approximately 35 ft. Mr. Elliott asked if the existing parallel parking along the wall would be eliminated. Mr. Daniel stated they are looking at the area. This area provides five to six spaces including one handicap space. Mr. Elliott asked for the route taken by the valet to confirm the car would not be utilizing Ute Ave. Mr. Daniel stated they anticipate the valet service using the service area and it would not be their intent to use Ute Ave. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a description of the area directly below the valet parking entrance. Mr. Daniel stated it is a service area for trash and other utility needs. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mr. Goode asked the applicant to confirm the sf will be less with the increased parking on top at which Mr. Daniels confirmed. Mr. Gibbs asked if the height of the affordable housing units was 28 ft or 41 ft. Ms. Garrow stated the original approval in 2010 was not accurate because of changes to the grade. The subsequent amendment changes the height to state 28 ft from the finished grade. The 41 ft was measured from the natural grade and they are proposing 30 ft. A slide was then provided to demonstrate the approved and requested heights of the affordable housing units. Mr. Daniel stated another attribute of the proposed plan was to pull back the affordable housing units about three ft to create more of a buffer with the adjoining property. Mr. Daniel stated they are requesting the additional heights to address an energy model, specifically insulation requirements. For the affordable housing, the extra space is currently coming out of livable space. Mr. Gibbs asked if the access to the river from the affordable housing units has been improved with this proposal. Ms. Garrow stated the Engineering Department had suggested adding a path between the units and the property boundary. However it would need to meet accessibility requirements and because of the grade it cannot be built. There is a condition of the approval in the resolution that states more clearly than in the existing approval that the affordable housing residents have a perpetual easement through the site to get to the river and they can use the existing sidewalks. Mr. Gibbs wanted clarification the change in the wall height toward the Benedict property. Mr. Daniel showed on a slide where the wall would start and extend. He stated they would provide a tiered step with landscaping. Mr. Gibbs wanted to know the difference in truck trips between the approved and proposed projects. Mr. Daniel stated he does not have that number, but they tried to look at the number of reductions. The approved garage was substantial in materials and specification and they looked at the numbers associated with the garage. Mr. Fox also stated the garage would have required 560,000 cf of dirt to be removed. Mr. Gibbs feels the 6% reduction is too low. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the anticipated construction schedule and how will it be reduced. Mr. Daniel stated they originally had a 26 month schedule. They feel the reduction will be greater than the four months estimated. Mr. Daniel stated they are looking into ground sourced energy systems and the parking structure construction would impact those efforts. Mr. Gibbs then opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Jim Farrey thinks the project is great. Mr. Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs opened for commissioners’ comments. Ms. Tygre feels the proposed changes improve the project considerably and she is pleased to see the increase in height on the affordable housing units to make them more livable. She is not opposed to the surface parking and thinks this is a more simple design that will benefit everybody. She encouraged the 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 applicant to keep looking at the landscaping between Ute Ave and the club and include as much landscaping as possible. She doesn’t care about the interior landscaping and feels it is a factor the applicant is going to need an attractive site plan to sell the units. Mr. Walterscheid is in favor of proposed changes and feels it is an improvement from the approved project. Mr. Elliott is in favor of the height requests but is not in favor of removing the five temporary parking spaces. The temporary spaces in front of the units are needed from a livability standpoint. He feels the same as Ms. Tygre regarding the internal landscaping. Ms. Garrow pointed this was defined in Section 2 on p 6 of the resolution in the packet. She stated the second bullet from the bottom could be deleted if the commission does not want to make the internal landscaping and removal of the five temporary spaces a requirement. Mr. Elliott stated he would not be excited to see the valet parking traffic to use Ute Ave, but was not sure this was under the purview of the commission. Mr. Gibbs stated they could possibly add a recommendation to Council. Mr. McNellis believes the requested changes will make the project better. The reduction in construction traffic, materials and impact to the neighbors is significant. He agrees with the other commissioners not reducing the number of parking spaces. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow if there was a handicap parking space next to affordable housing buildings and she replied the space nearest the building is designated as handicap parking per code. Mr. Gibbs agrees with Mr. Elliott regarding the five parking spaces and believes a couple of the spaces should be kept open all the time for temporary use in addition to the handicap. Mr. Gibbs felt eliminating the parking structure is a smart move and would have been difficult to manage. All of his concerns have been addressed. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution number 17-2014 with the deletion of the fifth bulleted item in section 2 which removes five parking spaces. Mr. Elliott seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs then opened for discussion. There was no discussion. Roll call to vote: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes. Motion carried with count of yes-six (6) and no-zero (0). Public Hearing – 730 E Cooper – Base 1 Lodge – Continued from December 2, 2014 Mr. Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Aspen Club & Spa PUD Amendment. Ms. Sara Adams, City of Aspen Community Development Planner, provided the reviews the P&Z Commission is responsible for evaluating from this application as follows. 1. A recommendation to Council for the conceptual commercial design review 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 2. A recommendation to Council for the planned development project review. 3. A final decision for the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) review. She then reviewed the changes since the last meeting. The staff memo pointed out some of the concerns voiced at the December 2nd meeting including the following. • Size of the building • Off-site parking proposal utilizing the Rio Grande Parking Garage • Amount of glass proposed • Lighting • Affordable housing mitigations • Architecture style • Conversation around bringing public amenity space to the street level. The applicant will provide two alternate design options that address the glass and matching the architecture to the neighborhood. There is a wood and metal design option and Staff is supportive of the wood version more than the metal version but prefer the initial option presented on December 2nd which they feel fits into the context of the neighborhood and the type of architecture fits the use type. Ms. Adams reviewed the planned development project review conceptual and final steps. The purpose of the review is to look at the context of the proposal as it possibly satisfies a community goal as well as the underlying zoning to determine if there needs to be flexibility in the dimensional requirements in the underlying zoned district. Ms. Adams reviewed the community goals as listed in Exhibit A. She felt it was important to point out that lodging has been at the center of discussions of City Council and from many years now. It’s included in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as a policy to replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points. When the Community Development Department was weighing both this project and the Base 2 project on Main St, they felt the policy of the AACP and the goals of City Council are met in these variations including the height and parking. Staff is recommending approval of the project and has provided a draft resolution of approval in the agenda packet. There is a specific section on parking which recommends approval of parking in the Rio Grande Parking Garage or similar situation for off-site parking. She reiterated City Council would have to decide to allow parking in the Rio Grande Garage or not. As previously discussed in the December 2, 2014 meeting, Ms. Adams wanted to note Staff is recommending the employee generation rate be based on the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zoned District (0.3 FTE) as opposed to the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zoned District (0.6FTE). The LP is typically assigned to the small existing lodges in town that are primarily in residential zoned districts or along Main St. The reduced FTE rate relates to the types of amenities and hotel operations in the smaller lodges. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners for questions of staff. Ms. Tygre asked if Staff had considered the valet service when they determined this project provides a lower level of service and qualifies for the lower FTE rate. Ms. Adams replied they did consider the valet service. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked to confirm the parking on the City Market side of Cooper Ave is one hour parking and metered parking on the north side at which Ms. Adams confirmed. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, represented the applicant Mr. Mark Hunt, also present. Mr. Haas reviewed slides regarding the inspiration and design. He then provided a drawing of the existing site and reviewed the property as it stands today. It is essentially one long curb cut for the whole property except for the green space. There is no on-street parking on either frontage. The vehicles arrive and depart from both frontages. One parking spot is perpetually taken by the Johnny McGuire’s pickle car. The Parks Department has already issued a tree removal permit for a tree on the property. In regards to the picnic bench located on the property is not anyone’s amenity and could disappear tomorrow. The site is pretty much all concrete. They are also dealing with a tree located within the public right of way and makes the sidewalk impassable by a handicap person. Mr. Haas then provided a drawing of the proposed site. He pointed out five new on-street parking spaces. The current curb cuts providing multi-directional traffic and conflicts at the intersection will be eliminated. In regards to traffic and parking safety concerns, Mr. Haas stated the traffic and parking are regulated by the City Transportation and Engineering Departments and also the Colorado Department of Transportation. He doesn’t feel it is a zoning question. Mr. Haas then reviewed the floor plans of the proposed building. He stated the basement, first floor and roof deck will be open to the public. He feels it typically is a challenge to secure public benefits for a lodge and feels the proposed public access is significant including a couple of bowling lanes, lounge spaces, restaurant\bar space, and retail space. The applicant anticipates the prices for the amenities will match the room price options. Mr. Haas stated the rooms are small. Most rooms will have either a full or queen size bed. There are also rooms with bunk beds and several with twin beds. The applicant’s idea is to accommodate families, groups and sport teams to allow them to stay and experience Aspen instead of staying down valley. Mr. Haas stated one of the courtyard’s purpose is to allow the rooms on the inside to have access to natural light and windows. He stated the roof top deck will also provide public access. The issue in regards to the height on the roof top is for the restrooms. The height of the elevator and stairs is allowed by code. The height of the restrooms is lower than the elevator shaft and no higher than the stairs. They are set back from the edge so they will not be visible from the street level at the intersection. If the applicant cannot have the height, the restrooms will go away. They are not required, but the applicant was providing them for convenience. Mr. Haas then displayed elevation drawings of the buildings and pointed out the rooms will have blinds. In regards to light pollution and noise, he wanted to remind the commission the City already regulates these areas. In regards to having the public amenity space at ground level, he wanted to point out the proposed courtyard, walkway along the west side of the building, and the planter strips created in the right of way exceed the public amenity space requirement for the project. It’s a bonus the project includes 3,750 sf roof top deck. He feels the public amenity space for this project is exemplary. 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mr. Haas feels the off-street parking has been addressed and feels the City doesn’t want all or any of the parking at this location. The alley between the project and the Benedict Commons already has parking for the Benedict Commons, Bell Mountain Townhomes (subgrade), Hanna Dustin (subgrade) and leased parking. He feels it would be overkill for the area and the better solved using an existing City facility that is grossly underutilized and subsidized. He stated the City has guaranteed anywhere from 20-25 parking spaces in the summer months and anywhere from 40-50 parking spaces the other three seasons of the year to be used by the two lodge applications. Any additional spaces available could be used also. The third fallback on parking is that being a lodge they can obtain parking permits that allow people to park for up to a week for about $3. They are still looking for other solutions, but they think they have one that will work but the final terms and agreement without City Council’s acceptance of the concept. Mr. Haas stated in regards to affordable housing they are asking to waive less than one employee providing P&Z is willing to accept the 0.3 factor instead of the 0.6 factor. The applicant feels the 0.3 factor is fully justified and people in the housing office agreed with it. Staff also supports it and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) agrees as well. The 0.6 factor is for the five star hotels in Aspen offering a higher level of service. It’s expected based on what they are paying per night to stay there. They expect to be waited on hand and foot. A customer of the proposed hotel paying for a 175 sf room does not expect the same level of service nor should they provided. This lodge will be much like the other small lodges that are zoned LP therefore the factor for LP lodges makes perfect sense. In fact, the City wanted this property included in the LP zoning, but during the “Super Block” discussion at the time the then owner of the property opted out of the LP zoning. Instead the LP zoning stuck next door on the Bell Mountain Lodge which is now five townhomes. He also added the parking requirement for the Aspen Square development one block west is zero. He stated they are not proposing zero parking, just off-site parking. He then reiterated the total affordable housing requirement for the application is less than one employee or less than a studio apartment. He feels there is a provision in the code to waive affordable housing which he read to the commission (26.470.100.A.1.f). If the credit is given, the project does not need any affordable housing to mitigate. Mr. Haas stated they did request some impact fee waivers only because the code tell us to. The code states as a way of incentivizing lodges the City is willing to waive park development fees and transportation demand management and air quality fees. Yet all those incentives should include a free market residential component, fractionals; things that take away from the true lodge development and the affordability of them. The code states to decrease the affordable housing requirements down to 300 sf per room average and the decrease is proportional to the room size, But it does not address when the average sf is below 300 sf. The lowest it can be decreased to is 10%. If the same scale was followed down to 175 sf average, the employee mitigation would only be 5.8% which would be a 0.2 FTE factor. He feels the employee mitigation is so minimal, it’s barely worth having a conversation about. Mr. Haas wanted to reemphasize they are asking for a small difference in height for one portion, parking waivers that are not true waivers, impact fees which are up to City Council to decide and AACP fully supports the project from a lodging and sustainability perspective. He also pointed out the AACP contains an entire chapter dedicated to decreasing parking. Mr. Hunt did hear everyone’s comments and looks at this project to fill a need. He sensed from most of the group that affordable lodging is something important to the community. The project is affordable by design. It may not be perfect, but it does offer so much directly and indirectly to the community. In regards to the parking, he wanted to be clear they are not providing no parking. He recognizes the intersection is one of the busiest in town, especially in the summer, but the majority of property will not 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 have a curb cut which may make the area safer. He feels the vehicular impact to the area will drop dramatically than what it is today. There are about 40 rooms in a market that runs 60% occupancy which would average 24 rooms. An estimated 20-30% of the people that stay in a hotel drive. Even at 50%, that equates to 12 cars. The average stay in Aspen is five to eight days. With a basic 3.5 day stay, the hotel would be burdened with about 24 cars per week. There is north of 100 cars coming in and out of this location per day currently. He thinks it is a win-win because Aspen gets an affordable lodge and use spaces at the Rio Grande Parking Garage that would otherwise sit dormant. Other than putting in a residential development at this location, a lodge is probably the next lowest on the list for generating traffic. If he were build a commercial development, it would generate more traffic and require zero parking spaces. Mr. Hunt then offered to show side by side comparisons to the Art Museum to show the differences in materials, size, and openings. He feels the architecture pays tribute to Aspen’s history and appropriately located. He personally prefers the original design. In regards to zoning, he heard the earlier comments that the property was more residential. He pointed out the busiest retailer is across the street. There is a gym, offices, condominium buildings that operate as hotels, and residences nearby and feels it is a mixed use area. The townhomes directly to the west used to be a lodge and he could easily make the argument that the townhome is inappropriate zoning as it’s across from the busiest retailer and its underlying zoning is LP. Mr. Hunt believes the entire building is a public amenity. As the Limelight is described as Aspen’s living room, he feels the Base Lodges could become Aspen’s extra bedroom. He feels this is a great opportunity and the project has the support of ACRA and StayAspenSnowmass, SKICO, business leaders, political leaders, independent reports, Planning Department, and HPC. He feels all they really are asking is to have parking off-site. They don’t need the restrooms on the roof, although he feels they would be convenient for everyone. Mr. Hunt then showed the original design and two additional designs with one with metal and one with weathered wood. The two new designs had less windows than the original design. Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked how they determined the percentage of public amenity space requirement is met without considering the roof deck. Mr. Haas stated the courtyard space, the walking area on the west side of the building, and the new planter strips in the right of way, add up to 24% of the lot area. The requirement is about 17.5%. Ms. Adams stated the right-of-way does not technically count per code. Mr. Haas added rooftops count as public amenity for restaurants all over town which in some instances are not truly open to the public. Mr. Goode asked them to confirm the number of spaces around the new building. Mr. Haas confirmed there will be five spaces in the right-of-way, two of them are meant to be passenger drop off / pick up spaces. Mr. Elliott asked them how the valet service would work and if it meant a valet would have to run between the hotel and parking garage. Mr. Haas stated there would be that type of service as well as a shuttle service shared between the two lodges. Mr. Hunt added that based on where the two lodges are located, the hotel guests are close enough to not need their car while in town. 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mr. Gibbs opened for public comment. Mr. John Haley, Manager of Aspen’s City Market, is concerned about the following: 1. How many employees will be working at the hotel? 2. Where will the employees park? 3. Where will visitors using the amenities to the hotel park? 4. What happens if the parking structure is not underutilized anymore? Ms. Dayna Horton lived in the neighborhood for thirteen years and her comment is twofold. She has been involved with the affordable lodging and she used to do sales and marketing for the Hotel Lenado hand in hand with the SKICO. The biggest comment she would receive from Europe was that they would love to send their guests to Aspen but it was not affordable. She feels this hotel offers what’s really been needed for so long. She added in Europe, no one drives a car and she feels Aspen is similar. In regards to the guests parking for the proposed restaurant and retail, it should be treated as similar businesses in town, such as the Hickory House and the trade-offs are too great to worry about it. Mr. Andrew Sandler, owner of Bootsy Bellows and Whisky Rush clubs, feels Aspen is at a 20 year point where the evolution of the next generation of businesses are coming to town. He feels Mr. Hunt knows what he is doing. He feels the project would improve the first stop sign when coming into town from Independence Pass. He feels we need more lodging. Aspen has lost the HBO Comedy Fest and other events. He doesn’t see the parking issue as an issue at all once you see the trade-off of the hotel. He stated anyone who lives in Aspen knows you can always find parking. You can even valet at the Nell. He feels this is a project that should be fast-tracked, not debated for the next six months. He remembers the old and now new Limelight and feels it’s more like Aspen’s living room. In regard to the mix of the neighborhood being more residential, he feels the Limelight is right next to residential as well. He feels we need the project desperately. Mr. Jim Farrey has been coming to Aspen for eight years. When he arrives in Aspen via Independence Pass he feels the project vs what is on the corner today would be a great gateway building. He applauds the effort of Mr. Hunt to provide the affordable lodging, which is absent from Aspen. Of the three designs shown, he prefers number three (stressed wood look). Ms. McNicholas, lives in Aspen, asked if the City has information if the offsite parking reduces trips into town. She also prefers the third option. Ms. Adams then read some public comment letters received that had not been included in the packet including Katie Hmielowski (in favor), Dayna Horton (in favor), Seth Hmielowski (in favor), Julie Young (In favor), Erin Lentz (in favor), Kristy Farrey (in favor), and Ernie Fyrwald (in favor). Mr. Gibbs then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then asked the applicant if he had any response to the public comment. Mr. Hunt replied no. Mr. Goode reminded Mr. Gibbs and the applicant of Mr. Haley’s questions during public comment. Mr. Haas responded to Mr. Haley’s questions. He felt this information was included in the application as well as more detail in the addendum. Employees will be encouraged to carpool and shuttle service would be available to pick up and drop off at the Intercept Lot. Down valley employees will be provided with bus passes. In regards to public amenity parking, the project does not propose to provide parking, 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 just as other businesses located in town. He stated they want to enter a long term agreement to guarantee parking spaces with the City to use the Rio Grande Parking Garage. Mr. Gibbs then opened for the commissioner’s discussion. Ms. Tygre wanted to discuss the parking because she walks to City Market daily and is very familiar with the traffic in this area. She thinks reducing vehicular circulation is an important part of a land use application. For many years, they have seen applications she feels are under parked. Applicants have become very creative at proposing solutions to the parking problem and mitigate having guests and employees use the facilities. Year after year she has heard the neighbors state it doesn’t work. Instead, everyone parks in the streets. Even when there were discussions regarding lodge incentives, the public continually brought up that you can’t pretend you don’t need parking. The idea of adding a 40 room hotel in this area and not providing adequate parking is something she will not do again. As a policy matter, it is up to City Council whether the Rio Grande Parking Garage should be used or not. Even if so, she doesn’t feel it is a practical solution. She would like to see a small lodge on this spot, but cannot accept the proposed parking plan. This is her major issue with the application. Ms. Tygre added she is in favor with the building. Mr. McNellis thanked the applicant for the clarifications. He feels there is a lot of good in the project and feels it is not in an inappropriate location. A lot of his concerns have been addressed. He still has two major concerns. He still has concerns with the parking but wants it to be addressed somewhere. 1. The public amenity space is still a concern. Looking at the Commercial Design Standards in regards to the public amenity space, it clearly states it is supposed to activate the streetscape. The courtyard is great, but that does not activate the streetscape. He doesn’t feel the five foot buffer on the back, the courtyard, or the roof top deck as an element that activates the streetscape. He would rather see a tradeoff of less space on the top of the building for more accommodations down on the street. For example, a wider sidewalk or possibly more seating areas could provide more vitality to this corner of town. He feels this is a blighted corner and a redevelopment of the area should happen sooner than later. He won’t support the project at the expense of the character of this portion of town. 2. He still has concerns about the character of the architecture. The board has the discretion to address the architecture. He would like to see if there could be a way to articulate the architecture differently. Of the three proposed designs, he prefers option three because it is a bit softer, has more vertical elements and is a contrast from the Art Museum. He encouraged the board to possibly continue the hearing until other architectural solutions could be explored. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15 PM with Mr. McNellis seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. McNellis stated he is referring to planned development review section 26.45.010 of the PUD Guidelines when addressing the character of the architecture. Mr. Elliott doesn’t feel the existing green space is all that vibrant and feels it adds any vitality to the corner. He is a bit concerned about the patio space being in the back of the building and wondered if the applicant had explored having the patio face Cooper Ave or at least be accessed from Cooper. He is in favor of the project and only making suggestions to address some concerns. He feels having the restrooms on the roof top make sense so he is accepting of the height variance for the restrooms. Parking is a big issue. He feels forcing affordable lodges to have parking on site collapses the economic 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 model. The solution is novel to pay to have spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage and feels they would be incentivized to use it. He would be curious to see how the valet would work, knowing it is a bit of a run between the locations. The lack of free market, the small size, designed for affordability. He feels having this building with a restaurant and retail adds more to the local vibrancy. He feels the area is currently underserved. Mr. Goode stated if you break down 40 rooms, 60% occupancy and 20 % of that will actually bring a car would be eight cars. He doesn’t think eight cars is that much of an issue. His biggest issue with the building is the amount of light pollution. He is happier with the new designs with less windows. He feels the traffic safety issues should be addressed by the other responsible entities. He is acceptable of height needed for the restrooms. Ms. Tygre stated her concerns regarding the public amenity space have been covered by the other commissioners. Mr. Gibbs feels there is conflict between central mixed use and commercial lodge zoned districts meeting there. He struggles with which one should take precedence. He feels this should be a central mixed use zoned district that should transition into the neighborhoods. He doesn’t’ think this large of a building belongs on this corner although he could be persuaded with a design that adhered to the Central Mixed Use Design Guidelines, but the only objective this design meets is the parking. He does not have a big problem with the parking. The parking solution is for City Council to accept or not. He feels it is bad policy to use a public facility to support a private business. He would love to see an affordable lodge, but he wants to see a design that is much more sensitive to the central mixed use district. The Commercial Lodge Zone District should be used for the planned development, but the conceptual design should follow the Central Mixed Use Zoned guidelines. He doesn’t feel the courtyard on the west side of the building has any public amenity affect at all. Mr. Elliott motioned to extend, Mr. Goode seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Gibbs continued that project should remain as a commercial lodge. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant if they wanted to continue the hearing. Mr. Haas replied no. Ms. Quinn wanted to clarify to the commissioners even if the recommend denial, it will still go to Council. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 18-2014 as written, seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll vote: Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. McNellis, no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Mr. Gibbs, no. The motion did not carry with a total vote of no -3 to yes-2. Ms. Quinn wanted the commissioners to be aware that HPC recommended approval with areas to be restudied before the application went to Council. And HPC will see the application for final review just as the P&Z would see this application. Mr. Gibbs asked the commissioners if someone wanted to make a motion to approve with changes to the draft resolution provided in the packet. Mr. McNellis stated he would like to see more ground level public amenity space and a revised architecture. 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 Mr. Haas stated he would love to respond, but he is not allowed to. Mr. McNellis responded he would be happy to hear it. Ms. Adams asked if Mr. McNellis would be interested in adding the public amenity as a condition for approval for City Council to review. He stated he could add it if the sidewalk space actually meets the percentage required. Ms. Quinn clarified this is the time for the commissioners to do a resolution, not time for the applicant to respond to anything. Ms. Adams thought his condition would be reasonable. Council could look at it and give the applicant time to review and consider reworking their floor plans. She feels what helps Council the most is when there is actual feedback for the Council to understand where the board was when their approval or denial was made. His concern regarding ground level public amenity space could be added as a condition to the public amenity section 16 on p 251 of the packet. Mr. McNellis asked the other commissioners if they had a similar concern at which Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Tygre both responded yes. Mr. McNellis stated he was not comfortable pulling the trigger until he could actually see a site plan along with the percentage of public amenity space offered. Mr. Gibbs stated if they can’t decide by consensus on a positive resolution, then they need to craft a resolution to deny along with their concerns. Mr. Gibbs stated he does not feel comfortable voting affirmatively on an approval that he fundamentally doesn’t know. Ms. Quinn reminded the commission that the minutes would be included with the Council’s packet so they will see the commissioner’s concerns. She suggested they did not have to spend a great deal of time crafting really specific language. They could do this in a general way if they wish to. Mr. Gibbs asked for a motion. Ms. Quinn stated they need to pass a resolution recommending approval or denial. She suggested to make a motion to pass a resolution to recommend denial of the application for the reasons express during the comment period. She stated they could list the general areas of parking, public amenity space and design. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Adams to put that language in a resolution. Ms. Tygre made a motion to recommend denial based, but not limited to the concerns expressed during the December 16, 2014 P&Z meeting. Ms. Phelan stated Mr. Hunt is considering asking for a continuance until January 6th, 2015. Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Tygre both stated they would be in favor of a continuance. Mr. Goode motion for a continuance of the hearing to January 6, 2015 and Mr. Elliott seconded. Mr. Gibbs then stated Mr. Hunt could make some comments. Mr. Hunt asked for more clarity because at the end of the previous meeting, they specifically asked for anything else the commission would like to see or was there anything they could do or bring to tonight’s meeting and the unanimous answer was no. He is happy to come back only because he would like to respond to the comments that would be beneficial for everyone to know. He thanked the board for the 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 16, 2014 opportunity to come back again. He stated they cannot provide onsite parking. He asked if the requests for the next meeting should include commercial design and public amenity space on the ground floor. Mr. Gibbs stated he felt he had stated his concerns regarding the zoning but he had not really focused on the commercial design at that point which he did subsequent to the meeting. This only reinforced his feelings from the first meeting. He stated it is an evolutionary process and everyone needs to work together. Mr. Hunt asked Mr. Gibbs which zoned district they should focus on for the next meeting. Mr. Gibbs stated you have the Commercial Lodge Zone, but you also have the Central Mixed Use District which encompasses the same area. It is an overlay that engenders the CMU character design guidelines. He recommended the project team look at the design guidelines and they will come back with a better design. Mr. Haas reiterated there is nothing more they can do regarding the parking by January 6, 2015. He respects the board but is not sure how to address the zoning concerns mentioned. Mr. Gibbs stated the Central Mixed Use District overlays the property and so it has an effect and the Commercial Design Guidelines must also be used for the commercial design review. Ms. Adams stated the Community Development Department will work with the applicant in preparation for the January 6, 2015 meeting and hopefully address their concerns. Ms. Tygre added she is also very concerned about the affordable housing portion of the application. She does not agree with the calculation and the fact that the applicant should not mitigate. Mr. Gibbs asked for a vote on the motion to continue the hearing on January 6, 2015. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Gibbs closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 15