Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210504Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 1 of 7 Chairperson McKnight called the regular meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern, and Spencer McKnight. Ruth Carver joined at 4:32 pm. Commissioners not in attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Senior Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner Carly McGowan, Engineering Project Manager Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon announced this will the last meeting for Mr. Marcus because he is moving out of the City. She added Ms. Brown-Schirato has also moved out of the City and has resigned from the commission. Mr. Sam Rose was recently appointed by City Council and will be joining the commission at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Carver said she is very familiar with the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies but feels she is not personally involved in the hearing for tonight and can be fair and impartial. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 2 of 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was made for both hearings. Ms. Johnson replied proper notice was provided for both hearings. She also noted the ACES hearing had previously been continued and those previous dates were also noticed. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES): Minor amendment to a Planned Development-Project Review, Growth Management, Stream Margin and Commercial Design Review Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff for a high-level review. Mr. Bret Lohr, Forum Phi, introduced himself and Ryan Walterscheid, Forum Phi, as representing the applicant and the hearing. He also introduced Jim Kravitz, ACES Naturalist Programs Director and Chris Lane, ACES CEO. Mr. Lohr provided background of ACES and the application. As part of their 50-year anniversary, they have raised funds to renovate and upgrade two of the existing buildings for better utilization for their employees and the public and to renovate the entrance to the property. He displayed a map of the area and identified the location of the property, its entrance and primary structures and land features. Of the seven buildings on the property, four house employees and three are used for public and employee use. One building houses birds. He then displayed a site plan and identified the three scopes of the project. One is providing a drop-off area and a turn-around area for buses at the entrance. Another area to be modified is the existing visitor center. The third area is to add dormers to the bird of prey building where they house birds and staff has office space. Mr. Lohr displayed pictures of the current entrance at the end of Puppy Smith St. He stated the area does not drain well and does not have drop-off area for the children. Providing a drop-off area will be safer for the children. They also want to continue a bike path from the Rio Grande Trail down to the entrance. He displayed a site plan showing the existing entrance, the proposed turn-around and trees to be removed. Next, he displayed a picture of the current front of the visitor center. Then he displayed a rendering with the proposed addition of approximately 800 SF to the gable to the right of the front entrance and a proposed deck renovation on the left side of the building. The proposed addition will expand the lecture hall and provide an improved office space area on the second floor. They are proposing to reshape the deck on the building to provide handicap access to the preserve and provide a sitting lecture area on one side of the deck. Mr. Lohr displayed a picture of Bird of Prey Building, pointing out the location of cages for birds and the second floor where staff has offices. He provided a rendering showing the location of the proposed dormers which will make better use of the existing office space on the second floor. Mr. Lohr displayed a site plan and noted the Bird of Prey Building and the proposed addition to the Visitor Center is located in the stream margin. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 3 of 7 He then displayed a rendering of the building with the proposed dormers to show the increased office space and the location of the top of slope which does not encroach on the building. Mr. then displayed a tree mitigation plan. He stated ACES will be working with the City’s Forestry Department to avoid all mitigation fees by offsetting the removed trees with new trees. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Dupps asked how many trees will be removed and is there a schedule of the type and size of the trees. Mr. Lohr stated there is a schedule and they are working with the City to minimize the number of trees to be removed. Mr. Kravitz said he has been working with the City on methods to replant trees, documenting this process and sharing it with the City. He pointed out on the Tree Mitigation Plan Overview the locations where trees are to be removed and where there would be new ones planted including the East Meadow and Mushroom Property South. Mr. Lohr stated currently they are planning to remove about 30 trees. Ms. McGovern asked how many trees would be removed for the parking lot. Mr. Lohr replied the parking lot is no longer part of the project. Ms. Carver remarked it was in the agenda packet and felt it would be a great asset. Mr. Lohr stated because the amount of parking gained by the number of trees that would have to be removed was too great. Many visitors walk or bike to ACES. Mr. Kravitz stated they realized they needed a turn-around for vehicles to get in and out safely. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Rayes noted the review today is conceptual and the project will return to P&Z in the future of a detailed review. He wanted to make sure Mr. Dupps understood this regarding the tree mitigation plan. The draft resolution calls for a tree mitigation plan as well as a landscaping and drainage plan before the detailed review. Mr. Rayes reviewed the project, noting it was located in the Academic Zone District and is located next to the Roaring Fork River. He reviewed the location of the structures and entrance on a site plan. He stated before 1997, ACES was annexed into the City and memorialized in a specially planned area (SPA) which is now referred to as a planned development (PD). He stated approval of the conceptual and detail plan will provide details of the building that are not currently documented. Mr. Rayes displayed a photo of the entrance showing cars parked and noted walking up to the entrance can be stressful. There currently is a tight turn-around entrance to Aspen. He provided a site plan of the proposed turn-around. Mr. Rayes noted in the current Bird of Prey building the head room is tight on the second floor and not a lot of natural light comes through the single windows on each side. The dormers will improve the experience. The existing footprint will not be changed. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Rayes then displayed photos of the first and second floor of the visitor’s center. He stated it’s a tight space. He showed a site plan where the new addition slightly encroaches the Stream Margin Review Area by 10-15 FT. He also displayed existing and proposed elevations from the north and south. Mr. Rayes next discussed the review criteria. He noted the Academic Zone District does not have any dimensional descriptions, so they are evaluated on a case by case basis. He stated there is one criterion regarding pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Staff feels this criterion has been met. He noted the proposed turn-around is located adjacent to the Jenny Adair Wetlands which is intended to remain open space. He stated there are several easements on the wetlands to accommodate storm water infrastructure. The City is currently working with ACES on a development agreement. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the criteria for the Stream Margin Review and stated the application meets the criteria. Mr. Rayes stated in regard to the Growth Management Review, ACES is considered an essential public facility based on decision by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners which doesn’t typically require as many FTEs as a private development. FTEs are assigned on a case by case basis. The applicant is proposing no new FTEs will be created based on the proposed expansion. Staff agrees there will be no new FTEs as a result of the additions but there is a condition for approval in the draft resolution for the applicant to provide a baseline calculation of existing employed FTEs on the site and audits at two years and five years after the certificate of occupancy has been issued. Mr. Rayes then covered the conceptual Commercial Design Review which establishes the mass, height, and scale of a project. He discussed criterion 1.12 and stated staff finds the criterion to be met. He stated in conclusion staff is supportive of all the reviews. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any questions at this time. Ms. McGovern stated the layout of the stairs appear to be changing. Mr. Rayes responded the stairs will be a slightly different configuration and may be pushed out slightly. She does not feel there is a good ADA access inside the building due to multiple levels in the lecture hall. Mr. Rayes was not aware of the interior step and will make sure it is referred to the Building Department. Her concern is if they had to mitigate it outside, then it would impact the stream margin. Mr. Rayes responded they would make sure this is covered in the detail review. Mr. Dupps asked if this request is part of a larger project. Mr. Rayes stated there is another project that will be coming forward in the next few months. He added it is on the ACES property and unrelated to the buildings. He stated the City Engineering department is working with ACES on mitigation efforts for Hallam Lake. Ms. McGowan, City Engineer Project Manager, responded it is early in the project so there are no details at this time. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he then closed public comment. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Mr. McKnight then opened commissioner discussion. Mr. Dupps stated he does not see any issues with the Growth Management or Commercial Design portions of the application. He does have concerns with the tree mitigation, turn-around and stream margin review. He feels because this property is a beloved community asset, it needs to be held to the highest standards. He doesn’t feel replacing 30 trees with seedlings is the right move. He is fine adding the dormers to the Bird of Prey building, but otherwise he is not a fan what is being proposed. Ms. Rockhill stated she trusts if the City is fine with the tree mitigation, then she is supportive of the application. Ms. Carver feels it is a wonderful proposal and is in support of it. She stated it’s a wonderful resource but it’s dangerous to drop off kids. She is supportive of the turnaround and believe the proposed changes to the buildings will be a great asset to the public and staff. Mr. Marcus agrees with Ms. Carver. He feels the entrance is a safety issue with cars backing up and not seeing the kids and should be addressed. He feels the proposed changes will allow them to reach more people. Ms. McGovern thinks the amendment to the PD will allow them to work with Staff to obtain the normal PD regulations on the record such as dimensional requirements. She has no issues with the Growth Management review. She has some concern about the Stream Margin Review but feels ACES has spent the necessary time and effort to ensure the changes are not detrimental to the property and surrounding environment. She is fine with the Commercial Design Review. She feels the entrance needs to be addressed but she is concerned about the number of trees to be removed. She hopes trees will be added for screening and hopes the City recommends larger trees in some locations and not just saplings. She is supportive of the application. Mr. McKnight agrees with the majority of the commissioners and is supportive of the application. Mr. Dupps believes the turn-around will actually increase vehicular traffic to the area including traffic not related to visiting ACES. Mr. Marcus motioned to approve Resolution Number 4, Series 2021, as written by staff. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, no; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Limelight Hotel - Change in Use Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Larimer provided a summary of the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) project stating the original Planned Development for the North Parcel with 125 lodge rooms and one free market residential unit was approved in 2006. The applicant is requesting to change the single free market residential unit to a lodge unit. The previous owners used the unit as their residence. The new owners want to include the unit in the lodging base. Their proposal would formally reduce the number of free market residential units from 15 to 14 and increase the lodge units from 125 to 126. Mr. Larimer then reviewed the Change in Use Review criteria and displayed a floor plan indicating the location of the unit. Staff has found the review criteria to be met. He added there is an active building permit in for administrative planned development review for the renovation of the lodge that is separate from this review. Staff is very supportive of the request. He noted resolution was drafted with the unit identified as number 419 and it was platted as number 414 so this correction will be made in the final version of the resolution. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of staff. There were none so he turned it over to the applicant. Mr. Gert Van Moorsel, Sr. Director of Design and Construction for ASC introduced himself and then provided a history and the reasons for requesting the change of use which included aligning the unit with the future Aspen Skiing Company operating practices and uses. Mr. Van Moorsel reiterated the original owners and their family used the unit when they were in town. He added they also have an Interior Finish and Furnishings Removal (IFFR) permit from the City. During the review for the permit, it came to light the residential use was not consistent with how it should have been, so ASC changed the use for guests for 30 days or more. He displayed a floor plan and indicated the location of the unit as well as a floor plan of the unit. He stated ASC will use credit for mitigating the affordable housing requirement. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of the applicant. Ms. Carver asked if Poss and Worley were the original owners of the Limelight. Mr. Van Moorsel believed they owned the Limelight since the early 1950’s and built the current hotel in 2006. Ms. McGovern asked if the plat needs to be updated with the updated unit number. Mr. Larimer replied it would be in the best interest of ASC and the City if an amended plat was on record. The other permitted changes should also be wrapped up in an updated plat and could be added as a condition of approval. Ms. McGovern replied she would like for it to be added to the resolution. Mr. Van Moorsel stated ASC would be willing to memorialize it in some manner. Mr. Larimer responded it could be Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 4, 2021 Page 7 of 7 identified as the ‘platted unit’ in the documentation to clarify it. Ms. McGovern said that would be okay and seems rolling all the changes from this review and the IFFR permit into one would be appropriate. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he then closed public comment. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Dupps stated he is in favor of the application without any conditions. Mr. McKnight asked if anyone was opposed to the application. Ms. Carver is in favor of the application. She asked the SF of the room. Mr. Van Moorsel replied it is 1,200 SF. Mr. Marcus stated it meets the review criteria and Ms. McGovern, Mr. McKnight, and Ms. Rockhill agreed. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution Number 5, Series 2021, as amended to include the platted unit 414. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. OTHER BUSINESS None Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Marcus motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:06 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager