Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20201117Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 1 of 14 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus (joined at 4:32pm), Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern, Kimbo Brown-Schirato, Ruth Carver, Don Love, and Spencer McKnight Commissioners not in Attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Garrett Larimer, Planner II Hailey Guglielmo, Development Engineer Jen Phelan, Development Manager James True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Tunte, Parks Department Manager Philip Supino, Community Development Director Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Carver stated she was able to review the video of the November 11th meeting. Mr. McKnight asked staff and the City Attorney to weigh in on some interest of some commissioners to have a pre-meeting before the public hearing when an item is viewed as large or has many details to allow the commissioners to begin the hearing with more information. Ms. Simon noted this had been conveyed to Mr. Anderson and it was discussed at a staff meeting where it was decided staff would want to look at it more and wouldn’t want to interfere with procedural due process. She added the commissioners are always welcome to individually contact staff with a clarifying question. Staff is also looking into some additional training opportunities. Ms. Johnson stated it is not advised to meet outside the scheduled public hearings. She added Ms. Simon’s ideas could be a good start and encouraged the commissioners should reach out to the planners if they have questions. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon stated there will be two more meetings on December 1st and December 15th. She asked the commissioners to let her know if you will be absent for either of the meetings. She added Ms. Carver will be voting tonight because Mr. Marcoux is not in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve both the November 4, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING Gorsuch Haus Detailed Planned Development Review – Continued Public Hearing from 11/04/2020 Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and asked if proper notice was provided. Ms. Johnson noted there was an affidavit and notice in the packet. She stated the date of public posting was not filled out on the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 2 of 14 poster placed on the building. The City has since received an amended affidavit with the date filled out as October 20, 2020 which does meet the notice requirements. She has reviewed the notice and found it sufficient for the hearing. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Larimer introduce himself and stated the hearing was for the Detailed Planned Development review for the Gorsuch House, which is part of the Lift One Corridor Project. He then provided an overview of the November 4th hearing for the Lift One Corridor Project. The land use Project Review process that has been completed to date was the first step of a two-step process. The current step is the Detailed Review which includes the following. • Development Review Committee – A referral review is conducted prior to the public hearing to ensure the project continues to progress in conformance with the ordinance and municipal code requirements. • Planning and Zoning Commission There are still approval processes to finalize the remaining items necessary for the building permit process. Within six months of an approved Detailed Review application, there are a series of approval documents to be submitted for review by the City that will be eventually recorded. He stated there are four land use reviews as part of this application. The first two are standard reviews as part of the second step to enable staff and the commission to evaluate the detailed aspects of the project such as site design, landscaping, materiality and architecture. The third and fourth items are new requests included in the application that are a result of the further refinement and design changes since the project review approval. He noted this will be the final land use review in this process. Gorsuch Haus Land Reviews 1. Planned Development – Detailed Review 2. Final Commercial Design 3. Setback Variance 4. Special Review - Parking He said he would be happy to answer questions and asked Mr. McKnight to turn it over to the applicant for their presentation. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. James DeFrancia introduced himself and hoped the commissioners can appreciate the extraordinary work that has gone in on this collective Lift One Corridor Project by the City’s staff including Amy, Ben and Garrett dealing with the various overlapping issues involving multiple entities. He also stated the project has been extraordinarily well managed by Jennifer Phelan. In his 40 years in development, this has been the most complex project he's ever encountered and feels it is an example of something that cannot be done without the leadership of the public sector. Going back to Jessica Garrow and her tenure Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 3 of 14 and carrying forward with the staff, a project of this complexity wouldn’t happen without the leadership and extraordinary dedication of the City’s staff. Mr. Richard Shaw, Principal with DesignWorkshop, introduced himself and the team present at the meeting including Carly Klein, Design Workshop; Jean Coulter, Norway Island; Tom Todd, Harland and Hart; and Jesse Swann, Sopris Engineering. He stated there are three topics to cover in the hearing. • Modifications to Project Review • Detailed Design Topics for Detailed Review • Commercial Design Review Mr. Shaw stated the first topic is minor. The project is fundamentally the same envelope slightly smaller in overall square footage. There are a couple of interior design changes with the restaurant space. There are a couple of changes with the parking structure, one being there is now one level instead of two. Changes have also been made to allow for the lift line alignment modifications for the tramway board variance. This included changes to the rooflines, square footage in the restaurant space and the addition of a third tower along the face of the Gorsuch Haus. Mr. Shaw then discussed dimensional architectural modifications. He stated the project still has 81 units, four multifamily residences, one on-site affordable housing unit that has increased in size by a small amount and commercial use including 7,438 square feet of restaurant space. The restaurant space will be open to the public and is slightly less than the original voter approval. Mr. Shaw next reviewed the site and infrastructure modifications. The site design has Included a variance to the overall site boundary. The lot line adjustments are several feet to accommodate the building in this design. There has been an increase of 250 sf of public land in exchange for the right-of- way (ROW) to create the terminus of S Aspen St. Mr. Shaw noted there has been quite a bit of communication with the City departments regarding the cul-de-sac. It has been modified to include a landscaped island in the center which will be maintained by Gorsuch Haus, buffer planting along the sidewalk on the north side, bollards for safety and improved sidewalk conditions all around the cul-de-sac including possibly handicap and ADA requirements. There was also consideration for the drainage and mud slope above the cul-de-sac. Utilities, drainage and water quality have all been accommodated for the cul-de-sac and overall project. Mr. Shaw identified a couple more improvements to the project details. The fire protection and emergency access allow for the staging of fire vehicles which the current S Aspen St does not provide. Another is the appropriate access and the egress from the building on both the western and eastern side of the building. From an architectural character perspective, the materials have been utilized to design the elevations. The materials were selected not only for the image and character of the project, but also for Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 4 of 14 sustainability which includes the diamond patterned solar collecting SUNSTYLE tiles on the roof areas. Some elements of green roofs have also been incorporated. Other materials included are the stone- based columns, wood siding, heavy timber elements bringing a strong alpine tradition. Mr. Shaw stated in regard to the Commercial Design Review, they are trying to create a very strong pedestrian use area and environment. Pedestrians may access the building from the street level in addition to multiple entrances on the eastern side of the building. The ski run is treated the similar to a street itself. The building steps up and down the hill so it blends with the natural topography. There will be a direct route from the building to the ski slope for guests of the hotel. Mr. Shaw then discussed the pedestrian experience. The design integrates the hotel lodge with the landscape with new pedestrian possibilities around the building. A stairway on the western side of the building is available to the public and provides access points to Aspen Mountain in both the winter and summer. He then discussed the mountain arrival experience. The Gorsuch Haus will also be able to connect to the upper events area on Aspen Mountain. He displayed an illustration of a World Cup finish area including updated public amenities. The public amenities include a roof deck at the mid-level of the lodge. He concluded stating they are extremely proud of the final design in the application being reviewed. Mr. McKnight asked if anyone had questions of the applicant. Mr. Love asked if they are working developing a Net-Zero or Leed certification process. Mr. Shaw replied they are working toward the Leed Silver Standard in the overall building. They are not going to focus on the certification process per se, but they will have a very energy efficient building shell and site related activities in the sustainability categories including draining methods, the WELL standard dealing with water efficiency, landscaping and exterior water use will be maintained, tree mitigation, 10% solar energy to offset the energy use, and the high efficient mechanical systems. Ms. Carver asked if there will be a sidewalk on the east side of the cul-de-sac. She also wanted to ask if the utility currently shown beside the building positioned more toward the lower end could be moved further up the slope where the ski lane is wider. She asked where the ski racks would be located since the utilities and stairways pop into the slope. Mr. Shaw responded the sidewalks will be on both sides of S Aspen St. The sidewalk will be continued through the cul-de-sac without stairs because of the cooperation between the Lift One partners. He added the utilities located on the east side of the building consist of switching gears and transformers. Because the access to the utilities must be maintained, they worked with the City to determine the best location for the utilities. The utilities will sit under the lift corridor and are out of the way of the skiers. The ski racks will be located a bit higher up the slope close to access points to the dining decks and the World Cup deck. He indicated on a site plan where they would be located. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 5 of 14 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Mr. Larimer for staff’s presentation. Mr. Larimer stated he would discuss the applicant’s compliance with the review criteria identified earlier in the meeting. Detailed Planned Development Review He stated there are nine topics in this review criteria. The first two topics check to make sure the project complies with the approved ordinance and applicable code. Topics three thru nine focus on the detailed items of the project not considered in detail during the Project Review approval. These reviews rely heavily on the Engineering and Parks departments to ensure the elements are appropriate. 1. Compliance with Project Review Approval – Completed by City referral departments 2. Growth Management – Ensures adequate allotments are granted 3. Site Planning & Landscaping 4. Design Elements a. Lighting b. Architecture c. Materiality – Ensure the design is compatible with the surrounding development and appropriate for its given location and climate. 5. Parks and Open Space – Includes the Lift One corridor as a whole to review parks and public access. 6. Multi-modal transportation – Engineering and Transportation departments review the mitigation impacts as part of the application including the significant pedestrian and other non- vehicular improvements and options 7. Engineering Design Standards – Includes a refined grading and drainage plan 8. Public Infrastructure and Facilities – Engineering and Planning departments evaluate the refined detail design to ensure it complies with the requirements 9. Phasing of Development – This is a multi-stakeholder effort to outline the general timeline of construction and sequencing including a preliminary construction management plan (CMP). He stated staff has found the project as presented in the detail review meets all the Planned Development Review criteria. He then reviewed a couple of changes since the Project Review. The majority of the changes comply with Ordinance #39, Series 2016 with the exception of the setback variance and the parking configuration. The dimensional limitations and the fundamentals of the project are consistent with the what was established in the ordinance. 1. Internal Programming - Refinement has resulted in overall reduction in calculated and gross floor area altering the affordable housing calculation amounts. These are all expected and appropriate design changes as the project progressed to this review. a. Room Configuration b. Refinement of Restaurant and Bar Floor Plans c. Updated Commercial Space Programming 2. Updated Grading and Refined Engineering – Reduced in a technical change in floor area calculations but continues to comply Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 6 of 14 3. Increased Deck Area – The lodge units, four free market units, rooftop lodge space increased but comply with the ordinance and code. There are no limitations on the size of deck area in the Lodge Zone District 4. Larger Affordable Housing Unit – Slightly larger, but still complies Mr. Larimer then discussed the changes to the west stairs. He displayed a Project Review site plan and a current site plan. Previously, the stairs terminated at about level 4 of the building. A refinement of the plan to address egress and building code requirements now extends the stairs further up the slope to provide emergency egress. The proposed stairs comply with height and set back requirements. A final review with be part of the building permit process. As a result of this change the boundary between lot one and lot two has been slightly changed but there is no increase in lot size for lot one. Another exterior change is the reconfiguration of two rooms on level five. On the 4th level, the boot room was moved to another location within the lodge and some lodge rooms have been shifted to create a vaulted ceiling in the library or restaurant on the third level. As a result of this change, an extra room was moved the 5th level and the orientation of the rooms was changed from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation. He displayed site plans of the Project Review plan and the current plan. Staff has found this change complies with all allowances and limitations in the ordinance. Mr. Larimer then displayed perspectives of the Project Review Level 5 Plan and the current Level 5 Plan perspective of the north façade of the proposed change showing the new rooms on the 5th level. Mr. Larimer Stated the project remains mostly consistent with the Project review design and continues to comply with the ordinance. The following items remain the same. 1. Free-Market unit size 2. Number of lodge units 3. Height 4. Public amenity 5. Subgrade parking garage access He stated staff has found the Detailed Project Review criteria to be met. He next discussed the next review criteria associated with the Final Commercial Design. There are three review criteria. 1. Commercial, Lodging, and Historic Design Guidelines 2. Public Amenity 3. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service The Design Guidelines consider the articulation and street level character. Staff has found the proposed design meets the review criteria. Articulation is present on each façade through a variety of roof forms to break up the roof structure. The street level character has design elements that are welcoming. There is public space included in the welcoming area. The entrance is pedestrian scaled. Mr. Larimer then discussed the proposed material. Staff finds the proposed materials appropriate for the climate and within the current development context in Aspen. The primary materials include stone, Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 7 of 14 heavy timber, wood siding and metal accents. The roof will consist of a unique SUNSTYLE solar shingle material and green roofs on the flat sections. The materials proposed meet the design guidelines. Mr. Larimer next discussed the public amenity space while displaying a diagram depicting the location of the proposed space. He noted he is using the words ‘Public Amenity’ because the project is vested a 2016 version of the code which includes public amenity while the current code requires pedestrian amenity. The project provides space at the entrance to the lodge, on the terraces on the east side, the rooftop patio and the access on the western side of the building. The project provides an adequate amount of public amenity space and meets the ordinance and the requirements in the Commercial Design Guidelines. Mr. Larimer discussed the Service Area access as the last part of the Commercial Design Review. The site does have some constraints. The project site is within the Mountain Base Area of the Commercial Design Guidelines. The constraints include no alley access and only one primary ROW access. The applicant has provided a design consistent with the Project Review Design. He displayed a representation of the entrance of the hotel and pointed out a trash and service enclosure with double doors to a service area to the left of the main entrance. The location of the service access requires special review approval by the Environmental Health department as part of the building permit review process. The Environmental Health department finds the project continues to comply with the requirements and the representations made to date and final approval will be part of the building permit process. Staff has found the service access is consistent with what was represented during Project Review approval. Mr. Larimer next discussed the Special Review for the parking requirements. He stated the Project Review plan included two sub-graded levels of parking. The current plan has been redesigned to eliminate the second below grade parking level. In order to reduce the number of sub-grade levels to one, the parking plan includes 14 compact spaces and 30 tandem spaces. Current land use code and engineering standards allow for up to 25% of the parking to be compact parking spaces. Because this project is vested with the 2016 code, this will be a variation from the 2016 code. In regard to the 30 tandem spaces, the code requires unobstructed access to the ROW. In order to address this, a Condition of Approval has been included requiring a parking operation plan to be included in the Planned Development agreement and Subdivision agreement. This ensures the free market and affordable housing units will not be included in the tandem spaces and some operational procedures in place to ensure the parking plan meets the parking needs of the development. He added the project has met all of the transportation improvement requirements including multi-modal transportation improvements, so staff has found these criteria to be met. The second item in the Parking Special Review addresses whether denying the variation request will result in an unfavorable development outcome. Staff feels the ability to reduce the number of subgrade parking levels as an overall improvement to the project by reducing the neighborhood impacts during construction. Staff believes allowing for the compact and tandem parking spaces is a preferred development outcome along with a parking plan will meet the parking needs of the development. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Larimer then reviewed the setback variance request. He identified the review criteria as listed below. He displayed a picture of the east side of the building showing the location of the utility enclosures. 1. Consistent with purpose, goals, and objectives of land use code 2. Reasonable use 3. Site specific conditions creating a hardship Regarding the first criteria, the land use code allows for utilities to be place in the setback with no limitations on height, but not the enclosures. The variance request is to allow for the enclosures in the setback. The setback requirement continues to be five ft on this side of the building. Staff supports this variance request because the land use code allows for utilities to exist in setbacks and this is an appropriate location for the utilities as allowed by the code. He stated for the second and third criteria, the code does not anticipate a property next to a ski corridor. And given the design considerations and access requirements, the applicant worked with the City to determine the best location for the provision of the utilities service. Staff finds the enclosure is a reasonable response to the location of utility infrastructure and believes all the criteria have been met. Mr. Larimer also touched on the following miscellaneous items. 1. Colorado Passenger Safety Tramway Board Approval – The lift configuration has been approved 2. Public Outreach – This was required as part of the application. The applicant has conducted targeted outreach to the surrounding neighborhood, City staff. Staff feels the requirement was met. 3. Referral Reviews – This application went to the Development Review Committee and all referral agencies have approved the application with the conditions listed in the draft resolution. 4. Noise Mitigation Plan – Staff would like to request input on a plan. Because of the roof top deck and exterior patio amenities, staff feels it is appropriate and recommends a mitigation plan as a condition of approval to be addressed as part of the Subdivision and Planned Development agreement process. This will give time for staff and the applicant time to refine the plan based on the commercial programming of the exterior amenities. 5. Agreements – This is the final land use review approval, but there will be additional agreements required prior to building permit submission. 6. Updated CMP – The applicant team continues to provide staff updates on the CMP and receive feedback, so it is on track with the building permit process. 7. Public Comment Received – A letter received prior to the last hearing has been included in the agenda packet for this hearing. There was also a comment from Mr. Stan Clauson addressing the service access and trash enclosure. The applicant has represented the trash collection will occur within the enclosure behind closed doors as indicated in the ordinance and included in the draft resolution. Mr. Larimer then reviewed a few topics brought up at the previous hearing. 1. Skier / Public Access – On the public amenity plan, there is access to the ski hill throughout the year on both the east and west sides of the building. There will be sidewalks on both sides of S. Aspen St. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 9 of 14 2. ROW Vacation for the Shadow Mountain Townhomes – City Planning and Engineering staff have been in touch with representatives from the Shadow Mountain Townhomes. He noted this is a separate request to be reviewed if the representatives are interested in pursuing the request again. 3. Construction Sequencing – Mr. Larimer displayed a plan and stated it was included in the ordinance. He stated it is roughly a 24 -28-month construction window with the Lift One not operational for one ski season. Mr. Larimer stated after the agenda packet had been published and distributed, further conversations between City staff and the applicant team resulted in staff recommending a revision to the Engineering Section 10.F of the draft resolution included in the packet. The suggestion is to remove the sentence “Until a design is agreed upon, no snowmelt in the ROW is approved.”. Mr. Larimer stated staff recommends the Commission approve the requested land use reviews with the conditions included in the draft resolution. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions. Mr. Marcus asked in regard to staff finding the public amenity adequate, how does staff define “adequate”. Mr. Larimer replied there is a public amenity space requirement of 25% of the lot size which results in a SF value. The applicant has met both the design and SF public amenity requirements. Mr. Marcus stated he feels a big part of this is the front entrance of the hotel and asked if this was a reasonable use of amenity space. Mr. Larimer replied the ordinance included additional allowances and limitations for public amenity space beyond the code requirements because of the site conditions with the steep slope and access to the site. Mr. Marcus asked if the occupancy numbers for the decks are known at this time. Mr. Larimer replied he did not but perhaps the applicant could provide an answer. Mr. Marcus feels the size of the decks seem a bit underwhelming as compared to the size of the building. Mr. Shaw replied he does not have a specific number for the outdoor seating but stated there are about 50 outdoor seats adjacent to the restaurant. He also noted there are decks on multiple levels that work around the northern side of the building and there are deck spaces at the entrances to the hotel. Each level has outdoor eating and beverage services. Mr. Marcus asked what other locations were considered for the utilities and asked why the west side of the building was not feasible. Mr. Larimer Stated he could not speak to all the alternatives considered, but the west side of the building is constrained because of mud flow protection, stormwater infrastructure, ROW and other utility infrastructure. Mr. Marcus asked what utilities will be placed in the enclosures on the east side. Mr. Larimer replied they will house switching gear and a transformer. Mr. Shaw confirmed this and noted two other locations were considered. One was the center of the cul-de-sac, but City policy does not allow these types of utilities in a ROW. Another area was more central to the ski slope but on the other side of the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 10 of 14 slope. This option was determined to be a serious hazard to skiing. Mr. Shaw noted the planned location will allow it to have access from a boom truck if maintenance is necessary. Mr. Marcus asked if the utilities could be buried or if they need to be at grade. Mr. Shaw replied they need to be at grade and accessible from the front to allow for adjustments. The applicant believes the enclosures will screen them and allow them to be incorporated with the building. The transformer will also be covered. Mr. Marcus asked if you have to be able to access them from above or if could the covered with a deck. Mr. Shaw stated they must be accessible from above for a boom truck. Mr. Marcus asked what noise ordinances already exist. Mr. Larimer replied most recently The W Hotel worked with the City to develop a noise mitigation plan agreement which can be used as a model for the Gorsuch Haus. That plan included restrictions on the sound infrastructure and operations. Mr. McKnight thought the utility enclosures are unfortunate because the project looks really nice. He asked Mr. Shaw to review the options again for placing the utilities elsewhere. Mr. Shaw displayed a site plan and stated they have looked at every possible location in the upper neighborhood. The possible location on the west side was in the ROW and there is not enough space for the utilities and the mud flow and drainage infrastructure. The dramatic change in slope would make accessing this location impossible. The center of the cul-de-sac was considered but it is prohibited by the City. He indicated the location on the far side of the ski slope but showed how it would restrict the ski slope and would be difficult to access. He also noted higher on the slope is out of the question because it would not be accessible. All of the city engineers, utility providers and others agreed the location selected is the best option. Mr. McKnight asked if it would be possible to utilize the top of the utilities as a deck area. Mr. Larimer Stated one of the current challenges is they are in a setback and would require additional land use reviews. Mr. Shaw stated they want to maintain the minimum 60 ft width on the returning ski run. He added there will be decks at levels three and four that wrap around the building. Mr. McKnight asked if the cover could look and function as a deck but be removed when necessary. Mr. Shaw replied they need to maintain the ability to not have to remove snow on the cover. The proposed covers are a screened metal that wouldn’t serve as a deck. Ms. Brown-Schirato stated the project is looking wonderful and asked for an explanation of the proposed revision to the resolution. Mr. Larimer stated it is an engineering consideration that looks at how the snow melted areas interface with the non-snow melted areas. The planning and engineering staff feel there are appropriate measures and conditions of approval in place to address the ice damning topic, so they are recommending removal of the statement from the draft resolution. Ms. Brown-Schirato asked where the snow melt should be and where it is not. She stated the City is not great at making people be compliant on things like sidewalks unless there is a complaint. Ms. Guglielmo replied the area the Engineering department is concerned with is the end of the cul-de-sac where the snow melt would end, and the non-snow melted portion of S Aspen St begins. They have seen other Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 11 of 14 areas in town where an ice damn forms where a heated area meets a non-heated area. The Engineering department wants to ensure a design solution that addresses this issue and does not put the burden on the City Streets department. She feels there is a path forward to a solution and both parties are working on it. Ms. Brown-Schirato stated she supports less parking but if people are driving up for vacations, how will SUVs work in compact parking spaces. Mr. Larimer stated the project meets the required minimum number of parking spaces. Staff feels the condition requiring a parking operational plan will answer those questions. Mr. Shaw stated this is a parking management case and it will include valet services. Ms. Carver asked if it would be possible to vacate the ROW that has been done in the past on S Aspen St. She believes this was done over 10 years ago to make S Aspen St narrower for the original Lift One Lodge owner. She asked if this could this be done so the utilities could be moved to the west. Ms. Carver asked how the trash bins will be filled. Mr. Shaw replied the trash area is fully connected to the hotel via service level corridors. Mr. Shaw replied in regard to her utility question, the applicant has been striving to complete a full ROW for access for the neighborhood. This involves the use on an existing City ROW and the private use of lands to create the ROW to incorporate the required turn around space. The applicant does not feel it is an appropriate place to abandon the ROW for utilities. Ms. Carver asked how many feet the utility enclosures extend into the ski way. Mr. Shaw replied they go approximately nine ft from the face of the building. Ms. Carver stated when the doors are open, they will go even further. Mr. Shaw replied they will only be open when it is necessary to service the utility. Ms. Carver asked how they will manage the snow in front of the doors. Mr. Shaw responded some snow removal will be required but they are placed above the finished grade. Mr. Love noted Jimmy’s idea of turning the top of the utility enclosures into removable decking was a good idea. He asked how often they anticipate a transformer will need to be removed. Mr. Shaw wanted to add the lift goes directly over the enclosures and part of the variance granted for the lift was based on having the appropriate clearances should a de-rope occur. An additional tower was added to maintain the required distances. Mr. Larimer stated there is a City requirement the utilities be open to the sky so covering them would require a variance from the City and the utility providers. Mr. Love asked if the commission gets into any performance bonding. Mr. Larimer stated that will be included as part of the development agreement. Mr. McKnight opened for public comment. Mr. Stan Clauson, Lift One Lodge representative, stated they have a remaining concern involving the trash pickup and deliveries. The service entrance is quite close to the lodge and there is concern it will impact the experience of their guests. They want to recommend the following condition of approval to be added to Section 13. They are making this recommendation because Lift One Lodge has a Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 12 of 14 considerable number of rooms on the south façade that look on to this facility and haphazard operations If trash collection would impact the experience of guests, neighbors and pedestrians. He added all the facilities for the Lift One Lodge are subgrade. All trash pickup and delivery operations for Gorsuch Haus shall occur within normal business hours and any vehicles performing these operations shall be fully enclosed with in the delivery facility. This is to prevent any undo noise or adverse visual impacts to neighboring properties and others in the area. Ms. Karen Hartman, President of the Shadow Mountain Homeowners Association, stated they are on a path to support Gorsuch Haus Developers with a set of agreement points, but they are just not 100% there yet. She is confident they can reach a complete agreement. Mr. McKnight closed public comment. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Shaw and staff if they had any comment to Mr. Clauson’s suggested condition. Mr. Shaw asked the commission to consider the project that has more than met the City requirements for trash and delivery services. The suggested condition goes much further than the subdivision requirements than the subdivision agreement that will deal with the seasonality and conditions of the operations. They do not feel any additional language is required. Mr. Larimer stated the Planning department discussed this in length with the Environmental Health department and staff feels they have put forth the appropriate conditions of approval that will be enforceable. Ms. McGovern asked if it would be appropriate to include the suggested condition in the noise agreement. Mr. Larimer stated that would be an appropriate topic to consider. He also noted enforcing special hours for trash service is challenging, but the noise mitigation could be a topic. He added the noise ordinance in the Municipal Code exempts trash removal from the same requirements as other noise generating activities. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Carver would love to see the sidewalk extend all the way up the west side of the building. She noted if you walk by the W Hotel at night, there are usually a couple of large vehicles parked outside because they won’t fit in the garage. She believes Mr. Clauson brought up some going points and wondered how multiple semi-trucks on the location will be handled. She thinks it’s a beautiful building and will be an asset. The utilities still bother her. Mr. Dupps does not share Ms. Carver’s concerns with the utilities. He has seen these enclosures at other locations and they kind of go away. He is also supportive of the new parking plan. He also thinks Mr. Clauson’s concerns need to be addressed but is not sure how they could be enforced. He recognizes the amount of time everyone has put in for this massive project and continues to support it. Mr. McKnight also appreciates the project and feels the work done on it is incredible. He likes Ms. McGovern’s idea for addressing Lift One Lodge’s concern. Trash removal services is unfortunately the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 13 of 14 cost of business in a small resort town with the hardships of the site. The utilities do bother him still but hopes the fade away as suggested by Mr. Dupps. He feels all the land use reviews look good for the application. Ms. McGovern believes the Detailed Review and Final Commercial Design are fine. She feels granting a variance for the enclosure is appropriate. She does not think it is a good to pursue having a deck over the enclosure because of the impacts to other granted variances. She is mostly fine with reducing the excavation required to one level for parking is worth the hardships of smaller spaces. Mr. Love feels the design team has done a really great job with this project and he generally agrees with the other commissioners. He understands getting rid of one of the parking levels helps the project economically. Mr. Marcus complimented the design team regarding the articulation of the structure, so it matches the slope of the hill. The materials are suitable and natural that is appropriate for the area. He believes it is a fair trade-off to only have one level to eliminate the enormous impacts to the neighborhood if there was another parking level excavated. He feels despite the few imperfections, he believes they have done a great job and is in support of the project. Ms. Brown-Schirato stated overall she loves the project and believes her questions were answered. She is in support of the project. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Larimer if he needs additional feedback for the noise mitigation and if anything needs to be added to the resolution for it. Mr. Larimer stated the feedback staff was looking for general high-level topics to be considered. The process, agreement and discussion used for the W Hotel will be used as a guideline for this project. Staff feels the requirements of the noise mitigation plan will be based on anticipated programming and how the applicant envisions how the spaces will be used long-term. They will be focusing on the outside deck areas but the Ms. McGovern’s suggestion to look at other types of noise as well, such as the trash or other service activities will also be considered. Mr. Marcus suggested to Staff to be very careful to not be too restrictive with the noise mitigation agreement. He noted the conflict between the neighbors and the operators of the space where Schlomo’s was located really strangulated their ability to make the space viable. His concern is the City would be too restrictive and it would prevent the vibrancy of the outdoor space. He wants to see this side of the mountain activated. Mr. Love wanted to convey that from the top floor of the Aspen Square facing the W, there is no noise from the W Hotel. Even when it is full mode. He feels the plan worked really well for the W Hotel. Ms. Carver noted triple-pane windows are fabulous for keeping noise out. She added she feels it is a beautiful project. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2020 Page 14 of 14 Ms. Brown-Schirato asked if the design would change for this project to mitigate the noise. Mr. Larimer replied Staff is primarily interested in operational mitigation actions without requiring additional physical structures that would require additional reviews. Mr. Dupps moved to approve the resolution including Staff’s suggested changes. He then amended his motion to clarify the suggested changes stating he moved to approve the Planned Development Detailed Review, Final Commercial Design Review, Setback Variance and Special Review for the Gorsuch Haus, Lot 1 and Lot 2, of the Gorsuch Haus Subdivision and Planned Development, with conditions, with the amendment to Section 10.F. Mr. Marcus seconded the motion Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for Resolution 8, Series 2020: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Brown-Schirato, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dupps motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Brown-Schirato. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 7 pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager