Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20151020Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid was not present because his architect firm represents the applicant. Mr. Goode, Vice- Chair served as the acting chair. Mr. Mesirow called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Spencer McKnight, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury and Jasmine Tygre. Mr. Brian McNellis and Mr. Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams and Linda Manning. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre wanted to bring up a matter involving interior lighting. At a meeting with Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development, regarding prioritizing items for Council, Ms. Garrow stated a Council member had brought the issue of interior lighting spilling outside of buildings. Ms. Tygre wanted to ask it would be possible to have the buildings turn off or dim the green exit signs she finds are glaring outside of the building after regular office hours. Ms. Tygre wanted to know if it was a safety requirement for the lights to remain on. Ms. Phelan thought it may be a building code requirement. Ms. Tygre suggested code changes could be made for the sign or the windows in the building to minimize the glare. Mr. Elliot thought dimming the lights would not be an option because the signs must be bright enough to read in smoke. Mr. McKnight stated he met Ms. Michele Holden with the City’s Citizens Academy and she had asked to be before the P&Z to introduce the academy and obtain feedback from the commission. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Phelan if she has heard from Ms. Holden. Ms. Phelan stated they both work at City Hall and she is available if she wants to discuss getting on an agenda. Mr. Mesirow stated he would reach out to Ms. Holden. Mr. Mesirow wanted to let everyone know several groups in town NexGen, Aspen Young Professionals Association (AYPA), Spring Board Aspen and others are teaming up on Wednesday, October 21 to host an event starting at 5:30 pm at Ryno’s with free food and drinks with the intent to educate the public on election issues. He encouraged everyone to attend and bring other folks with them. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Quinn informed P&Z the commission was named in a lawsuit filed by the Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association as it relates to the Sky Hotel. She added none of the P&Z commission members were named individually but the City is defending the case and filing motions to dismiss. She added she is available if anyone has questions. Ms. Manning, City Clerk, informed the commissioners as part of the Clerk’s 2015 Canary Goal to reduce paper usage, the Clerk will be providing iPads to each commissioner for packet review. She noted the Clerk’s office provides packets to City Council, P&Z, Historic Preservation and the Local Licensing Authority and last year the office produced over 70,000 sheets of paper for the packets. The Clerk’s goal is to reduce paper and eliminate greenhouse gases by the production and destruction of the paper by reducing car trips through Aspen. The savings will amount to 350 car trips through Aspen per year. The office will continue to provide oversized documents when provided by the applicant or requested by a commissioner, but the packets will be on the iPad. She distributed user agreements to P&Z for them to complete and return to the Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 MINUTES Mr. Mesirow asked for a correction to the 6th sentence on p 5, paragraph 5. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for October 6th with the correction requested. The motion was seconded by Jason Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing Mr. Mesirow opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Sara Adams, Community Development Sr. Planner, reviewed the application standing in for Ms. Jennifer Phelan during her absence. She noted the review had been continued from September 15th.meeting. The current application contains basically the same components including four lodge units, nine keys, two onsite affordable housing units, and two free market residential units on the upper floor. The project meets the required parking spaces and actually provides two extra spaces onsite. The project meets the underlying zone district requirements so she will not review any dimensions. Instead, she will focus on the design in her discussion. There are no variances requested but she will go over the requested height increase from 28 ft to 32 ft which is allowed in the underlying zone district through commercial design review. The two reviews for the application are: 1) Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2) Growth Management Review Ms. Adams stated Staff appreciate the movement in the architecture including the addition of gables and trying to address a challenging site where the topography and trees are very complicated. Staff is still concerned whether the design meets the neighborhood character and fits into this transitional location going from Shadow Mountain residential area into a more commercial area. In reading the P&Z minutes from the September, 2015 hearing, the discussion centered on the neighborhood character. The location of the gables as part of the vertical towers added really increase the perception of the building height as noted on p 9 of Staff’s memo. Staff is not sure if the roof form is total resolved at this point and recommends the applicant and design team continue to strengthen the relationship of the gables to the neighborhood. Staff still has concerns with the Hopkins façade. She included an image on p 10 of the agenda packet which shows a three story wall of windows doesn’t connect with the pedestrian experience or the residences across the street on Hopkins Ave. Staff suggests adding an entry to the sidewalk or balconies similar to the current building would contribute to the streetscape. On p 10 of the agenda packet, Staff noted they are still concerned with the mass of the building. Ms. Phelan had raised this concern at the September hearing questioning the need for over parking onsite which adds mass. Placing the garage on the corner for the additional parking is visible and disconnects the building from the pedestrian experience. 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 In regards to the topography, Staff stated the Sky Hotel recently had similar topography issues and were able to resolve the issues using ramps and retaining walls in the interior. Ms. Adams stated one of the height increases is at the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. Staff suggests the applicant could meet the 28 ft height limit by improving the relationship with the natural grade using internal ramping similar to the design used for the Sky Hotel. On p 12 of the agenda packet, Ms. Adams noted she had highlighted some of the retaining walls and grade changes Staff had a reaction to in regards to the height. The mixed use zone district restricts height to 28 ft and applicants are allowed to request an increase up to 32 ft. Ms. Adams included the review criteria to allow an increase to be granted on p 14 of Staff’s memo. Staff feels 28 ft is appropriate and does not feel the criteria to support the request for increase to 32 ft have been met. She noted the highlights on the drawing on p 13 of the areas over 28 ft. She stated the roof undulates in areas and a lot of the building meets the 28 ft height limit. The circulation corridor to access the roof top deck is part of the height increase. She noted there are height exceptions for stairs and elevators, but Staff feels that by dropping the building, everything will come down in height. Staff feels this is important for fitting in with the neighborhood context. Ms. Adams noted Staff’s questions on p 14 of the packet regarding the intent of the floor plans and the ability for the free market units to be combined into one large penthouse which would not meet the zone district regulations. Staff does not question the integrity of the applicant or the application with the paragraph on p 14, but they have an obligation to have a conversation and to offer the applicant an opportunity to explain to P&Z and the community how they are not going to combine the two units into one unit. She stated Staff feels obliged to discuss this matter especially when there are two units on one floor. In regards to growth management, she updated the numbers based on the changes from September to the net livable calculations for the residential portion of the application. The floor plans provided in the packet meet the growth management requirements even though the memo states the application is about 20 sf short. The 20 sf shortage has been resolved and the requirement has been met. She added she would need to make a couple of adjustments to the draft resolution if adopted at the meeting to reflect the accurate numbers. In conclusion, Staff recommends a continuation with points summarized on p 15 and 16 of the memo. Staff feels the project is on the right path, but feels it could meet the criteria with just a little more work. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what was served by the 35 ft height. Ms. Adams replied the architect may be in a better position to answer her question. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are similar buildings along Hopkins Ave moving into the residential area where they are oriented similar to the current and proposed Hotel Lenado building. Ms. Adams stated there are none on that block or across the street which have the front of the building on the shorter street portion of the lot. Ms. Adams noted across the street there are a number of landmarks facing Hopkins which gave her the idea an entrance facing Hopkins side for the application may help strengthen the relationship between the building and neighboring buildings across the street. Ms. Adams stated similar instance do exist within Aspen, but she could not think of any in this area. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Adams how the height of the building could be lowered. Ms. Adams and Ms. Phelan replied lowing the ceiling height could be one solution. Ms. Phelan stated the third floor has higher floor to ceiling heights than some of the other floors in the building. Ms. Adams added the proposed windows on the third floor along Hopkins starts to make the building look a bit top heavy. 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the changes would not compromise the above grade sf required for growth management. Ms. Adams responded it should not and if the garages were eliminated, there would be more sf to work with. Mr. McNight asked what language could be built into the resolution to ensure the free market residential units would not be combined in the future. Ms. Phelan replied that right now they are asking the applicant for clarity and confirmation on the record regarding the expectations of how the units will be operated. Ms. Phelan added there have been issues in the past where properties are being used differently than how they are being approved. Ms. Adams stated getting the expectations on record is important for now and then using enforcement if necessary in the future. Mr. Mesirow asked if the placement of a door in this area requires an action or approval from the City at which Ms. Phelan replied it would require a building permit. Ms. Tygre asked if there was a way to apply a deed restriction as a condition of approval that the two units could never be combined. Ms. Adams and Ms. Phelan stated it is inherent in the zoning because of the caps for the size. Ms. Phelan stated the approvals do state they are two individual units. Ms. Quinn added the deed restrictions would not add anything that the approvals do not already state. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. Mr. Wilson felt they have come a long way and doing their best to respond to the commission’s comments from the last hearing. The application replaces an existing lodge with a new one including • two free market units, • bringing it up to ANSI, IBC and ADA standards, • replacing 17 units with 9 units, • two affordable housing units, • new sidewalks along Aspen St and Hopkins St • a community lounge • increased the public amenity space • reduction in parking The project is under on the floor area ratio by about 7,000 sf. Mr. Wilson then pointed out where the project was located using a slide and discussed the surrounding park and landmarks and noted it is in a transitional neighborhood. Using slides of floor plans, Mr. Wilson then described what would be located on each level of the new hotel. Mr. Wilson provided slides of residential transitional gable elements, while keeping with a contemporary look for the building. They also looked for materials providing more of a residential character. He then provided slides of the overall building. They added a little sf to the entry and added a gable form to create a more formal entry to the building. They also have cross gable elements, a smaller one and one half, two story façade on the corners and then building up on the interior portion of the lot to make up for the grade change. 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 The new design reflects a mix of styles to break up the façade. He noted they depressed the corners of the building which the public requested at the last meeting. They added gables on each side of the building crossing toward the center of the building with low slope elements connecting through the building. Mr. Wilson feels the community is used to seeing this type of design. Mr. Wilson then discussed the rear of the building. The deep overhangs have been pulled back quite a ways rather than have an empty parking lot along the alley. A walk out deck area has been added for vibrancy. Mr. Wilson next discussed the tricky grade transfer from the street up to the alley. They brought down the corner of the building to respect the residential scale and then working the building up. He then provided examples of nearby properties to demonstrate the neighborhood context. One example was a two and on half story building with a historic single plate façade and a roof line protruding over the second story. Another example across the street includes a two and a quarter story building with a slight amount of increase to the gable form on the second story. The center portions of the building have darker material and is punched out. Directly across the street from the entrance of the hotel, there is a single story entry element under a gable. The proposed hotel entry mirrors this design. Mr. Wilson feels it would be very adhoc to shoehorn the entry element into the diagonal parking on the other side of the building. The design team feels it is natural to keep the entrance on the side of the building where it currently exists. Mr. Wilson then discussed the rear side of the building on the alley using slides. The neighboring buildings are large three story with flat roofs. Mr. Wilson then provided an image depicting the points of the building where it is below the 28 ft height limit. They are trying to keep the perimeter of the building below the height limit. He then displayed the street facing façade of the building on Aspen St. He pointed out the planters and walls noting they are all within 30 in of grade. They tried to minimize the number of retaining walls and tried to make them benches and planters to bring vibrancy to the façade. The front façade is below 28 ft. The balconies have been changed from glass to traditional horizontal steel. He then described the Hopkins facing façade. This façade is also under the height limit. They are trying to keep the gable roof form as the predominate feature on each façade to play into the neighborhood context. He said it is similar for the park side and the alley side. Mr. Wilson then discussed how they wanted to break up the mass of the building. He stated the traditional block structure of Aspen doesn’t run the direction of the building towards the park. The design includes large elements that fall within the cadence. As you face Hopkins, they felt it was more important to break up the façade into a 28 ft section on the far left, the center section which is nearly 30 ft repeating the gable and offset area, and then the Aspen side remains as it has always been. On the park side, they break up the façade to bring more gables to make the building more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Wilson then provide a slide comparing the height of the proposed building to the neighboring structures and noting how the building steps down to match the topography. 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 He also provided a slide comparing the proposed building to the existing building noting the corners have been reduced in height. He noted this change was in response to the neighbor’s previous comments to be able to keep their views. Mr. Wilson stated they responded to Staff’s previous comments regarding parking and have eliminated two parking spaces. The new design includes an ADA space, two affordable housing spaces and the addition spaces for the hotel. A car lift will still be used which is ADA compliant. They also widened the entrance to the hotel. He reiterated they want to keep the entrance on the Aspen St side of the building. He then discussed the pedestrian elements and used slides depicting the existing elements and the proposed elements. The design brings the walkway and green space out to meet the sidewalk and drastically improves it from the existing entrance. A bike rack is proposed along with benches on each side of the entrance. Mr. Mesirow asked what the orange lines on the displayed image of the existing building. Mr. Wilson stated they depict where the floors of the building exist. Mr. Wilson then discussed the pedestrian amenity along Hopkins again comparing the proposed building with the existing building. They want to work with the Parks department to place a sidewalk. They also modulated the façade along this side of the building. He also showed a slide looking up Hopkins from the corner with Aspen St to emphasize the elements used to break up the façade. Mr. Wilson then described the alley side of the building including two spaces for the free market units, the trash/dumpster/utility area, and the access to the car lift. He doesn’t feel the alley side is out of character. Mr. Wilson next described the park side of the building using an image comparing the existing building with the proposed design. The proposed design allows for exterior access, including the lounge. A pocket sidewalk would be provided and the existing moat would be removed. Mr. Wilson stated the latest design pulls the storage space for the affordable housing units out of the basement and places them above grade to integrate with the new math from Staff. He stated they are frustrated with the math from Staff and feels it has been a moving target for the design team. Mr. Wilson then discussed dividing the two free market units. In the past presentation, the design included a single wall dividing the two units. The latest design includes a chase space including at least two walls and used for a dumb waiter. The design team feels they have gone a long way to create more separation, not less. Mr. Wilson does not understand why they are being asked now to deal with the issue when it is the third time in front of P&Z. He feels questions are being brought up to promote continuation. He stated there is a three ft differential in sections. Using a displayed image of the floor plan, he demonstrated where units A and B are located upstairs and where there is a three foot step up between the units, which he feels is a pretty good separation. He stated this design was in the previous and current application. In addition, there is a horizontal plenum space created by a need for the elevator to have enough head space. The ADUs will have the ability to exhaust and ventilate along with the flue vents up through the building. The vents may not stack vertically but because of the horizontal plenum, they are making a sectional to move the ventilation pipes through the building. The dumb elevator will be available as an amenity for the roof deck. He feels the design is above and beyond separation. He then stated they understand these are not intended to be used as a single unit. The owner of the building has met with Staff previously. He feels their integrity has been insulted and were chasing the ghost of the Mother Lode a bit. 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Mr. Wilson moved on to state there is a massive decrease to the size of the roof deck with the application for this hearing. He noted there is a stair overrun allowance for the stairs which he believes is 10 ft for mixed use buildings. Even if held to the 28 ft limit, they are only using 35 ft. They have utilized cross gables to conceal the roof deck as much as possible from the public eye. The ridge elements are under the height limits. He then displayed a slide depicting how they calculated the free markets vs ADUs. The information shows the corrections made for this application. He then pointed out the two stairs required for egress. He referred to Ms. Phelan’s statement regarding having separate egresses for each of the units and no central hallway. He said he cannot do this because he would have four stairways and it would be obtrusive to the building. He noted the ADUs are on a level with the entries to the above grade space. The private free market users will have to address the green areas (hallways) to get to their spaces. The hotel users are coming in off the park or off the alley. He feels they will be walking through the park to access the building and this is where they plan to mix the public as the walk past the main entry to the ADUs. He stated this is one of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) ideals. He then stated the lounge walks out to the park, the ADUs walking out to the park and the hotel users walking in from the park. He then displayed images walking around the building. He noted materials came up at the previous meeting and they wanted to address it as more of a residential character. He discussed the design having crossing gables with pieces in between. He mentioned the vertical siding would be an expresso color, coupled with a plaster above. He feels they have gone a long way to increase the residential feel and character of the building. He noted at the end of the last meeting there were questions regarding the mass and scale and neighborhood context. He stated Mr. Goode reminded him the commission did not speak on issues of the 32 ft height limit. Rather, Mr. Goode reiterated the issue pointed out was the neighborhood context. Mr. Wilson feels they have done this and feels the range of 28 to 32 ft in height is allowed within this area. He closed stating he feels they have gone above and beyond at this point to achieve the goals of the community. Mr. Mesirow stated he wanted to clarify an item with Staff prior to opening it up to the commissioners. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to clarify if what was presented in the three ft height differential in the chase changed since Staff made their recommendation at which Ms. Adams responded no and stated it was just a platform to have a discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the entry way presented in the slides the same than what was received in the packet. She noted there were some walls that had been moved. Ms. Phelan responded there had been some slight changes since the packet had been published. Ms. Adams stated she had provided the preliminary design comments two weeks before the packet deadline. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated on p 12 of the packet it shows some retaining walls along the entry but the slide showed the plantings are right at the sidewalk. Mr. Wilson stated she was correct and the walls had been minimized and sloped to match the sidewalk. He added they will be 18 in high. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had any questions. Mr. Wilson asked to enter some support letters (Exhibit R). 7 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury asked why the applicant wants to retain the garage recommended to be used as other space. Mr. Wilson stated it has been recommended to eliminate the garage to decrease the mass of the building. He added the applicant feels the space is more useful as a garage than nothing. He added the real reason the applicant feels the two free market units are better served by a garage. It is unlikely they will be occupied all the time and the idea would be they could be used for hotel users. The car elevator will be difficult to use. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the garage is proposed as a universal entity. Mr. Wilson stated they will be deeded to the free market use and it would be hoped the free market individuals would allow for that use. Ms. Phelan asked if there is a loading zone for one or two vehicles on Aspen St and Mr. Wilson responded it would depend on if they had to move the entry or not. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Staff for any clarifications and comments regarding the height allowance for the stairs or other areas mentioned. Ms. Phelan stated the bigger issue is to determine the appropriate scale for this building in its context. Staff feels when the predominant flat roof form reaches 32 ft, you are creating quite a bit of mass. She added the only feature allowed up to 35 ft is an elevator or stair tower. Ms. Adams stated by allowing private roof decks for two penthouses you start to add bulk in mass. She added it is permissible as an exemption to height and P&Z determines if it is allowed or not. Mr. McNight asked Staff to confirm if the penthouse part of the structure is where the building exceeds the 28 ft. Ms. Adams stated there is specific review criteria on p 12 & 13 for P&Z to consider. She the reviewed the following criteria and stated P&Z may allow the additional height for one or more of the criteria. • In order to achieve at least a two ft height variation in height with an adjacent building (they are next to a park). • The primary function of the building is civic. • Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a view plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate (if you are required to step down onto a landmark, you can up to 32 ft somewhere else to make up the sf). • To benefit the livability of affordable housing units. • To make a demonstrable contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day lighting. Mr. Wilson wanted to note they are providing the same size ceiling height or greater in the lodging units as they are in the ADUs and that is likely where the height would be reduced if the overall height needed to be dropped. Mr. Mesirow asked what the proposed ceiling heights were in the two units and what are the proposed ceiling heights in the two free market units. Mr. Wilson responded the heights in the two free market units range from 12 ft to 14 ft. In the current design the lodge and ADUs have nine ft six in ceiling heights. Mr. McNight asked about the differences between APCHA and Staff’s recommendations for the employee housing units being both rental vs one rental and one sale unit. Ms. Phelan stated the mitigation for the lodging component would be encouraged for the rental unit and the free market mitigation is the second unit. Typically they require units to be for sale unless they are for lodging or commercial projects. Ms. Adams stated she spoke with Cindy Christensen, APCHA, for clarification on their position for rentals and found it comes down to conflicts with HOA documents and infrastructure that APCHA has not figured out how to make for sale, free market and for sale affordable housing units play nice together regarding assessments and similar areas. 8 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Mr. Wilson stated the HOA dues would be quite large on this building. He mentioned there are instances where the HOA dues are larger than mortgages. Ms. Phelan and Ms. Adams added there are parameters around this to apply ratios of the value for the dues. Mr. Wilson stated they are going above and beyond providing additional housing versus taking the fractional credits and buying fee-in-lieu or credits. Mr. Wilson stated they are going over by 0.15 when Mr. McNight asked for the amount. Mr. Elliott asked if the Hopkins side was still at the 28 ft and the gable at 30 ft. Mr. Wilson confirmed this was correct. He pointed out the heights as identified on p 13 of the agenda packet. Mr. Wilson noted points 3 and 2 comply at 28 ft or lower. Point 1 is the stair overrun. He added only the highlighted points are over the 28 ft. Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicant for their efforts on the application. He then asked for clarification regarding which parts of the building not including the mechanical, stairs and elevators are over the 28 ft limit as measured by the code. Mr. Wilson displayed a series of elevation images and described where those points are located. He added it is hard to measuring grade because there is a line cut at the edge of your building and project the line for the finished grade. On grades sloping up, you do not get the benefit of the slope until it goes back at least 15 ft. Mr. Mesirow asked if making the height is as simple as reducing the ceiling heights to comply with the height limit. Mr. Wilson stated three out of the seven could be mitigated this way. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wilson to make a convincing case as to which one of the criteria applies to this application. Mr. Wilson feels they have made a pretty strong case for how the limit relates to the height of the neighboring buildings. Mr. Wilson stated this relates directly to the buildings across on Hopkins St and the proposed building steps up to correlate with the buildings. Mr. Mesirow asked for the final number of hotel rooms available. Mr. Wilson stated there are nine rooms and they can be locked into four separate configurations. Ms. Phelan stated there are four units with the largest configuration would be nine keys. Mr. Wilson stated they understand the AACP asking for a diverse set of lodges and they see this more as a family style allowing for groups of rooms to be locked off. Mr. Elliott asked how many on the high points marked allow the good floor to ceiling ratios in the affordable housing units. Mr. Wilson pointed out on an image where one of the free market units is located directly above the affordable housing units. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Ruth Carver lives in the home on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. She strongly recommends allowing only 28 ft. She sees it as a residential neighborhood and even the newest house matches the neighborhood. She noted the comparisons were only to one home. Her concerns include the appearance on Hopkins St and the ceiling height. She feels the project has come a long ways on the Aspen St façade, but doesn’t feel the Hopkins St façade matches the homes at all. She doesn’t like the big gray square part in the middle. She also recommends sound proof windows on Aspen St because it is noisy. Mr. Mesirow opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. McNight feels they have come a long way since the last meeting and thinks it honors the look and feel of the other structures in the neighborhood. He is still tripping up on the height and does not believe he can get behind any of the criteria for the additional height at this time although there may be an argument for benefitting the affordable housing units. He agrees with Staff regarding the mass along 9 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Hopkins St. He also agrees with Staff regarding classifying one unit for sale and one for rent. He is satisfied with the separation of the units based on the earlier discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury also believes the design has much improved from the initial application with improved variation and the addition of gabled roofs to add context. She does not agree with the comments regarding the gable roof form being the most predominant and thinks there could be improvement in this area. While appreciating the varying materials on the Hopkins façade, she feels this is the most pedestrian facing and should have additional variation to it. She stated it looks like a flat surface and the addition of the all the windows and glass make it look less residential than the existing hotel. This is her biggest sticking point for the application. In regards to the height issues, she has some concerns about the additional massing and believes the roof decks and railings increase the interpreted mass. She feels the applicant could argue the second criteria in section 2.14 of the memo. She is still concerned about the joining of the two private units. While understating the applicant’s frustration at the subject being raised, she believes it doesn’t render it any less of P&Z’s consideration. Saying the addition of the dumb waiter makes it less likely than a wall to join the units does not provide her with the confidence she would like to hear concerning the units will not be joined at some point in the future. She stated she would like to hear from the applicant there is no intention for the units to ever be joined and therefore be out of code at which Mr. Wilson responded there is no intention to join the units. She stated it is not a house and believes there is an elevated review because it is a community resource and these redevelopments rarely happen. Mr. Elliott is satisfied with the changes but he is still struggling to allow the height variance. He can support the additional height for the affordable housing units. He feels the applicant is taking a bit of a hit for adding the gables as asked. Ms. Phelan stated gables are measured differently than a flat roof, a flat roof is measure to the top and gables may not be. Mr. Wilson clarified the point measured is where the flat roof meets the gable. Mr. Elliott is fine with the Hopkins side as proposed because the road creates enough of a barrier and views the term adjacent as next door, not across the street. He likes the design and feels it looks like a hotel. The garage on the alley does not bother him. He is still struggling to work with the applicant on the height variance. He does not feel there is much more to be done to prevent the two units being joined at this time. He does not support having an entrance on Hopkins St believing it would create more traffic on Hopkins St. Ms. Tygre agrees the height should follow the criteria and she cannot find anything in the criteria to allow the height up to 32 ft. She feels the Hopkins façade is greatly improved and likes how the mass has been broken up, but agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury in that the amount of glass is out of context. She is concerned about light from buildings ruining the night sky vision and sees it as a detriment to the streetscape. She believes minor modifications to reduce the amount of glass or break it up would be more fitting with the neighborhood context while retaining the modern look. She also feels the drawings make the darker facades look gloomy and scary although she realizes it does not represent the actual material. She reiterated that asking the questions regarding joining the units does not imply the applicant is being bad, but it is necessary to guard against what may happen in the future. Mr. Mesirow stated he sensed Mr. Wilson’s frustration, but noted the modification made the application significantly better than the previous version. He also want to reiterate even with the improvements, it does not necessarily meet the code that ultimately the P&Z must legally abide by in their decision. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the reduction in parking and sees the possibility of the units being joined an enforcement issue. He also feels there has been progress with the materiality and setbacks. He appreciates the single entrance and the significance it holds in the AACP. He noted the reduction from 17 units to four luxury units in a town that is more than supplied with big, expensive units; buts appreciates their focus on the incremental step forward. He agrees having an entrance on Hopkins St 10 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 would be detrimental to the neighbors. He stated it is important to remember there is an LP overlay and there are both physical requirements as well as intended use for the building. He stated it is very difficult for him to find for either 26.412.050 subsection A or 26.412.060 subsection A.1 as described on p32 and 33 of the packet. In terms of the lodging character, he stated a hallway is not acceptable for the small lodge character area object as noted in number two of a list of four on p 37. He understands Mr. Goode made a comment regarding height, but he feels he has been consistent on the issue of height since the first hearing for the application. He doesn’t believe any of the criteria have been met to allow for the height increase. Mr. Mesirow felt the commissioners should identify constructive items for the applicant to prevent additional hearings. Mr. McNight stated the height and employee housing are issues keeping him from letting the application going forward. He would like to see changes to the Hopkins façade, but is not one of his major issues. In regards to the employee housing, he would like to follow Staff’s recommendations regarding rent vs for sale. Ms. Tygre stated except for Mr. Elliott, all were on the same page regarding the height. She also stated she and Ms. McNicholas Kury are adamant about the Hopkins St façade. She prefers to leave the employee housing unit determination up to APCHA. Ms. McNicholas stated she finds Guideline 5.7 on p 41 of the agenda packet not met. She would like to see a bit more context with the neighborhood. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wilson if he wanted to come back with the alterations that ultimately could allow P&Z to constructively approve the project or would he prefer a vote. Mr. Wilson stated this is nearly the same commentary he had at the previous hearing and at the end they are left short. He feels this time the discussion has been about the height of the building and last time it was about context. He felt the leaving comments previously were that most of the people didn’t necessarily care about the height and their goalposts keep moving. It is extremely frustrating to him and his client who is doing his best to retain any lodging in Aspen as a primary goal of the AACP. He stated it would be all too easy to put two residences on the property and then they would have zero of these issues. They are doing their level best to keep two residences on top of this and keep any lodge component. It is very difficult for him to go back stating they had the minutes, what they had from last time and they made a herculean effort to try and update the building to comply with all of this and then the goalposts move. He would really like very specific criteria to be able to bring back. Mr. McNight replied he understands Mr. Wilson’s frustrations. Mr. Mesirow stated he has two primary issues: one is the height and the other stems from the use and intent with LP Overlay. He stated he would be able to find in the affirmative if the height issue was dealt with. Mr. Elliot stated he is fine with the height but does not feel he has a reason to apply any of the criteria for the additional height. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is fine with the entry way. Her main issue is the Hopkins façade and trying to see it meet the neighborhood context better. Mr. Mesirow asked if the Hopkins façade was fixed and the building was still over 28 ft she would approve it and she confirmed she would. Ms. Tygre noted because P&Z members do not agree on the issues, it will be difficult for the design team. 11 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2015 Mr. McNight state the height is his primary issue. Ms. Tygre agreed height is her main issue and she would like to see further refinement of the Hopkins façade. Ms. Phelan stated November 17th is the next available date. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing for the Hotel Lenado to November 17, 2015. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public hearing. Mr. Mesirow then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 12