Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160301Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis and Ryan Walterscheid. Skippy Mesirow Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode thanked Ms. Tygre for nominating him as chair. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – February 2, 2016 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for February 2nd and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Public Hearing Mr. Goode opened the public hearing and asked Ms. Quinn if notice had been provided at which she and Ms. Garrow stated the applicant’s notice had been appropriately provided at a previous meeting. Ms. Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, reviewed the application. She noted the applicants are Aaron and Michael Brown of Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC represented by Sunny Vann, Vann Associates and Scott Glass, Guerin Glass Architects. She noted the 2011 approval divided the parcel into four lots. The application requests changes for lot 1 only, not lots 2, 3 and 4. She stating the applicant is requesting to amend the lodge portion of the application including the following changes.  Convert lodge space previously associated with a private club to commercial space. The private club is no longer a part of the project  Architectural changes to the building that are design changes and changes to spaces within the building  The changes to setback are proposed to be increased on all but one which means there are larger setbacks than the previously approved application Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 2 She added the proposal will not increase the floor area or heights of the previously approved building and the heights have been lowered in many locations. The applicant is meeting the parking requirements, but changing the use of the parking to accommodate the needs of the commercial space. The 50 spaces previously designated for public parking remains the same. The applicant has committed to retaining the 100% employee mitigation commitment for the net FTE increase generated by the space converted to commercial space. The applicant proposes mitigating the FTEs through off-site units, housing credits and cash-in-lieu. The Aspen \ Pitkin Housing Authority (APCHA) has reviewed the application and would prefer to remove the cash-in-lieu option and possibly see some on-site units. APCHA recommends if on-site units are not feasible, it be allowed to review and approve any off-site units. She noted there are no proposed changes to the lodge and free market components. Ms. Garrow noted staff generally supports the proposed changes. But in regards to the architecture, Staff would like to see something a bit more alpine in nature which may include façade articulation, pitched roofs, and less glazing. They hope the changes would create more pedestrian scale. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked Staff to confirm under which version of the code this application should be reviewed. Ms. Garrow replied the application should be reviewed by the code from 2005. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, introduced himself as a representative along with Scott Glass, Guerin Glass Architects. He also introduced Michael Brown as the owner. He noted the previous approvals of the project and how they included a lot of contributions to the town. He continued stating the major points in the current proposal include changes to the architecture skin and repurposing the accessory space to commercial use. He noted there is no expansion of the overall building. Mr. Glass displayed and discussed a list of the project highlights including the following:  84 hotel keys, 22 units sold as fractional units  5 free market units  A bit more than 5,000 sf commercial space  163 underground parking spaces  50 parking spaces used for public use  Public ski lockers  $600,000 contributed to the platter lift  Ski corridor  Repurpose Skiers Chalet Steakhouse as housing  Repurpose Skiers Chalet Lodge as Ski Museum Mr. Glass then displayed and discussed another slide of design similarities including:  No increase in cumulative floor area or building heights  The average size of the lodge units remains unchanged Mr. Glass then displayed a slide noting there are no significant changes to the basic internal configuration of the lodge including:  Restaurant space at grade level Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 3  All back of house and support levels located at or below grade  Number of parking spaces remains the same, but some are reallocated to commercial Mr. Glass noted the east and west wings of the lodge buildings will have green roofs. Mr. Glass then displayed images of the original building and proposed building and discussed the following changes: 1. Expanded common area - Mr. Brown stated this will create vitality to the area 2. Overall aesthetic revised with a direct relation to scale and massing of nearby historical neighborhood 3. Parking garage reduced from three to two levels. Mr. Brown noted it has the same number of spaces, including public spaces 4. Reprogramed amenity areas 5. Reduction in building height- Mr. Brown noted this allows a better fit with the neighborhood 6. Reiterated 100% of the affordable housing requirements Mr. Glass then displayed a site plan and discussed the following: 1. Parking facility 2. Mr. Brown stated the two wings will have a connection below ground 3. Public ski lockers 4. Renovation of two existing buildings 5. Preserve historic Lift One 6. Open space between buildings providing a physical connection between Dean and the mountain 7. Green roofs which should blend in when seen from above on the mountain Mr. Glass then reviewed the community benefits of the application: 1. Provide increased vibrancy and vitality to the area of town 2. Revive Lift 1a neighborhood with commercial spaces 3. Engage this area for skiers. Mr. Brown wants people to be able to start and end their ski day in this area 4. Incorporate the surrounding neighborhood as part of commercial experience 5. Provide unique retail and restaurant experiences 6. Manage and mitigate all neighborhood impacts on site 7. Improved street infrastructure. MB noted the street will be rebuilt with better drainage. 8. Provide connection of Lift 1a to Dean St 9. Public parking 10. Ski lockers 11. Restored chalet and steak house 12. Preserve lift one Mr. Glass then displayed a slide and discussed the following: 1. Indoor outdoor eating 2. Spa 3. Fitness center Mr. Glass displayed a slide about architecture and discussed how the mountain is integrated with the town during all seasons. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 4 Mr. Glass then displayed pictures of areas around town including mining areas, the Wheeler, the Sundeck, the Jerome, and the Elks building. He discussed the rich architecture built from a history of mining times. Mr. Glass then displayed images of the Aspen Institute, the Aspen Meadows Resort, Snowmass Mountain, Hearthstone House, Silver Queen Gondola, and the old Pitkin County Library depicting the great contemporary fabric and how Aspen has evolved. Mr. Glass then displayed images of architecture from locations around the world demonstrating contemporary architecture in places with rugged environments how they integrated with the environment. Mr. Glass then displayed images of contemporary buildings in town including the Episcopal Church, the Blackbird house and the Residences at the Little Nell. Mr. Glass then displayed images of the site itself including the Skier Chalet, the slopes, Lift 1a and noted it is an important site. Mr. Glass then displayed images of buildings in the neighborhood including the Caribou Condos, Dancing Bear, Lift One Condos and the St Regis. Mr. Glass then noted they did not want the new buildings to replicate the Skiers Chalet and want it to be a counter point to the chalet. He then showed slides demonstrating how historic and new structures are connected. He stated the new building should promote the beauty and scale of the historic structure. Mr. Glass then discussed the materiality of the structure’s skin including the following. He also displayed examples of the materiality inspirations including trees, stone, rusticated stone connecting to the earth. He noted the materials will convey warmth and vitality to the neighborhood.  Rusticate stone for the building base  Added dressed stone on piers and vertical elements  Wood cladding  Glass and metal rails  Wood cladding frames Mr. Glass displayed additional slides of the proposed architecture and context of the building. He noted the space between the buildings and how the sections of the design keep the pedestrian scale. Another slide displayed provided a view of the proposed project including the One Aspen Townhouse and the Skier Chalet. Mr. Glass stated they want people to see the chalet and the mountain so the proposed structure keeps a low profile and steps downhill in rhythm with the chalet. Mr. Glass then showed another slide of the building from Shadow Mountain and at the top of Aspen St. He noted how the building steps down the mountain, the deep façade creates internal privacy. He also noted the commercial access will be at the main entrance of the building. Another slide displayed a view from the east of the existing lift showing the southern façade of the building and it relationship to neighboring buildings and the corridor. Mr. Brown stated they have met with the neighbors and they were generally appreciative of the height reduction and articulation of the building and widened ski corridor. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 5 Mr. Glass displayed one final slide of a view down from above Lift 1a showing the west and east wings of the buildings and how they connect to the town. Mr. Brown closed the presentation stating he feels it blends with the chalet in a noncompetitive way. Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked if there was any proposal to use the corridor to bring up people from Dean St. Mr. Brown replied they will contribute $600,000 for the development of a platter pole lift from Dean St through Lift One Park. Mr. Vann noted the lift has been reviewed and approved to exist between Dean St and Lift One Park. Mr. McNellis then asked about the historic Lift One. Mr. Vann stated the towers will remain. Mr. McNellis asked about the distance between the two buildings. Mr. Vann replied it can’t be any closer because the Lift One Park belongs to the City. Ms. Garrow stated on p 261 of the packet it shows the park, lift corridor and easement to SkiCo’s property at Lift 1a. Mr. Vann added the ski corridor was a result from the earlier COOP process. Ms. Garrow stated the dimensions are on p 268 of the packet. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Dean St will be one way. Mr. Vann replied it will be a two-way street and added the parking now extends into the street, but will be fixed during the project. Mr. McNellis asked about the status of replacing Lift 1a. Ms. Garrow replied they have heard there may be an application, but nothing has been stated so far. Mr. McNellis added he assumes the barn structure will go away when the lift is replaced. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the chalet will be preserved with the same form and materials. Ms. Garrow stated the structure would remain as is and the applicant has done a great job ensuring the buildings have been maintained. Mr. Goode asked about the public outreach. Mr. Brown replied they have met with the neighbors. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Mr. Ron Lacey, Lift One Condo HOA, stated he likes what they have heard about the project and stated the applicant has been working with the neighbors. He does not see commitment to produce an uphill lift. He concluded stating his questions had been answered well tonight. Ms. Toni Kronberg stated she lobbied during the COOP process to retain the corridor. She feels the original easements granted by Friedl Pfeifer remain in place. She feels the space allotted between the two buildings is smaller than called for in the original PUD. She feels the street should be heated. And then she discussed installing a tramway which needs 70 ft between the buildings. She provided a handout (Exhibit G). Mr. Vann then asked Mr. Goode if he could respond to Ms. Kronberg’s statements at which Mr. Goode replied he could respond. Mr. Vann stated all the old easements had been vacated via a recorded plat. In respect to heating the street, City Council opposed a snowmelt option. The applicant had to commit to purchasing a dump truck to maintain the street instead. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment section and opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels lowering the height is a good direction based on previous applications. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 6 Mr. Walterscheid likes the project and appreciates they are not repeating the same style and likes the modern, contemporary take on mountain architecture. He also commended them on lowering the height and adding a flat green roof which will blend well. He feels the height, scale and mass blends well with neighboring buildings. He concluded stating the applicant has his support. Mr. McNellis noted he was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) when this project was first evaluated and approved. He stated he is very much in support of increasing vitality in this part of town. Being a landscape architect, he is sensitive to how the buildings sit on the property. Although he appreciates the efforts to maintain the historical bones, he feels it is a bit too contemporary and feels it overshadows the historic buildings. He would like to see the architecture softened to blend with the historic buildings and landscape. He added he appreciates the green roof. He is also concerned about the width of the corridor. Mr. Elliott appreciates the applicant is over mitigating on the housing requirements and working with the neighbors. He is okay with the flat, green roof and feels the design respects the historic buildings and feels good with the applicant moving forward. Ms. Tygre feels it is improvement from original project and commended the applicant for mitigating the housing 100%. In regards to the architecture, she wants to try to apply the standards and consider Staff’s concerns. She stated she does not know what “alpine” means but feels the amount of glass drives her crazy. She concluded she would support it if the applicant reduces the amount of glass. Mr. Goode likes the changes to increase the vitality in the area and also appreciates the housing mitigation. He likes the way the new buildings make the chalet look like a gem. He feels this is a project Aspen has been waiting on for a long time. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to add a few more thoughts. She also feels the contemporary design should be pushed back and would like to see the building bridge more with its historic surroundings. Mr. Elliott remarked the bridge concept is not fair and hybrid ideas do not promote the best. He feels the applicant has gone above and beyond and doesn’t feel it is garish. He believes it is a solid project and is not sure asking for more is fair. He does agree with the amount of glass may cause light pollution. Ms. Tygre added each member may interpret the design standards differently and she feels it does not meet the standards. Mr. Walterscheid stated there is no definition of “alpine” and feels the historic asset should stand out and doesn’t want to see the design hacked apart. Mr. McNellis feels the aesthetics are paramount and feels the architecture is a bit stark for what the site deserves. He would like to see more materiality. Mr. McNellis motioned to continue the hearing and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Vann then asked Mr. Goode if the applicant could comment at which he replied he could. Mr. Glass feels the materials for the proposed vs the original project have been enriched. He added the design tries to respect the topography in regards to the material relative to the amount of glazing. He feels they can consider options to reduce the amount of light and doesn’t feel the size of the windows indicate the amount of light. He feels the applicant is committed to making the project part of the mountain and feels the “alpine” architecture is in the materials. Mr. McNellis responded the materials did not come through on the renderings provided. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 1, 2016 7 Mr. McNellis asked if the application goes to the HPC at which Ms. Garrow replied no. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the project will be eligible for call up by Council and Ms. Garrow replied Council may consider calling it up. Ms. Garrow asked the commissioner to provide specific direction regarding the application. Ms. McNicholas Kury wants to see if replacing the glass railing would reduce glazing. Mr. McNellis asked for additional renderings to better explain the façade and materials. Mr. Goode likes the materials, but feels the box windows feels civic and he wants to see a lodge and feels less glass could be part of it. Ms. Tygre is concerned about materiality and glazing and feels additional information from applicant may be more helpful. Mr. Goode asked what the building would look like at night. Ms. Tygre asked for more detail of the entrance to see if it looks like a lodge. Mr. Walterscheid feels if there are no definitions then the applicant has met the code. Based on the slides shown, Mr. McNellis noted he did not see anything telling him to experience the ski corridor. Mr. Brown noted the corridor itself is a city park and yet to be designed and is not part of this application except for the applicant is providing $600,000 to the city for the inclusion of the lift. After discussion Ms. Garrow noted the following items to be possibly followed up on at the next meeting: 1. Include additional views of the ski corridor from within Lift One Park to demonstrate how the structures integrate with landscape and invite people to look and use the ski corridor. 2. Provide a sample of the materials to be utilized for the skin of the structure. 3. Propose alternate design options for the railings that may or may not utilize glass. 4. Propose ways to reduce the glazing. Mr. McNellis amended his motion for the public hearing to be continued to March 15, 2016 to address the four items previously noted by Ms. Garrow. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Roll call: Ms. Tygre, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, Yes; Mr. Walterscheid, No; Mr. McNellis, Yes; Mr. Elliott, Yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes for a total of five Yes and one No (5-1). Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager