Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20141202Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Keith Goode, and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer was approached by a broker representing a property in Aspen that has had problems being sold. The broker asked Mr. Erspamer if he was using his P&Z position to influence Mr. Bendon to place negative regulations on the property to devalue it. He replied he had not. The broker apologized later for suggesting to his client that Mr. Erspamer had possibly influenced Mr. Bendon to devalue the property. Mr. Erspamer wanted Mr. Bendon to be aware of the rumors. Mr. Bendon suggested to the P&Z members to route these inquiries or suggestions to the City Manager or Mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: October 7, 2014 Minutes: Ms. Tygre moved to approve the October 7th minutes; seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. October 21, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the October 21st minutes with the requested changes; seconded by Mr. Erspamer. All in favor, motion carried. November 11, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the November 11th minutes; seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. Public Hearing – 730 E. Cooper (Buckhorn) – Base Lodge – Continued from November 18, 2014 Mr. Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 730 E Cooper – Base Lodge. Mr. Erspamer asked about the notice at which Ms. Sara Adams stated this is a continued hearing and notice was provided on November 18, 2014. Mr. Gibbs asked if the Neighborhood Outreach was provided as noted during the November 18th meeting at which Ms. Adams stated the outreach was conducted and the documentation was provided 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 to staff and reviewed by Ms. Debbie Quinn. Ms. Quinn stated the application was properly noticed and the hearing was continued by Mr. Gibbs, Vice-Chair, on November 18, 2014. Ms. Adams, Senior Planner for City of Aspen, reviewed the application for redevelopment with a lodge called Base Lodge 1. She stated a site visit was conducted on December 2, 2014 with Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis attending along with Ms. Adams and Ms. Quinn. Ms. Adams stated there are three reviews P&Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council for the project including; 1. Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2. Planned Development Project Review 3. Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews Ms. Adams provided a picture of the existing building. She wanted to point out there are a range of zoned districts surrounding the application property which is zoned Commercial Lodge Zoned District. The lot size is a little less than 7,000 sf. Other surrounding districts include residential multi-family (RMF), affordable housing (Benedict Commons), mixed use, neighborhood commercial (City Market), C1 Zoned District and commercial lodge (Aspen Square). For further context, Ms. Adams described and displayed the types of properties directly surrounding the application property including the height and roof designs. Most of the buildings in the immediate area are between 2.5 and 3 stories with a lot of sunken areas and high fences. City Market located across the street is 1.5 stories tall. The proposed building is three stories tall with a roof top deck and a subgrade area. The first floor has two commercial spaces accessed off Original St. The second and third floors have a total of 44 lodge rooms with a mix of sizes with the average room sized about 173 sf. The windows along Cooper St are entirely operable so they completely open up. Ms. Adams then reviewed the main points in the staff memo to highlight Staff’s evaluation of the project. When discussing the planned development review, Staff used the underlying zoning as a guide. This review takes into account the context of the neighborhood and identifying criteria from the underlying zoning. One of the variations requested is for height. Table 1 on p. 39 of the agenda packet lists what is allowed in the zoned district and what is being proposed. The variations are highlighted in blue. The application is meeting the height limit in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zoned District. The maximum height for the zoned district is 36-40 ft which can be increased through commercial design review. The application proposes 37.5 ft to the top of the third floor parapet which is used for the height measurement per code. The floor of the rooftop is 34 ft. On the roof there is a circulation corridor including the elevator overrun and the exterior stairs. She displayed a floor plan of the rooftop. Restrooms on the rooftop require a height variation. From Original St you cannot see the restrooms because they are behind the stairs. The code is very specific regarding the height of stairs and elevators. What is allowed in the code 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 for restrooms is 39 ft and the proposal is for 43 ft. The top of the stairs is 4 ft, which meets code. The top of the elevator is 48.5 ft which is allowed under height exemptions. The other variation requested is for parking. The requirement is 25.5 spaces or 26 spaces with the lot size just under 7,000 sf. The number of spaces is based on the net leasable commercial and the lodge component which is half a space per lodge room. They are not proposing any onsite parking spaces considering the size of the lot and the proposed programming. They have talked with the City Manager’s office about having parking spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage which City Council will have to discuss and approve. Ms. Adams feels P&Z may want to comment on this in the resolution as a condition. The number of spaces discussed with the City Manager’s office was between 40 - 50 spaces for the fall, winter and spring seasons for both Base Lodge 1 (This application on Cooper St) and Base Lodge 2 (Main St). Base Lodge 2 is currently going through Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review. For the summer season, 10-15 parking spaces have been discussed. The applicant has proposed valet parking for both projects. The approval and lease details would have to be discussed and approved by City Council. The applicant is committing to providing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) information to guests prior to arrival, providing bus passes to down valley employees, providing a shuttle service to be shared by both lodges, partnering with WE-Cycle or providing bicycles to guests. In regards to affordable housing, there are two components to be considered. One, through growth management, the applicant is requesting to establish a different generation rate. The specific review criteria is identified in Exhibit C of the staff memo. Under the CL Zoned District, the generation rate is a flat rate of 0.6 full time equivalent (FTE) per bedroom. Other properties subject to this rate include the Sky Hotel, the Little Nell, St. Regis, and Aspen Square. Based on this rate, this proposal would require just under two FTEs. The request is to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay district for their generation rate of FTEs which would be half (0.3 FTEs per bedroom) of that allowed by CL Zoned District and the Lodge Zoned District typically including the smaller lodges located in Residential Zoned Districts like the Boomerang, Molly Gibson, and Hotel Aspen. After reviewing the criteria, Staff felt it is appropriate to use the lower generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom considering the levels of service provided by the project and their requirement would be just under one FTE if City Council found this to be appropriate based on the recommendation from P&Z. The applicant is not proposing affordable housing, but Staff wanted to highlight this aspect of the application and they are supportive of the 0.3 FTE generation rate. For the commercial design review, the public amenity space proposed includes the courtyard, a five foot setback were none is required, and the roof top deck with a public access easement. This would be reviewed under the alternative methods for providing public amenity space. The project is well over the required amount should P&Z decide to make the recommendation to City Council. For the design standard review on a conceptual level, the subject area is included in a Central Mixed Use Character Area which includes mixed use, affordable housing, RMF and CL zoned districts. She wanted to point this out because many of the design standards listed in the guidelines do not work for this project. Staff feels the intent is met, but for some design elements such as having a front yard setback when there is no requirement in the zoned district does not really relate to the project. In the area, there is a mix of roof forms, setbacks, fences, sunken courtyards and other different design elements. Overall, Staff feels the project provides an appropriate transition between the commercial character areas and the residential areas as well as a pedestrian scale to streetscape with beneficial outdoor areas. Staff feels it adds to the character of Aspen. Staff is supportive of the application and recommends approval of the application with conditions. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Ms. Adams also wanted to add the applicant is requesting an impact fee waiver which is a policy discussion for City Council. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of Staff. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification on the FTE generation calculation. Ms. Adams stated there are 44 bedrooms included in the project as well as a small credit of four bedrooms so they are mitigating for 40 lodge rooms. They also have commercial. The calculation is defined on p. 76 of the agenda packet. Ms. Tygre asked if the dimensional requirements would refer back to the underlying zone district as a guide. Ms. Adams stated the applicant is requesting the use of the LP overlay for the generation rate. Ms. Tygre asked how they can use the LP overlay if they are not zoned as such. She would like to see some mechanism defining how the zoning was applied. Ms. Adams stated the ordinance would specify the generation rate for the lodge rooms as 0.3 FTEs per bedroom. The LP overlay is less about the dimensional requirements and more about the process describing why they are asking for the reduction and establishing a different generation rate. The ordinance and resolution would be specific in defining the generation rate. Ms. Tygre asked for the City’s justification for setting the rate. Ms. Adams stated the criteria is used to determine if it is appropriate or not which are located on p 76-77of the agenda packet in items a) – f). Ms. Tygre stated she is uncomfortable mixing different zones for one zoned district. Mr. Bendon stated the generation rate is an outcome of the type of operation. You typically see projects in the LP zone as a low service type property where as properties in a lodge zone would have a high service. The Limelight has about 15% of the Little Nell in terms of the number of employees. He also noted the required audit to be conducted after a period of occupancy to allow the operation to stabilize and allow for any necessary reconciliations. Ms. Tygre stated she understands Staff’s rational, but finds it conflicting as to how the code states the generation rate should be calculated. The level of use standard makes sense, but that’s not what the code states. Mr. Erspamer asked if she reviewed item f) on p 77. Ms. Tygre feels it should be kept in mind for future lodge applications. Mr. McNellis asked if Staff is supportive of not only the LP overlay generation reduction, but are they also recommending the approval with no affordable housing. Ms. Adams state there is no review criteria for affordable housing so it needs to be a policy decision by City Council, not as a recommendation by Staff or P&Z. Mr. McNellis asked if affordable housing should be included in the discussion or simply the generation rate of 0.3 or 0.6 FTEs. Ms. Adams stated the draft resolution in section 4 (p 48) discusses the generation rate. Mr. McNellis stated the commission should identify the appropriate rate and not discuss policy at which Ms. Adams agreed. Mr. Erspamer asked if they were including storm water collection pits similar to the Art Museum. Ms. Adams stated that item would be part of the detailed review. Mr. Erspamer asked about the heights of the building. Ms. Adams stated the parapet is 37.5 ft. and the roof level is 34 ft. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was computer rendering showing the height of this building as it compares to neighboring structures. Ms. Adams responded she has not checked all the heights in the model. She 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 displayed some the renderings, but some were based on old versions of neighboring buildings (City Market). Mr. Erspamer asked how far, approximately, the setback is from Bell Mountain Condominiums. Ms. Adams stated the condominiums have a sunken half story in the ground and thought it was 10-12 feet. Ms. Adams stated the condominiums have a different setback because they are zoned differently. A property zoned as CL has zero setback requirements on all sides, but the application provides for a five ft setback on the Bell Mountain Condominium side. Mr. Erspamer asked how many parking spaces are in the Rio Grande garage. Mr. Benson stated the total was about 350. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were other lodge project applications vying for those same parking spaces? Ms. Adams was not aware of any other applications and she would have to check with the City Manager. Mr. Erspamer asked if she knew occupancy statistics regarding the lodge. Ms. Adams stated she thought the number was based on it not being very full for three of the seasons. Mr. Erspamer asked if we had accurate history of its usage, which Staff did not have available. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Aspen\Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) board had reviewed the application and Ms. Adams replied they had on November 5, 2014. They recommended either housing credits or on-site units. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was a requirement for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Ms. Adams stated it would be part of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) required for the detailed review. Mr. Erspamer asked if public amenity space was defined as starting at the ground and going to the sky. Ms. Adams stated that is the definition for the standard public amenity space. There are alternative methods that still meets the intent of public amenity, but it doesn’t meet the letter of the code. This project is applying under the alternative method. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to explain the need for vestibules in the commercial space. Ms. Adams stated this is a requirement of the Detailed Design Review and would be finalized during the third step of the review. Mr. Erspamer asked why there wasn’t a recommendation to create a pedestrian amenity on the corner of the building similar to Boogie’s. Mr. Erspamer stated this is a recommendation in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) guidelines. Ms. Adams stated Staff felt it was the most appropriate design for this property. Staff felt the new sidewalks and the roof top deck were more important than cutting the building out in weird areas. Mr. Erspamer asked about the reserved parking spaces. Ms. Adams stated the two spaces would serve as a loading zone for arriving and departing customers. Mr. Erspamer asked if staff had considered any sound walls on the roof deck. Ms. Adams stated that Staff had not considered any walls. Mr. Erspamer stated another recent application was considering sound walls. Ms. Adams stated it could be discussed during the detail review. Mr. Erspamer referred to Exhibit A, item B on p 55 of the packet where it states greater compatibility with existing and future land uses will be achieved in the development of land and asked how Staff 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 considers this project to be compatible with existing buildings in the neighborhood. Ms. Adams stated the area is a transition area between downtown commercial to a more residential neighborhood with a range of roof forms and heights. The proposed height and use are compatible with the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Erspamer asked to confirm the setback on the employee housing behind the unit. Ms. Adams stated she would have to confirm this information. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff if there was a physical constraint to the project. Ms. Adams stated P&Z and City Council are asked to increase the height through commercial design review from 36 ft to 37. 5 ft and the guideline on the bottom of p 66 of the packet is to assist with the determination if the request for additional height is appropriate. Ms. Adams feels the intent of the guideline is to assist City Council in deciding if there is a community benefit for the project. Mr. Erspamer asked how the roof deck as a public amenity contributes to street vitality. Ms. Adams stated the application uses an alternative method for a public amenity and the project does not meet the specific standards. Mr. Gibbs asked if there are other hotels or lodges without parking onsite. Ms. Adams stated she would have to look to confirm. Mr. Bendon stated many of the older establishments have parking right of ways including the Boomerang, Hotel Aspen and Independence Square. Mr. Gibbs asked for examples of other hotels with about 40 units. Ms. Adams stated Hotel Aspen and Molly Gibson are similar in number of units but their room sizes are larger than the proposed 173 sf. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mark Hunt and Mr. Spiro Tsaparas are members of the applicant’s team. Mr. Hunt provided background on the project. Mr. Hunt’s organization owns a handful of properties and lodging is not their main purpose. They were asked to explore some affordable lodging concepts as it seems to be important to the community. They looked at several sites to explore. They have this site and another site located at 232 Main St. at the corner of Monarch and Main. They are working on both together to obtain critical mass with upper management, book keeping and other services. The project is focused on the younger generation as identified by the size of the rooms. They are looking at both projects when thinking about design. Two items they considered are the mining shaft structures and chalet styles. He then displayed some inspiration shots. They focused on a year round activities including skiing, biking, and hockey activities. He mentioned the pod concept for rooms available in larger cities which are 75-90 sf, but the rooms here will be larger. They are looking to provide public amenity spaces including food and beverage services. For the lower level and roof, they are proposing bowling lanes and community spaces. He then reviewed the proposed floor plans. The main entrance will be off of Original St. The first floor will have storage lockers, courtyard, restaurant, and other retail. The bottom floor will have the bowling lanes and food and beverage. The second and third floors will have about 22 rooms each. The design of the roof top is still ongoing but he feels there are opportunities to gain more community space. The structure is inspired from a mine shaft. The window treatments would be incorporated within the glass which he feels would allow the building to have a different look throughout the day. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 He then described the materials used for the buildings including concrete with steel around the perimeter. The building is set back from the steel structure. On the west side of the building, there is a setback of five ft with a distressed panel and beams with no windows. They are excited with the design and tried to have fun, but wanted to respect the roots of Aspen. They are asking for some things, but they feel the lot is too small to park vehicles on it. It is very difficult to build an affordable lodge. Based on the lot and size allowable, this is really a 17 room lodge. It was designed to be affordable which requires mitigation. They typically do commercial and retail projects, so he feels they are already mitigating by providing what the community needs in an affordable lodge. He believes the community needs this project. Mr. Tsaparas explained there are costs associated with building lodge rooms and this project’s costs double because they are having more rooms. The construction costs would be almost half if they were only building a 17 room lodge. Mr. Hunt feels the town is in an interesting situation. When looking at a property, it always makes more sense to build for sale residential, commercial or retail. He feels the city has done a great job to preserve the loss of the beds and get some back. Mr. Hunt wrapped up by saying he is excited about the project and is interested in hearing the commission’s thoughts. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked if they have any plans for hours of operation for the roof top. Mr. Hunt stated they do not at this time, but understands it will be important with the neighbors including City Market, the highest commercial load, other commercial and residential. Mr. Goode stated conceptually the building looks a lot like the Art Museum and asked if they thought about going in a different direction. Mr. Hunt feels the look of the proposed lodge and the museum are night and day. The lodge will look old and rugged. The design has a same grid look, but will be more glass and less basket weave. Mr. Goode asked if they are considering if they need to deal with light pollution. Ms. Adams stated the project is required to meet the lighting ordinance which does not allow light to spill over property lines. They are not asking for any exemption from any lighting code or standards. Mr. Erspamer asked if light from indoors is regulated or not. Ms. Adams stated you still cannot have lighting spill over property lines. Mr. Gibbs asked if the roof will be open to the public. Mr. Hunt stated yes, that is their plan. Mr. McNellis asked if the roof will be operated by the hotel or not at which Mr. Hunt replied the hotel will operate the roof. Mr. Erspamer asked the size of the smallest room. Mr. Tsaparas stated it is 156 sf. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked how they plan to mitigate the impact on City Market for only having two loading parking spaces. He feels there will be spillover across the street. Mr. Hunt stated they will have people working with the valet service, shuttle services and the hotel operations will have to manage the spaces. He also thinks a lodge of this type opens it to be used by a lot of groups. Mr. Erspamer asked if they do not obtain the parking spaces in the garage, will they be purchasing parking passes for the neighborhood. Mr. Hunt is hopeful they can work something out with the City to use the parking spaces in the parking garage. Mr. Erspamer asked why the courtyard is in the back and not in the front similar to Spring Café. Mr. Hunt stated they designed the entrance to provide access to the commercial space from the lobby, but the U-shape of the building called for the entrance on Original St without having the light and vent open to the neighbors. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation that there are no parking requirements for CC and C1 Zoned Districts, which Ms. Adams confirmed as accurate. Mr. Erspamer asked what is exceptional about the parking plan. Mr. Hunt stated they will have a shuttle and valet service with the idea that customers will be in downtown and there should not be a reason to have their car. The idea is to have it more pedestrian, bike friendly. Mr. Erspamer asked if they have outreached the current tenants. Mr. Hunt said they have spoken to some of them, but feels it is still a bit premature. He purchased the building which is on a long term ground least until 2099. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Hunt if he had obtained permission from the land owner to change the building. Ms. Debbie Quinn stated the ground lease indicates they can make improvements on the property. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. Mr. Jay Maytin, who works with Mr. Hunt on the Main St Base 2 Lodge property, first saw this project when he was the HPC, which he is no longer a member. He has since set up meetings between Mr. Hunt and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and the Aspen Skiing Company (SKICO) to increase the community support. He feels this isn’t the best business use for the property, but feels the community has be vocal regarding the need for affordable lodges, loss of the bed base and increasing height, mass and scale for private residential use. There is no private part of this building. When someone approached by the City to use their property in not the most profitable way and the developer puts his best foot forward, he is asking for what he needs, not another 10 ft for a penthouse with no public amenity. He is not asking for separate residential units to financially support the project. Mr. Maytin feels we need these rooms and the alternative to this project will be exactly what this community hates including more high-end retail. He feels it is a community benefit. He feels the parking plan is admirable and doable. He feels the younger generation is probably staying down valley and driving their cars to Aspen. This lodge will keep the visitors in town. Mr. John Haley, City Market Manager, feels parking is their major concern. He feels there will be a negative impact on his business with the amount of people coming in there to park and he doesn’t see 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 what Mr. Hunt plans to do to mitigate the impact. He asked where the employees would park. He has 28 parking spaces at City Market and in the high season the store has 35,000 customers a week. Mr. David Kashinski, brother of a neighbor for the project, watched the City Council meeting on the previous evening when parking was discussed. He feels there will be an impact with people parking locally. He feels they are asking for the sky regarding employee housing. He likes the look of the building, but feels it is too high and in the wrong place. Ms. Kim Raymond, an architect who lives directly across the street from proposed building, provided a handout which was entered as Exhibit H. It is a summation of people’s comments. She knew when she purchased her place that there would be a new building built at the proposed location. She does like the design of the building, but feels it is too much program for this site. She reviewed the handout with the commission. She feels the proposed site is surrounded by residential areas and the context should be examined more closely. She is concerned about the loss of the little park used as a public amenity. The neighbors are most concerned with the parking variance. This is a difficult area to park in now. She wanted to know where the shuttle bus would be parked since a spot is not currently designated at either proposed lodge. She proposed a car elevator with an estimated 21 spaces served by a valet. She feels there is a way to provide parking. In summary, she feels the lack of setbacks and public amenities is too much. Mr. Mike Kashinski, a resident of Benedict Commons, is in favor of affordable lodging and would like to work with Mr. Hunt rather than end up in a situation like the Art Museum where no one had any say. He feels parking is a huge issue and feels some onsite parking would be warranted. He feels people will want access to their cars so the parking garage plan will not work. It is a high traffic area, especially in the summer, and feels having a high volume traffic plan is important. He doesn’t feel the bowling alley lanes will be used. He also questions the need for the roof top deck. Mr. Dan Rubinoff, a new resident in town, spent 22 years in Telluride and Crested Butte. He walks to most places in town and feels the corner is one of the most busiest and dangerous corners in town. He feels the parking issue is paramount. It is a safety issue and regulations are there to protect the residents. He feels there is a need for affordable lodging. He likes the design of the building, but feels it will be too bright. Ms. Karen Ryman lives in Twin Ridge and is the mother of Mike and David Kashinski. She has concerns of the scale of the building. The size and shape does not conform with neighboring properties. She asked how wide the sidewalks to be built. She feels the setbacks are not in proportion with the neighboring properties. She wanted to see if there could be an incentive plan to charge lodge customers to park at the parking garage so they would think about flying instead. She is concerned about the light from all the windows. She asked if there will be windows on the alley side of the building. She also asked why there couldn’t be parking on the lower level. She is concerned about having a bar on the roof area and assumes this would be for summers only. She would not want to see permits given for temporary tents placed on the roof top deck. She also thinks there should be a limit on the number of people allowed on the roof top deck. She is concerned how people will navigate around trees placed in the sidewalk. She also wanted to know the anticipated rate to be charged for the single and bunk rooms. She respects what Mr. Hunt is trying to accomplish with affordable lodging, but she thinks they would have a difficult time obtaining variances if it was a commercial space. 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Ms. Rachel Schmidt questions how the traffic will flow with the two parking spaces on Original St if people arrive from Independence Pass. She does not believe the lodge customers will want to wait the time necessary to retrieve their car from garage. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment session of the hearing. Ms. Adams wanted to inform the commissioners that she received an email from Ruth Carver that will enter into the record as Exhibit G. She is a next door neighbor and is not in favor of the project. Mr. Erspamer asked staff if there were any rebuttals or clarifications to the applicant’s presentation or public comments. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify the Rio Grande parking garage has 350 parking spaces. The transportation department is unhappy with its utilization as it is only full maybe 10 days per year. Various incentives have been contemplated to increase the usage. Ms. Adams wanted to point out with the new project, there will be more on street parking. There could also be loading zones on Cooper Ave as well. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant for rebuttal. Mr. Hunt appreciated the comments and is aware of some of them. The big thing he heard was parking and how busy it will be. The parking will need to be managed. He feels they put their best foot forward in providing affordable lodging. He looks at the entire building as a public amenity and does not want to give up the lower level for parking. He think the parking can be managed, even before the guests arrive. He wants to be a great neighbor and feels they need to be proactive. They were approached and asked to explore affordable lodging, this is what they can do. In regards to the little park, he does not philosophically agree with. He feels there is plenty of public amenity space. There are some buildings that don’t work for longevity and you see people in and out of them because of the layout of the building. He also stated there will be windows on the alley side of the building. Mr. Tsaparas stated they would have to look further into the possibilities of parking. He stated the first design for this space was a commercial building. Mr. Hunt then asked the design team to look into an affordable lodge design. Parking was taken into consideration because parking is always an issue. What they have learned from parking studies completed by traffic consultants is that when there is no parking onsite, there is less impact. For example, if you take Carl’s Pharmacy parking, you will always hope there is a space available, so you will continue to loop around in your car looking for a space. The valet approach solves the issue. The guests would also have the opportunity to drive their own car to the garage. The valet is not a profit center. Mr. Tsaparas remarked there will be a building built there and it will be about the size and height of the proposed building. He does not want to address the setback because that will be the size of the building built at this location. The design team has passion to put something together for the City, especially from Mr. Hunt who provided a great design for both lodges. In regards to the width of the sidewalk, Mr. Tsaparas stated it will be five ft wide and the parkway will be five ft wide for a total of 10 ft from the building to the curb. This is a single use building where the other options were not. Ms. Tsaparas felt they could do something in regards to the light coming from the building. Glass technology is advanced and either glazing or films could help the issue. He will reach out to someone tomorrow to look into potential solutions. 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 In regards to the courtyard, Mr. Tsaparas feels the glass walls will allow people to look through to the courtyard. Mr. Goode motioned to continue to 7:30 PM. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Vote: 2 yes; 3 no. Motion opposed. Mr. Gibbs motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15 PM. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Vote: 3 yes; 2 no. Motion carried. Mr. Tsaparas stated the option for onsite parking on the lower level is not possible based on the needs for access to the space and a ramp. Mr. Hunt stated it is affordable by design. The reality is these are small rooms and he thinks they will be around $200 per night. There may be times when they could be less than $100 per night. Mr. Hunt stated this is their attempt to be part of a solution and fill a need being heard by the City, the market, and SKICO. There is no perfect project, but he believes this offering outweighs what they are asking for and he hopes the community believes this as well. Mr. Hunt would like to see how the board feels about it now and vote on the proposal. Mr. Erspamer closed the rebuttal part of the hearing. Mr. Erspamer opened for discussion from the commission. Ms. Tygre suggested the commissioners state what other information they need. Ms. Tygre would like to continue the hearing to allow for a full discussion by the commissioners. She does not need additional information from the applicant, but thought it would be helpful to have story poles at some point in the future. Mr. McNellis does not need additional information. Mr. Erspamer stated parking is a big issue for him. He doesn’t believe the parking studies that state if you take away the cars, there not be a traffic problem. He referred to Mr. Speck’s speech in which he stated a lack of parking leads to cycling. He has observed this from his office in downtown Aspen. Mr. Erspamer likes the project. He doesn’t like the design, but that doesn’t matter. He would like to see more about the possible solutions for dealing with the glass and the radiation. He would like to see the 0.3 or 0.6 of affordable housing provided for. He would like to see at least the 0.3 provided. He would also like a corner angle on the building. He asked if it is possible to make the building look smaller and place the courtyard in front by the entrance. He stated the design is request and not a requirement. Ms. Tygre stated she has a lot to say, but doesn’t want to do it now so the commissioners have the time to respond. She does not want to rush through her comments. She would like to see this hearing continued so there can be a dialog with the commissioners. She feels the applicant needs a consensus from the group and not just individual opinions. 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 2, 2014 Mr. Erspamer doesn’t feel that having parking in the Rio Grande Parking Garage will work. Mr. Gibbs stated this is a good example of bad zoning. He doesn’t think a lodge fits in this particular location. It creates too much activity and density regardless if you can manage the parking. He admires the attempt made by Mr. Hunt. He feels people will try to park on the street. Mr. Gibbs stated they don’t have the criteria to waive the affordable housing. He feels the project should be treated as a CL zone which requires a 0.6 rate. Mr. Gibbs moved to extend the meeting to 7:25 PM, seconded by Mr. Erspamer. Vote: 3 yes; 2 no; motion carried. Mr. McNellis stated although he sees a lot of good in the application, he has a lot to say and has similar concerns as Ms. Tygre. His main concern is the architecture. He likes it on its own, but given the recent history in town, he finds it too in context with recent history and foresees some backlash. The proposed mining design would have never been built in town, it would have been on a hillside. He feels a lot of people will not be able to disassociate this design with the art museum. Mr. McNellis feels the public amenity space should be immediately utilized by the pedestrian to activate the streetscape. This proposal does not provide this and we have examples of this in town already. Mr. Goode echoes what the others have stated. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission if they would vote on it at this meeting. Ms. Tygre would prefer not to. Mr. Goode made a motion to pass the resolution as stated. Mr. Erspamer seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre reiterated her thoughts that voting tonight would be a disservice to the applicant and the community. Mr. Goode felt the applicant wanted the commission’s feedback and go on to council with or without our recommendation. Ms. Tygre did not feel it was appropriate either way. Ms. Quinn stated the commission needs to make a recommendation whether to approve or disapprove the application. It doesn’t have to be tonight. Mr. Erspamer removed his second of the motion and Mr. Goode removed his motion. Motion removed. Mr. Gibbs then moved to continue the hearing until December 16, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Vote: 5 yes; 0 no; motion carried. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 12