Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150915Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Jesse Morris and Spencer McKnight. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode commended Mr. Stan Gibbs for his service with P&Z and presented Mr. Gibbs with a resolution #18, Series 2015, commending his service to the City of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. Goode requested his name be corrected on the last page. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for August 18th with the requested change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he will be recusing himself for the public hearing at tonight’s meeting because he is the architect for the application. 200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2015 Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing for 200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado and asked if the application had been properly noticed. Ms. Quinn replied she had reviewed the public notice and finds it had been properly provided. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, opened with a review of the application. She stated the application includes demolishing the hotel and replacing it with a mixed use building containing lodge units, affordable housing units and free market residential units. The application had been tabled in April to allow the applicant to adjust the design based on comments from Staff and P&Z. The applicant provided notice to let the public know about tonight’s hearing. Tonight’s modified proposal includes a four level building containing four lodge units and nine keys, two free market residential units, two affordable housing units and 11 off street parking spaces. Two parking spaces are provided off the alley and there is a lift providing access to the nine parking spaces in the basement. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 Overall, setbacks have increased and the building has been reduced in size. Due to the changes there two reviews for P&Z to consider including a conceptual commercial design review for the design of the building and a growth management review for the construction of the lodge units, affordable housing and the free market. In regards to the growth management review, the current application includes nine keys down from the 19 keys offered by the existing hotel. With the new configuration, the lodge mitigation is 1.62 Full Time Employees (FTEs). The mitigation associated with the free market residential units is 2.53 FTEs based on the sf of the proposed units on the top floor. The total requirement totals 4.15 FTEs. The application proposes two affordable housing units, each with two bedrooms. These two units will mitigate 4.5 FTEs which meets the mitigation requirements onsite. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) recommends the affordable housing units be rental units at a category two. Staff reports the size of the units are a bit small for category four units as required by the land use code for mitigation and the units are larger than what is required for category two units. Staff recommends one unit be designated as a for sale unit because it is not part of the mitigation associated with the lodge. Next, she discussed the conceptual commercial design review for the application. The property is located in the Small Lodge Character Area. The key objectives for the area include: 1. Compatibility with neighborhood context 2. Creating a distinctive lodge experience for a sense of being in a neighborhood and to relate to the context with the design of the building 3. Enhancing the street edge 4. Minimizing the visual impact of cars With regard to the street and alley system, the changes minimize the presence of any type of parking. All the parking is along the alley and enclosed. Staff is a bit concerned regarding the wall of garage doors created by the garages along the alley. With regard to public amenity space, Staff realizes the slope of the lot makes it tricky for development. There have been improvements connecting with the natural grade to the building. There are fewer retaining walls on the site. The public amenity space is located along the park as a walkway along Hopkins and also along Aspen St. Staff feels there have been improvements with the topography in the latest design and they would like to see a bit more work to create amenity space connected to the sidewalk and work with the topography more. The entry is still sunken and there could be more work focused on the corner of Hopkins and Aspen to create a more inviting, animated public amenity space. One of the conceptual reviews includes the building height, mass and scale. This includes the building, how it placed on the site and the form it takes. Although the building is smaller in the most recent application, Staff is still concerned the design has an office feel to the design and the height of 32 ft being requested would be granted through the commercial design review. Staff feels the height should remain at 28 ft in height because of the residential character in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the massing and façade along Hopkins does not relate well to the historic structures and residential character across the street. Ms. Phelan then identified the neighborhood context being more residential in character by describing the neighboring buildings by moving around the project along Hopkins, Aspen and the alley which 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 include Victorian residences, the Hearthstone lodge, and multi-family buildings. In regards to neighborhood context, there are residences directly across on Hopkins. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. Tygre asked if the zoned district allowances described on p 14 of the packet reflect the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay or only the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Ms. Phelan confirmed only the MU zone district is considered for the application. Ms. Phelan stated the LP overlay is utilized through the Planned Development process to ask for something beyond. Mr. Morris asked how the maximum height of the existing building relates to the maximum height of the proposed building. Ms. Phelan stated she does not have the information for the existing building. She also stated measurements are different based on the type of roof line. Mr. Mesirow asked what the maximum amount of floor area is allowed for the project. Ms. Phelan replied it is calculated at a 2:1 ratio and for the 9,000 sf lot, 18,000 sf of floor area would be allowed. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff has any comment regarding the nine parking spaces which is more than what is required. Ms. Phelan stated the parking requirements are met with the underground parking, so the two spaces at the alley level could be a reduction in mass or repurposed for something else. Staff does not have strong feelings regarding the parking, but does feel there is an opportunity to reduce the mass. Mr. Goode turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, is representing the applicant. Mr. Wilson stated they had visited owners of some of the adjacent properties to obtain support of the redevelopment application. He presented a petition signed by some owners which was accepted as Exhibit O. Mr. Wilson stated the application proposes to replace the existing lodge with a new one having nine units averaging 437 sf per unit which he said relates to the clicker sessions in which people requested larger, more luxurious units not offered in the current hotel. He then reviewed the changes between the previous and current applications. The current application includes two free market residences, down from the previous application. The onsite affordable housing is increased in the current application. The current application adds a new sidewalk along Aspen St and Hopkins Ave respecting the existing cottonwoods based on conversations with the Parks department. The public amenity space has been enhanced from 1,332 sf (about 14%) to 2,319 sf (about 26%). The minimum requirement is 25% or with a nonconformity greater than 10%, can be maintained. A community lounge which walks out to the park is included to encourage mingling between the lodge unit guests and the residential components. The current application also includes nine subgrade parking spaces with the additional two spaces above. They are no longer requesting any variances. He then reviewed the floor area ratios. The lodge component has been reduced, the affordable housing has been increased and the free market is all above grade. He added the total FAR is pretty far under what is allowed. The FAR amounts are documented on page 90 of the agenda packet. 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 In regards to the zone district, Mr. Wilson showed slides depicting the zone district of the property and surrounding neighbors, the elevation of the existing Hotel Lenado, elevations of the proposed new hotel. He then showed floor plans of the proposed hotel as described below. Lower level • Parking • Lodge Storage (beds, change outs, etc.) • Employee lounge • Storage for the employee housing units • Mechanical Main level • Main entry – traditionally a sunken entry and is now within a foot to grade • Lower level of employee housing units • Management valet • Library • Lodge units Park level – adjacent to the park • Public amenity space • Main level of the employee housing units • Two free market garages – may also be used for shuffling spaces for lower garage • Car lift • Trash enclosure – no variance requested • Game lounge / bar Upper level • Two free market units under 2,000 sf limit with perimeter decks Rooftop level • Shared deck available to free market units only Mr. Wilson stated each of employee housing units will have two bedrooms. The applicant would prefer to keep these as for rent units. He also noted they are going over on their employee housing unit requirements. The project requires 4.51 units and they do not plan to take cash-in-lieu for the extra .35 units of FTE. The applicant feels it is important to have the employees living onsite. Mr. Wilson remarked the changes to the parking from the previous application which had six spaces. The current application includes 11 spaces. There are no impacts to the street with the current parking plan. Mr. Wilson displayed a slide outlining the minimum and proposed setbacks. The front yard has 10 ft plus another 15 ft of right-of-way before you reach the pavement. This allows room for a sidewalk that should not impact the trees too much. 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 Mr. Wilson stated the previous plan provided only 14.8 sf of public amenity space. The new application plans for 26.25 sf even though the code only requires the plan to exceed 14.8%. He further discussed how the area in front of the entry has been flattened out to create a public amenity space distinct from the building. He feels the proposed space provides a nice inviting streetscape environment. He then displayed a landscape plan showing the plans in relation to the topography. Mr. Wilson then displayed an elevation slide of the front of the proposed hotel and discussed the 32 ft height request for the building. The entry corner must be depressed in order to be at street level and this is the portion of the building that reaches 32 ft. From a slide of the elevation of the building facing Hopkins on p 81 of the packet, he also pointed out a lower portion of the building respecting the traditional 60 ft width, then a large vertical element to break up the building followed by another 30 ft width of building. The window patterns identify where the rooms are located and give an idea of the width of the building. Mr. Wilson then provided a slide to compare the proposed buildings to the roof lines of the neighboring buildings. He feels the proposed building respects the neighborhood. Although P&Z previously asked the applicant to consider gable roof lines, the applicant is interested in a contemporary building. He then showed an overlay slide comparing the current hotel to the proposed hotel. The proposed hotel is stepped in all the way around the building which makes the existing building look much larger on the corners. The new design with dropped corners also respects the view planes from the neighboring properties and provides a more residential look to the building. He then showed slides of the neighboring buildings including those zoned mixed use, a small pocket of Commercial (C-1), Lodge, Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and a sliver of Medium-Density Residential (R- 6). He noted the number of stories (1-3) and the general height of the neighboring buildings. He also noted a transition in the neighborhood going from flat roofed buildings to Victorians. He noted the geometric forms and primary colors of the proposed hotel provide something more linear and will match anything in Aspen. In closing he feels the current application addresses the previous comments from P&Z, Staff and the public. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked for a confirmation of the total sf of the allocated to the hotel units, which she calculated at approximately 1,750 sf. Mr. Wilson responded the lodge FAR is 4,333 sf. Ms. Phelan asked Ms. Tygre if she wanted the sf of the actual units themselves at which Ms. Tygre confirmed. Ms. Phelan responded she had included a footnote on page 16 of the memo in the agenda packet stating there is 3,937 sf lodge net livable / 9 lodge units (keys) calculates to 437 sf net livable per unit. Ms. Tygre believed there were only four units. Ms. Phelan stated the units have lock offs and could become nine units or keys. Mr. Mesirow believed the original proposal mentioned utilizing the guidelines or directions from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) around lodging goals of the community. He asked how the proposal 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 upholds the goals and principles of the AACP. Mr. Wilson acknowledged the concerns regarding losing lodge space in Aspen and that creating lodges with larger rooms including the amenities that people desire to increase the overall Aspen experience. He said the team went back and forth regarding what the new building should be including residential mixed-family (RMF), a single family home, or a duplex. The team decided the site wants to have a small lodge built on it that is a boutique hotel with really nice rooms with a mixed experience of free market, visitors and employees. Mr. Mesirow stated he sees a move now for combinable rooms to be rented out a higher dollar and higher floor area, penthouses moving to the top and being inaccessible. He asked if the intangibles of the intent of the AACP and guidelines are being further met in the current iteration of the application. Mr. Wilson stated they received input from P&Z and Staff and felt there was a reasonably large believability issue that the lifestyle lodge presented in the previous application which included even more mix and mingle to embrace Mr. Mesirow’s concerns. They felt in order to overcome the beliefs, they needed to adopt more of a standard Aspen model. Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Wilson to speak to the material being considered even though he realizes the application is only seeking conceptual approval at this time. Mr. Wilson replied they are considering a painted metal or stone, vertical barn board with residential character, and a durable finish around the edge which may be a tile that is a negative cast of a barn board. They are also consider plaster on the top sections and using glass railings to visually minimize the height of the building. Mr. Mesirow asked about the change in materials from the previous application. Mr. Wilson stated there was a bit of community feedback and felt they were pretty monolithic in their material palette and they wanted to modulate the façade so the larger core section would be stone or metal to help modulate façade component. He felt the current materials are more appropriate for the area. Mr. Morris asked why the applicant wants two rental units vs one rental and one for sale unit. Mr. Wilson stated the applicant would like to keep both units as rentals for their staff. Mr. Morris stated he personally likes to see innovating applications eliminating parking, but understands it is not feasible. He asked if they were to drop down to nine spaces from eleven spaces, where would they drop the two spaces. Mr. Wilson stated lodges and hotels are never at a loss for storage areas. He stated the two spaces would probably become storage spaces. Mr. Morris asked to see the elevation slide depicting Ajax Mountain in the background. In Staff’s memo, he felt this was the façade not treated with the character of the neighborhood. He said he wanted to flag this for the other P&Z members. Mr. Goode then closed the questions for the applicant and opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth Carver lives directly across the street on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. She questions the use of the building with so few units. They are asking for commercial zoning, but they only have seven hotel rooms which is less than half than what is allowed. She does not see this a viable hotel. She really cares about the height and exterior of the building. Particularly on the Hopkins St side, her house was built in 1976 and the other houses built there have a nod to Victorian design. She doesn’t feel the building matches with the context of the neighborhood. She would prefer a lower height part on the park side. She does not feel this area is residential and not commercial. 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 Ms. Barbara Young lives across the alley on the south side in Park Central West Condominiums. She is happy the parking spaces have been redesigned. She does not feel the roof top deck needs to be as large as it is for so many people (approximately 30). She also asked what would happen to the property when it is sold. Could it be reconfigured? Mr. Ernie Fyrwald has lived in Aspen for 35 years and was in the ski and tourism business for 28 years. He stated there is no secret Aspen needs lodging. He feels this is an incredibly great location for a lodge and implored P&Z to get it passed as quickly as possible. He feels it is walkable location so there should not be any cars going in and out. The public amenity is wonderful and the Limelight has proven to be a really nice resource for those staying there. The garage doors look a bit stark but feels they can be dealt with from a design perspective. He also agrees the elevation from Hopkins is not too exciting and will draw attention at night with all the windows and lights. Overall, he feels it is a great concept and endorses the project. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode asked the applicant for any rebuttal. In regards to reducing the corner of the building towards the park, Mr. Wilson stated they tried to move the mass as much as possible from the sides to the middle of the building. In regards to the capacity of the upper floor roof deck, Mr. Wilson stated the initial application had a capacity near 80. With it adjusted to residential only space, the capacity was lowered to approximately 30. Mr. Wilson stated they could address the garage doors with materials to make it disappear. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner comments and discussion. Mr. McNellis likes the improvements on the application, especially the parking. He wonders if it would be possible to raise the public amenity space to address Staff’s concerns. The sunken space privatizes it and was wondering if it could be raised to the height of the retaining wall. He likes the corner space across from the park. He does not feel the need to micro design the proposal and recognizes it is a transitional area. He feels it is most important the building is a product of its time. He does not care for buildings that are not old, but made to look old. He likes the mass in the middle of the building as well as the modern contemporary design of this day and age. He generally approves the project. Ms. Tygre feels the application has been greatly improved from the previous application. She does like the additional parking and feels the garage doors are a minor thing that could be addressed. In regards to the four principles of the design guidelines, she has problems with items one and two as listed on p 18 of the packet: 1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. She feels additional modifications to the application could make this happen. 2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood. She feels it will be challenging to have a contemporary design in a neighborhood with non-contemporary designed buildings. 7 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 She feels the Hopkins side presents a monolithic experience and is not compatible with the neighborhood context. Her major concern is the entrance on Aspen. It looks like a medical clinic with a modern look associated with hi-tech medical clinics and does not provide a hotel experience. She doesn’t feel they are major issues but cannot approve a project that is supposed to be a hotel that doesn’t say hotel. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the changes made with the new proposal. In regards to guidelines, he finds a lot of difficulty with same guidelines identified by Ms. Tygre. He struggles with the mass and scale of the building as well as the interaction within the building. He also feels this iteration of the building is a significant step back in regards to providing lodge units. He also wanted to note the wood materials from the previous application softened the touch and gave the building more of a mountain feel. He also agrees with Mr. Morris in regards to the parking and would like to see the two extra spaces repurposed as something of value to the lodge or a reduction in the mass. Mr. Morris understands parking is a bigger issue than just this one building. He agrees with Ms. Tygre and Mr. Mesirow and feels there is tension around the one façade of the building. Mr. McKnight stated his thoughts follow along with the others. He understands the difficulty with the site essentially on the line of the transitional area. Parking is not as big of a deal, but would like to see creative solutions for the two extra spaces. He feels the building is beautifully designed and unique, but so unique that it does not match the other buildings in the area. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre that it looks a bit like an office building and doesn’t see it as a lodge. Mr. Goode asked Staff if they had any rebuttal. Mr. McKnight asked if Staff could respond regarding the differences between the options for the two affordable units. Ms. Phelan wanted to respond to Ms. Young’s comments. If someone wanted to do something different in regards to the use of the building in the future, they may need to apply and be granted approval for change to the use. For example, if they wanted to change it into duplex which has a much lower floor area allowance, they would need to have the land use approval amended. In regards to uses of the affordable housing unit, Ms. Phelan stated she would not speak for APCHA, but Staff’s interpretation of the land use code includes a provision for design, location and housing units being for sale units unless it is for a lodge. Lodges are encouraged to use units as employee housing. In the past, the units were always rentals. Staff has seen instances where owners of mixed use buildings wanted to use the units for nannies or other hired help and therefore the unit is not utilized for the purpose for which it was created. The code was changed to have more for sale units so the intent would be the units would actually be used for local working residents. Because there was a reduction in the number of lodging units, basically one unit mitigates for the lodging component and the other unit mitigates for the free market component. Based on the mitigation split, Staff is taking the position the unit mitigating the free market component should be a for sale unit. Mr. Mesirow also wanted to commend the applicant for including the units on site with the development. 8 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 Mr. Goode prefers gabled roof lines, but feels the context with the neighborhood is most important. He echoes Ms. Tygre’s comments. He also commends the applicant for including the parking and affordable housing onsite. He would like to see more work on the design. Mr. Goode stated based on the commissioners’ comments, P&Z recommends continuing the application. Mr. Wilson felt they came in with a reduction in mass and an overabundance of things lacking in the first application and seemed disappointed they are being asked to shell it down further. He feels they will not be able to come in with the same perks next time if being asked to reduce the mass again. Mr. Wilson stated they would take the continuation over a denial. Mr. Goode wanted to make sure Mr. Wilson heard that most of the commission did not speak of issues regarding the request for the 32 ft in height. Mr. Goode reiterated most pointed out issues with the neighborhood context and asked Mr. Wilson to keep that in mind. Ms. Phelan offered September 29th or October 26th as continuation dates. Mr. Wilson felt the October 26th date would be better. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the application until October 26th, seconded by Mr. Elliott. Ms. Phelan corrected the date available to October 20th. Ms. Tygre amended her motion to have the hearing continued until October 20th, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 9