Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150106Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 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, Brian McNellis, and Jason Elliot. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer recommended postponing the election of a new chair and vice-chair which is typically done at the first meeting in a new year. He confirmed it is acceptable to postpone to the next meeting or address it if there is time at the end of the meeting with the City Attorney, Mr. James True. Mr. Erspamer asked about the letters in front of the Art Museum. He agrees it is art, but asked how long it can stay there until it becomes a sign. Ms. Jennifer Phelan stated if it is art, is not considered a sign. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: December 2, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the December 2nd minutes with the requested changes. All in favor, motion carried. December 16, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the December 16th minutes with the requested changes. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. Public Hearing – 730 E. Cooper (Buckhorn) – Base Lodge – Continued from December 16, 2014 Mr. Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 730 E Cooper – Base Lodge. Ms. Adams, Aspen Community Development Planner, stated this is continuation for recommendation to City Council regarding Base 1 located at 730 E Cooper St. P&Z is asked to consider the following reviews which will be recommendations to City Council. 1. Commercial Design Review 2. Growth Management Review 3. Planned Development Project Review 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 She then reviewed the main points in the Staff memo to address the concerns of the commission. 1) Lack of public amenity space or the success of the proposed public amenity space. She explained the definition of public amenity space and why Staff is supportive of the roof top deck to be considered an alternative method of public amenity as well as the interior courtyard as an alternative method of public amenity space. Mr. Erspamer asked for the section of code she is referring to and Ms. Adams replied it was in the Commercial Design and the miscellaneous section of the code. She then stated the code provides options for meeting public amenity including on-site, off-site, cash in-lieu, and alternative method to meet the intent of public amenity. The intent of public amenity is to provide a pedestrian experience. The space may or may not be at ground level. For this property, staff feels it is important to consider the context of the site. This site is directly across on Cooper Ave is City Market’s loading dock, located on a busy intersection and residential sites directly adjacent to the property. Staff feels it is important for public amenity space to respond to the context and to be meaningful and not just meet required percentages by adding pieces of grass. The applicant has amended there proposal to better explain some of the previously proposed space along with additions to demonstrate their intent. The operable windows will add to the pedestrian experience but also be responsive to the loading dock across the street as necessary. Staff is in favor of the proposed space and feels it meets the intent while being respectful of the neighboring residences and addressing the loading dock activity at City Market. 2) Parking. Ms. Adams referred to the draft resolution on p 46 of the packet, Section 13 which addresses parking. She stated she has additional information from the City Manager’s office regarding the Rio Grande parking garage if the commissioners need to hear it. In addition to asking for parking at the Rio Grande, there may also be an opportunity to utilize City leased 20 parking spaces in the Benedict Commons garage located directly across the alley. This will be a conversation for City Council, but P&Z could make a recommendation. She noted there is a precedent for using the Benedict Commons parking for other projects. In Benedict Commons there are five parking spaces for the 7th & Main Affordable Housing Project. There are also six parking spaces for the Draco Affordable Housing Project. For the Rio Grande Parking Garage, the City Manager’s office has indicated there could be between 20-25 spaces available for both lodges (Base 1 & Base 2) in the summer seasons and 40-50 spaces in the fall, winter and spring seasons. She reviewed the language in Section 13 requiring off-site parking in the Rio Grande garage, offer valet service or other similar off-site parking spaces for the lodge. This content was drafted before the Benedict Commons space was known. Ms. Adams stated in her experience with City Council, it’s most helpful for them if a commission passes a resolution with conditions to give them clear feedback. The meeting minutes are also always provided. She feels it is most effective identifying conditions the commission is acceptable of within the concept of a lodge with the density. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions identified in the packet. She also referred to a letter received earlier in the day (Exhibit F). Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Gibbs referred to the second sentence of the last paragraph on p 57 of the packet. He asked if that was to say the commission should not consider the guidelines or if the guidelines are overwritten by the 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 zoning. She replied it is up to the commission how they want to apply the guidelines. In Staff’s opinion, they are just guidelines and in place to provide general design intent for an area. But they don’t always apply to every project. She feels the commission has the ability to decide when they do or do not apply. Considering the Commercial Lodge Zoning and surrounding zoning area, Staff felt it did not apply. Mr. Gibbs then asked if you have a Lodge Overlay in a Mixed Use District, does the Lodge Overly apply. Ms. Adams replied a Lodge Overlay is actual zoning. The Commercial Mixed Use Character Area is not really a zoning, it is a design character area assigned to the parcel. It is challenging when doing commercial design standards and character areas for parcels that don’t really fit in the box for the character area which she feels this is a good example. Directly across the street is a neighborhood commercial for City Market and the Aspen Square zoned a Commercial Lodge is in a different character area as well. The code allows flexibility in how the guidelines are applied. Ms. Tygre referred to the last sentence in the second paragraph on p 30 which stated City Market has no public amenity space and the properties surrounding 730 E. Cooper are not required to provide public amenity space. She does not understand what this means. Ms. Adams stated it is based on the zoning in which some require public amenity space. Residential zoned districts do not require public amenity space on-site. She stated City Market is zoned Neighborhood Commercial so it would be required to have public amenity space and they don’t. Mr. Erspamer referred to the lodges and parking listed on the bottom of p 31 of the packet. He asked if the lodges met the code at the time or is Staff trying to show P&Z what the lodges should or should not provide in parking. Ms. Adams stated she was trying to show parking situation at other lodges. A lot of them were developed before there was a parking requirement. Most all of them have head in parking located in the right of way so it doesn’t count as on-site parking. Should these lodges come in for redevelopment, the code would allow them to maintain their existing deficit. Mr. Erspamer asked if Staff was recommending to waive the impact fees defined on p 35. Ms. Adams stated Staff was recommending to waive the fees, but acknowledged it is a City Council decision. Mr. Erspamer then turned the floor over to the applicant Mr. Mark Hunt in attendance with Mr. Mitch Haas and Mr. Charles Cunniffe. Mr. Haas is happy with Staff’s recommendation and the proposed resolution. They feel they do address all the code requirements. Mr. Haas wanted to reiterate the building fully complies with the Commercial Lodge underlying zoning in regards to its size. The only aspect where it doesn’t comply is the height of the restrooms on the roof top deck. The restrooms are the same height as the other enclosures that do comply with the height requirements. If the height for the restrooms is not granted, they will go away. The building looks the same whether or not the restrooms are located on the roof top deck. Mr. Haas reminded P&Z they will not nail down a solution yet regarding parking until they know they have a project. They are fine with Staff’s recommendation to require off-site parking and they are working on options. He previously worked on the affordable housing project in the Community Bank Building located right next to the Rio Grande Parking Garage. At that time, the City would not entertain the idea of letting anyone use the parking garage. He feels it would be better to allow those residents the option of parking in the Rio Grande instead of the Benedict Commons. The applicant’s intention is to provide parking. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. Haas believes a recommendation for P&Z with conditions is more constructive than a denial. Mr. Haas reiterated the southeast corner is not the best location for public amenity space because it is right across from the City Market loading dock and the intersection of Highway 82. They also explored moving the courtyard space to the street, but there is a functional reason for it to be located where it is as defined in the proposal. All the internal rooms of the hotel will utilize the courtyard space for windows and natural light. The team attempted to enliven the street with a pick up window, operable windows and public access easements into the building. In addition to the hotels mentioned by Ms. Adams in the memo in regards to parking required by similar sized lodges on p 31, Mr. Haas wanted to add the Independence Square Hotel with zero parking, Residence Hotel with zero parking, Chalet Lisl with zero parking on-site, and Hearthstone House with zero parking. Mr. Haas stated they are trying to fill the affordable lodging need the City has had for a long time. This project is designed to be affordable and does not include any free market residences, time share units, and fractional residences. Mr. Haas stated it is odd we have a code and City goals to provide affordable lodging yet the code seems to discourage affordable lodging. The smaller room sizes make the lodge affordable but the affordable housing and parking requirements do not come down to match. If they had half the number of rooms, they would have half the parking requirement. Building smaller rooms is more expensive to build than larger rooms with more plumbing and HVAC. He feels they are being punished for trying to provide what the City has been asking for years. Mr. Hunt reiterated they are not asking for a parking waiver. He does feel the project having more rooms is burdened as Mr. Haas explained earlier. Mr. Hunt stated with all the studies that have been done, the City is a 60% occupied town. If he considers the 60% occupancy rate with 40 rooms, there would be 24 rooms occupied at any time on average. Using the high end of the average number of cars that drive overall of 40%, 9.6 cars would be driving to his lodge on average. Although the project is tasked with providing parking for a normal sized, not-affordable lodge, he is committed to doing it. Again, they are not asking for a waiver. Mr. Hunt showed slides demonstrating the design inspiration and potential designs for areas of the lodge. He showed where the take out window would be located and where there would be access to the interior courtyard. He also showed slides of examples of interior courtyard designs. He then showed example slides how they could further engage the streetscape. He showed the location of the operable windows. Mr. Hunt wants to be able to bring in the local community as well as the guests. He showed slides demonstrating retail options including a barber shop. Mr. Hunt showed slides of the building during the day and dusk to show the importance of having the additional glass as demonstrated in the initial design presented. He feels having more glass will make the rooms feel larger. The building is set back about 12 inches from the sidewalk and they added 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 landscaping to soften the area. He would prefer to stay with the original design instead of the other two options provided at the previous meeting. Mr. Cunniffe then pointed out options being considered in regards to the amount of glass and windows. He mentioned awnings could be added to reduce the amount of glass and light. He also stated it would help diminish the grid-like look to the building. Mr. Cunniffe wanted to point out the newer popular lobby bar inside the Hotel Jerome as a public amenity space not located on the edge of the building. In regards to zoning, Mr. Cunniffe wanted to point out the area was zoned lodging and was changed to residential. The Bell Mountain Lodge with 22 units was rezoned for free market. Mr. Cunniffe feels the benefit of this project is that it adds more rooms to the community than a typical project. Looking at what the other projects are providing in terms of new rooms: • Hotel Lenado is going from 19 rooms to nine rooms • Molly Gibson is adding nine rooms • The Sky Hotel is adding seven rooms • The Hotel Jerome is adding ten rooms The net gain to the community is 16 new lodge rooms for these projects. The Base 1 Lodge adds three times as many rooms with a far less impact and the foot print of the building is quite a bit smaller. None of the other new lodge rooms are intended to be affordable and those projects have free market components. Mr. Cunniffe feels Mr. Hunt can propose this opportunity because he can combine it with his other lodge project. It does not make financial sense by itself. He also feels City Market may benefit more than other retail establishments. If the property was used as another retail space, such as a pharmacy, the impact would be greater because the usage would be substantially more frequent than a lodge. Mr. Cunniffe feels that no one else is coming forward with a project similar to this one. The only other location he feels this could occur is the Hotel Lenado site. It could hold similar number of units, but they are proposing to convert what is now a lodge to more free market units. He thinks it is an opportunity for the community that will not appear very often. Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Mr. Erspamer referenced Mr. Hunt’s terms of sensational, powerful and asked what he meant by them. Mr. Hunt stated he was describing the sensation when you are in the smaller room, the design offsets the size of the room by bringing the outside in. Mr. Erspamer asked if angled parking would be allowed by the Parking Department. Ms. Adams stated they are required to have parallel parking and did not think angled parking would be allowed due to safety concerns. Mr. Erspamer asked where Mr. Hunt obtained the statistic of the number of cars that drive. Mr. Hunt stated it was done through the lodging survey and he believed it was done by the City and confirmed by the hotels. Mr. Hunt recognizes it could range from 10% to 60%. Mr. Hunt states some of the other 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 hotels have amenities such as ballrooms that bring in hundreds of people which adds to the parking needs. Mr. Erspamer asked about the size of the coffee shop. Mr. Hunt did not know the sf, but stated it would be small. Mr. Erspamer asked in regards to the generation rate, if there was a final agreement by the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Ms. Adams stated APCHA prefers on-site mitigation or housing credits. Mr. Haas recommend 0.6 FTE rate but stated APCHA’s mission is to provide affordable housing. Ms. Adams added it is discussed on p 78 of the packet. Staff felt comfortable with the 0.3 FTE based on the amenities and proposed operation similar to a typical lodge preservation hotel instead of the 0.6 FTE used by the Little Nell and St. Regis Hotels. Mr. Cunniffe stated Mr. Hunt has a credit from the replaced Gap Building. Mr. Hunt has not asked to use this credit at this point according to Ms. Adams. Mr. McNellis wanted to see the floor plan slide again which was provided by Mr. Hunt. Mr. Haas remarked the cut out for the take out window would extend the entire height of the building. Mr. Cunniffe stated the window will introduce there is a courtyard beyond and a pathway will be provided on the exterior of the building back to the courtyard. Mr. McNellis asked if the courtyard was now reduced in size at which Mr. Haas replied yes. Mr. Hunt stated it now connects to the restaurant, the retail, the lobby and the outside. Mr. McNellis asked if the reduced size reduces it as a public amenity space. Mr. Haas stated is reduced in size but is better integrated with the other parts of the building. Mr. McNellis asked it was changed to meet a building requirement at which Mr. Hunt replied no. Mr. Haas stated the public amenity requirement is 10-11% of the lot area. The roof top deck is more than triple that amount. Mr. McNellis asked if making the courtyard smaller added more public amenity space somewhere else in the building. Mr. Haas stated the building is the same, but they have added some landscape to soften and engage the streetscape. Mr. Haas stated some layout changes occurred on the second and third floors with an adjustment of room space. Mr. Erspamer asked if the garage part of the Benedict Commons managed by the homeowners association (HOA) and would require their approval to sell or rent the space. Ms. Adams cannot confirm the management of the garage but added it could be added as a condition to the approval. Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. Ms. Katie Bartlett lives in the Benedict Commons. She has concerns the parking will add more traffic in and out of their garage. She also feels there is a lot of impactful traffic in the area with a busy intersection. Pulling out on to Original St from Hyman Ave is like an accident waiting to happen. The structure of the building doesn’t blend with the other neighboring buildings. She works as a massage therapist and her customers share what they like and don’t like. They do not like the Art Museum and they complain about the parking. Mr. Bruce Nethery lives in Benedict Commons. He understands the needs for developers to maximize the value of the building, but as a 33 year resident he is concerned about the loss of vitality to the town with this cube movement of boxes. He has seen the town grow to the point he can no longer see Independence Pass. He thought the Gap Building was pretty well done. He feels the newer buildings have too much glass and glare. He reiterated the failure is the box structure. He doesn’t like the hard lines in a mountain town. He understands nothing can be done about the height. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. Andrew Sandler owns Bootsie Bellows and Whiskey Rush, formerly the Regal. As an entrepreneur and resident of Aspen he feels there is a lack of evolution in the town. He feels the businesses suffer due to the lack of hotel rooms available in town. The town needs this type of an affordable hotel to bring in younger demographics and the next generation. He feels the town focuses more on affordable housing than affordable lodging sometimes. In regards to the structure, he understands Mr. Hunt is trying to maximize the use of space. He likes the idea that guests can use the retail and restaurants provided in the building as well similar to the Little Nell. He is concerned Aspen has lost the HBO Comedy Fest and the Art Basels of the world and feels Aspen needs to grow in the right direction. He feels the current structure at the corner is an eyesore. Mr. Jon Fightlin lives in Benedict Commons. He feels messy vitality no longer counts in this town. He does not feel comparing the parking to the St. Moritz and Hotel Lenado is a fair comparison. Those lodges are away from downtown and this location is definitely downtown. His wife lives directly above the garage door and they can feel when the door opens and closes. He feels it will be used constantly if the hotel is allowed to use the garage. He is also concerned who would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the garage. He feels the alley if very congested now and is concerned about the use of the alley impacting traffic. He asked how they plan to handle the pick-up and drop-offs. The corner is a nightmare during the holidays. He is concerned how late at night the roof top deck will be open. Mr. Sam Hewins lives in Benedict Commons. He also runs a barber shop in the Buckhorn Arms building. He is glad someone purchased the building and is replacing the current structure and sees an opportunity for the impacts to the alley to be improved. He feels this type of hotel will bring more business to town and is vital for Aspen to have lodging and become young again. He feels the fun part of Aspen has been dying over the years. He doesn’t feel another developer will bring this type of opportunity to Aspen. Mr. Josh Landis was the listing agent that sold this property and is also the president of the Benedict Commons HOA. They were not happy to find out the Benedict Commons garage space was being considered for this project. He doesn’t think it is a commercially zoned parking garage. He does want strangers in the garage and is concerned about the wear and tear. The City does lease 31 spaces from the Benedict Commons and he would like to be included in any conversations regarding its use. His door is on Original St and he has seen the traffic impacts during the seasons. He doesn’t see how the drop- offs and pick-ups will work without issues. He is also concerned about changes to the one way alley which serves as a front entrance to six affordable housing units. It also serves as the only access point to the Brownstone underground parking garage on Hyman Ave, handicap access and utility access to the Benedict Commons. He think the concept is great but feels it may be too much for this property. Ms. Kim Raymond lives across Original St from the property and has similar concerns as Mr. Landis. She likes the building design and the concept is good, but too much is being squished into the property. She wonders how the parking will be handled for the restaurant and the retail which she feels will add congestion. She saw three accidents at this intersection during the holidays. It is difficult to turn onto Original in this area. She doesn’t feel the code is being addressed in regards to the public amenity space. She asked if the public will know the roof top deck is there and available. She likes the coffee window. She thinks this corner is the last vestige of messy vitality and folks like the small town feeling. Aspen is not Chicago and not LA. Growth needs to be done properly and not at the expense of the residences and code. She has not seen many changes to the proposal since the initial application. 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Ms. Connie Daly agrees with Ms. Raymond. Ms. Gail Price lives in the Benedict Commons. She said comparing this hotel to the Hotel Lenado is in poor taste. The Hotel Lenado is subtlety blended with the landscape. This new building is a big block with windows and could be a Walmart. She does not feel angle parking would work anywhere near this building unless you cut the building back substantially. She doesn’t feel the unloading has been addressed at all and the codes are gone. She hasn’t heard anything said about an employee unit or two. She also wanted to know where the electrical boxes were going to be. She also asked why there isn’t underground parking when other buildings have to have it. She doesn’t feel the building has a hint of anything representing the mountains or landscape surrounding around Aspen. She feels the traffic is a mess around the intersection. She is not against change, but keep it classy. Mr. Peter Grenney has several questions. He does not understand how Aspen will get affordable lodging if this project is rejected. The City is not going to provide affordable lodging, so the expectation is the developers will provide it. The criteria set forth seems unrealistic and unfeasible for the private sector to deliver. How can a developer deliver on every wish list item put forth, It’s easy to scrutinize this application for more things the community wants, but those additional wants are coming at the expense of what the community has clearly spoken that it needs in affordable lodging. He feels there has to be a line drawn in the sand where everyone can agree on what to expect on a project offering what the community desperately needs. He feels this proposal will bring the younger generation to Aspen and provide the needed affordable lodging. Ms. Molly Faath lives in Benedict Commons. She is concerned about parking and the congestion at the intersection. She envisions traffic backed up down Original St and the alley consumed with people coming in and out of hotel because she doesn’t see where the drop-off is located. In her experience working with hotels, she says people need time to unload their bags and skis and she feels people will use the alley for this. She likes the design, but feels the size is not going to work for such a small lot. She doesn’t understand why we have a land use code if it doesn’t have to be adhered to. Mr. Sid Devine lives in Benedict Commons. He ran the Mountain House for 18 years and feels the City has not allowed smaller lodges to add more rooms in the past. He feels the City needs more affordable lodging. He feels this area is already congested and parking is horrible. If a proposal like this is going to be allowed, then there needs to be some response to the parking. Ms. Alecia Smith lives in Benedict Commons. She thinks it’s great Mr. Hunt is bringing affordable lodging to Aspen but doesn’t feel it belongs on this corner as proposed. She is concerned with noise, traffic and parking. She feels the Benedict Common garage is already overused and in disrepair. Ms. Alena Gauba lives in Benedict Commons. Her main concern is parking and the proposed entrance. She does feel we need more lodging in Aspen but does not feel this is a good location. She would like to see a check in, check out area addressed. Ms. Karen Ryman’s son lives in Benedict Commons. She still feels the scale and congestion in this area is not appropriate for this lodge. She feels the one foot setback in the alley is not appropriate for the loading and unloading for the businesses in the building. She asked the audience how many people in attendance are from the Benedict Commons. Fourteen people raised their hands. She said they don’t disagree with the need, but they do not feel this is an appropriate location. 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. Mac Boelens asked for the plan for drop-off and pick-up. Mr. Jim Farrey feels the proposed development cleans up some of the traffic issues by eliminating the curb cuts. He supports the proposal and feels it will serve as a gateway building to Aspen. He feels affordable lodging is paramount to the future of Aspen. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment session of the hearing. Mr. Erspamer stated it did not appear there will be time for the second public hearing scheduled for the meeting (212 Lake Ave) so he asked for a recommendation to continue to January 13, 2015. Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the 212 Lake Ave hearing to January 13th for a special meeting and Mr. Gibbs seconded. There was not further discussion and all members were in favor, motion carried. Ms. Quinn stated the applicant, Mr. David Kelly representing, is okay with the continuance. Mr. Erspamer then reconvened on the Base 1 Lodge hearing and asked for Staff’s rebuttal and clarification. Ms. Adams thanked the residents of Benedict Commons for providing comment and she will reach out them to discuss the potential of using the garage or not. She also wanted to clarify the requirements to include two loading spaces. The parking department will decide if the two spaces should be on Original or Cooper. They are leaning toward Cooper because it has less traffic. Mr. Erspamer then asked for rebuttal or clarification from the applicant. Mr. Cunniffe agrees the current parking on the corner is a mess but a major contributor is the lack of defined parking on the existing property. There is no control of the flow of traffic in and out of the current parking area. Typically you would not be allowed to have a curb cut so close to an intersection. The new building will clean this up with the elimination of curb cuts and defining the parking. The proposed lodge will generate a lot less traffic than a commercial business. Mr. Haas showed a slide and pointed out the current curb cuts and traffic flows as well as the planned parallel parking. He doesn’t feel the City Parking Department and Colorado Department of Transportation will allow the two loading spaces to be on Original St. Mr. Haas stated everyone wants affordable lodging and it has been the plans since 1975. Nobody wants it in their back yard, but it has to go somewhere. If this project was one block to the west the parking requirement would be zero. Instead, the applicant is making a huge effort to address parking. Mr. Haas stated the applicant is going to try to find a way to provide parking off-site. Mr. Haas cringes when he hears other say why have a code. He feels they are compliant with the zoning code. They are only asking for height on the restrooms which are no higher than the rest of the building. Mr. Haas stated the electrical boxes will be on the building as required. Mr. Haas stated he would be happy to work with Mr. Landis regarding the potential use of the Benedict Commons parking garage. He felt it may be helpful to have another contributor to help pay for the maintenance and repair of the building. 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. Hunt does not feel the proposed lodge will add to the traffic issues and people will be shocked at the decrease in traffic. The numbers of a hotel equates to approximately ten cars and with two turns a week, 20 cars would be added. The current business generate much more traffic in a smaller amount of time. He is surprised the current traffic flows are allowed. Mr. Hunt stated there is currently no defined area for trash and electric. The new building will define the sidewalk and the entrance to the lodge. He understands further discussion is necessary to look into possibly using the Benedict Commons parking garage. He is less concerned with the parking and believes the Rio Grande parking garage is a good option. He feels this location is appropriate for a lodge and feels the loading can be managed. Mr. Hunt feels everyone has their own opinion regarding design. He really likes the original design and feels it is authentic in look and materials. He wants the building to be noticed. He feels this building will be similar to the athletic building with the setbacks and amount of glass. And just because it is a rectangle, doesn’t mean it is the Art Museum. The way the code is written now lends itself to more rectangle boxes. He feels they can work with the glare and light bleeding. In conclusion, he is excited everyone believes in the need for affordable lodging and is looking for the support with the conditions from the commission. Mr. Erspamer closed the rebuttal part of the hearing. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:30 PM, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Erspamer opened for discussion from the commission. Mr. Erspamer reviewed the criteria for the commissioners’ discussion. 1. Conceptual Commercial Design and Review, Chapter 26.412 – The recommendation goes to Council 2. Planned Development Project Review – The recommendation goes to Council regarding an increase in overall floor area, free market residential, lodge floor area and setbacks. 3. GMQS Review for lodge – The recommendation goes to Council regarding affordable housing and commercial development and allotments. Council has final review. Ms. Tygre stated she has four hot buttons. 1. Parking and circulation – This is the biggest issue for her. As a walker who walks in this area daily for groceries at City Market, she feels this project will make the City Market parking lot even crazier. She feel the hotel visitors will see and use the City Market parking lot. The hotel guests will want to bring their cars because it is more cost effective for them to do this, regardless of where a place is located. We have heard same stories for every project submitted asking to be under parked and feel it’s not’s true regarding the need for parking for the project. You can’t have them not bring their cars or close their blinds when you want them because they are guests. It is unrealistic to pretend you shouldn’t have on-site parking. It negatively affects City Market as well as the other commercial entities around City Market. 2. Public Amenity Space – She feels the public amenity space must be obvious to everyone and right there for people to use. As an example of another public amenity space not on the ground 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 level, she referred to the Kandycom Building located across from the Fire Station. Their public amenity space is on the second level and nobody ever goes up there. She doesn’t feel the proposed walk up window at Base 1 will be successful. Boogies had one which did not do well and it didn’t add to the streetscape. She does not like the interior courtyard and feels the roof top amenity is basically a fourth floor. 3. Architecture – She is less concerned with the design and would be willing to forward on with the recommendation. 4. Employee Housing – She recommends an employee generation rate of 0.6 FTE. Mr. Goode would prefer a softer tone as shown in the second and third designs presented at the previous meeting. The small windows would generate less light pollution, which is a concern for him. He knows there are ways to soften the light as discussed by Mr. Cunniffe. He is pretty happy with the application as proposed. In regards the traffic and circulation, he doesn’t believe there will be 40 cars sitting there at one time. In regards to public amenity space, he doesn’t feel this is a corner where you want a ton of people hanging out. He likes the proposed take-out window. He previously had a coffee take out window at Explore with a fond, strong following. At one time, Boogies had a take-out window for T-shirts and ice cream. He recommends an employee generation rate of 0.3 FTE. Mr. McNellis thanked the applicant team and members of the public for participating. He feels this is a debate encompassing larger issues impacting the City. Parking is not one of his hot buttons. As the project moves forward, he would like something requiring parking somewhere. Mr. Erspamer and Mr. McNellis stated something may be added to Section 13 of the resolution. He feels the hotel guests must understand parking may not be convenient and should be encouraged to not bring or rent a car. It is his understanding if the project does not have parking, it is not going forward. Mr. McNellis stated his two hot buttons are the public amenity space and the architectural character. He appreciates what Mr. Cunniffe has brought in regards to improving the expression of the building. He agrees with the people from the Benedict Commons in that it just another box and feels people are expecting to see something more especially in reference to some to the recent developments in the core. He would like to see something with a little more articulation, angulation, and pockets of activity space. Have walls go from property line to property line on such a prominent spot in town isn’t acceptable. He appreciates the recent updates to the streetscape which allow the interior spaces to flow to the streetscape, which energizes it immensely. If the interior court yard is going to be used as a real amenity space, there needs to be something put in place to help show people it is there and to be used. He is not sure the notch provides this or not, but feels there are ways to direct people to the space. He feels the courtyards space must be at the original proposed size and offer more space than just four chairs. No one will use it as currently proposed. He doesn’t discount the interior space as public amenity space, but it doesn’t replace the need to enhance the pedestrian environment at the ground level. Mr. McNellis is in favor of an employee generation rate of the 0.3 FTE. A hotel as proposed creates significantly less employee generation needs than places like the Nell and Jerome. Going back to the architecture, he feels there is a lot that can be done with it. He realizes the existing structure is blighted and is a very important part of our town for individuals arriving from the pass. He does not subscribe replacing an eyesore with something substandard. 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. McNellis would like the valet service to be mandatory and would like the staging location for the shuttle to be finalized and does it take away from the guest staging areas. Mr. Elliott stated his comments as related to Ms. Tygre’s comments. 1. Parking – He is okay as long as it is provided somewhere. He feels the applicant may have poked a hornet’s nest with the discussion of potentially using the Benedict Commons parking garage and feels the Rio Grande is a solid solution. He also feels eliminating the cut outs on the property will clean up the intersection. He agrees with the applicant in that another type of business at this location, like retail, would add more to the congestion than a hotel. He does feel the hotel will be utilized at higher than average rates. 2. Employee Housing – He is fine with an employee generation rate of 0.3 FTE. 3. Public Amenity – He understands Mr. McNellis’s point regarding four chairs in the courtyard, but feels this is an improvement over the current six people at a picnic table amenity. Four may be a bit low, but it is an improved amenity space. He also likes the proposed cut out window. 4. Architecture – He understands the applicant may be receive feedback regarding the shape of the building, but he also understands this is an affordable lodging space requires a design to maximize the use of available volume of space. He doesn’t see how you make it affordable and take away space that could be used for rooms. Mr. Gibbs does not have any problem with the planned development aspect and feels the proposed building meets the underlying zoning. He does have continued issue with the fact this property is in the central mixed use district and under the requested commercial design review, P&Z must pay attention to the design guidelines and criteria for the commercial character area. From his perspective, he does not believe this building complies. As heard from a number of neighbors, he feels the proposed building is too much for this location. The very first design objective for the commercial character area is to reflect the transition in character between the commercial core and outlying residential neighborhoods. He feels it does not meet this objective. If the building was on the other end of the block, he could perhaps see a fit, but feels this is in the middle of the transition. In regards to the employee housing generation rate, Mr. Gibbs feels the project already has enough of a consideration in the fact they only have to do ten percent, so he favors the 0.6 FTE rate. He doesn’t feel P&Z should take a requirement from an unrelated zone district and apply it to this project. Mr. Erspamer agrees with Mr. Gibbs regarding the design, but he understands design is in the eye of the beholder. He also agrees with Mr. Haas in that the design is in the code. He noted Mr. Haas’s earlier reference to the Athletic Club building and thought that would be more tolerable because it has less glass and the setbacks are more compatible with neighboring buildings. He could tolerate a three story building if the setbacks were more and the building was more dimensional. In regards to public amenity space, he stated he is not a fan of roof top decks. He knows it is in the code, but feels there should be a timeline. He is not sure of its impacts and could become a real problem over time. But he understands the demographics the applicant is trying to appeal to with the design. Mr. Erspamer stated he would not go for the override for the restrooms. 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Mr. Erspamer doesn’t think P&Z should tell the applicant where to satisfy the parking requirements. He feels P&Z should state parking has to be provided for prior to approval. Mr. Erspamer favors a 0.3 FTE employee generation rate. He feels this is not a luxury hotel and will not require the number of employees as a luxury hotel. Mr. Erspamer then referred to Section 13 – Parking Department of the resolution in the packet (p 46). He asked if a statement should be included to clarify there should be two assigned parking spaces on Cooper St. Mr. Gibbs thought it should just state that parking must be provided. Mr. Goode stated it should state the applicant shall provide parking spaces. Mr. Erspamer suggested adding that valet service be provided and remove the portion mentioning another similar parking situation. He recommended it state the applicant shall secure parking spaces and provide valet service. Mr. Gibbs asked if they could first look at Section 1 of the resolution to try to get a sense if the commission approves or not of the requested reviews. Ms. Adams offered to help the commission work through the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if anyone opposed her assistance and no one stated any concerns. Ms. Adams reiterated the three reviews to be voted on for the project. According to her notes, she sees support for the dimensional variations and parking provided off-site. The location of parking is to be determined, but must be provided. She added parking is part of the Planned Development Review which she sees support for approving that aspect of the memo. Mr. Elliott stated if the Rio Grande parking garage was not going to be part of the resolution, then he is not in favor of using residential parking. Ms. Adams stated for the Growth Management review, she sees a majority of four members supporting the 0.3 generation rate. Ms. Adams stated the Commercial Design Review is the big issue with the commission including the architecture and the public amenity space. She suggested the commission could recommend a re-study of the architecture and public amenity space to comply with commercial design. Mr. Gibbs stated is not just the architecture and public amenity space, but the fundamental character. He does not necessarily care what the building looks like from an architecture perspective, but he wants it to be a transitional building. Ms. Adams stated that could be included in their recommendation to Council. She wants to focus the conversation to the part of the review that need conditions specified to provide clear direction to Council. Mr. Erspamer suggested stating in the resolution the building must be transitional in size, scale and zone. Mr. Gibbs felt that statement would make it comply with the design guidelines for this district and commercial character area. Ms. Adams suggested the commission focus on some conditions for commercial design review. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:40 PM, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion carried. 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 Ms. Adams then suggested the commission could have two resolutions. Mr. McNellis stated he agreed the commercial design standards is in question for different reasons from the members. He stated he would vote to deny the application based on his concerns of the commercial design standards if the commission is unable to break out the reviews. Ms. Quinn reiterated the commission is just making recommendations to Council at this point. Mr. Erspamer asked the members if they would support language stating the building must be transitional in size, scale and design to fit the zone district. Mr. Goode and Ms. Tygre felt that statement would not give Council any direction. Mr. Erspamer stated if they give any more direction, there will not be consensus because all the commission members feel something different. Mr. McNellis feels the concerns of Mr. Gibbs definitely include the design. He feels the majority of the commission would vote down the commercial design component. Ms. Quinn stated they could recommend denial of the commercial design component. Mr. Elliott stated he would pass it as is. Mr. Erspamer suggested they go forward with the language in the parking section. Mr. McNellis suggested they get a straw vote on each of the three reviews. Mr. Erspamer asked who was in favor of the planned development review including height, dimensions, restrooms and parking. Four voted in favor and two voted against. Mr. Gibbs feels they don’t have criteria to reject the PD review, but also feels it completely conflicts with the commercial design review. Mr. Erspamer asked who was in favor of the GMQS review. Four voted in favor and two voted against. Mr. Erspamer then asked who was in favor of the commercial design review. Two voted in favor and four voted against. Mr. Gibbs then stated the resolution could recommend approval of the PD and GMQS reviews and recommend denial of the Commercial Design Review. Mr. Erspamer asked if they need to vote no to the resolution as provided in the packet and Ms. Quinn replied there has been no motion on the current resolution. Ms. Adams suggested the resolution could state P&Z recommends City Council grant project review approval and growth management approval and denial of the conceptual commercial design approval. She would amend Section 1 to include this language. She added it would include the 0.3 generation rate, required parking with a valet service. She suggested eliminating Section 16 which discusses the public amenity space. Mr. McNellis stated the resolution would include any approval associated with PD or growth management as drafted by staff including the changes to Section 13 are acceptable by the majority of the commission. Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve Resolution 1, Series 2015 in accordance of approval of the planned development and growth management as drafted by staff along with the conditions in accordance of those approvals and denial of the commercial design standards review. This includes the 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014 adjustments to the parking section including requiring valet service, removing the Rio Grande Parking Garage portion and excluding residential parking. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:45 PM, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Erspamer continued stating there was a motion, a second and an explanation of the motion. He asked if any further discussion was required on the motion. There was none so he requested a roll call. Roll call vote; Tygre, no; Gibbs, yes; McNellis, yes; Goode, yes; Keith, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion passed with a total four (4) yes – two (2) no. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 15