Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160315Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Spencer McNight, Jesse Morris, Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, and Skippy Mesirow. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jason Elliott and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated the April 5th meeting will need to be cancelled and if additional time is required for items on tonight’s agenda, she wanted to know if P&Z would be available for a special meeting on April 12th. Mr. Goode replied he would be out of town but the other members did not voice any scheduling concerns. Ms. Phelan then provided a brief summary of the item to be discussed at tonight’s Council meeting. She stated Council is considering a moratorium for a year that would affect any land use application for properties located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone, Commercial (C-1) zone, Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone, and Mixed Use (MU) zone as well as any major amendments to a planned development (PD). Applications in the lodge zone district are not impacted. In regards to building permits, the same zone districts apply. Permits will only be provided for increases to floor area, height, net leasable, net livable area when a development order is already in place or the application is already in the process of being reviewed. Mr. Goode asked if this is being considered to give Staff time to update the code. Ms. Phelan stated Staff has noticed some trends happening with development and Council feels a moratorium is needed to address some of their goals. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg, wanted to make sure P&Z was aware of the Aspen to Snowmass Aerial Connection. She stated it has been an ongoing project for the past ten years. She mentioned a recent article in the Aspen Times and noted it will come before P&Z and she wanted everyone to become a little familiar with it. Mr. Scott Condon, Aspen Times Reporter, interviewed Mike Kaplan from the Aspen Skiing Company and Dan Blankenship from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) for the article. At last night’s Council meeting, the Mayor of Aspen discussed they want to start to move forward with preferred alternatives for a solution to the entrance to Aspen. She stated it sounds like the four lane asphalt is off the table and two ideas will be discussed. One of the ideas is a light rail tram and the other is an aerial connection. They want to have if from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and Aspen will take the lead on the entrance to Aspen. She stated at last night’s Council meeting, Mayor Skadron stated at the end of April, the Aspen Institute will have a two-day seminar. Day one will be a discussion of the preferred alternatives. Day two will be taking comments from the leading experts in the field, consolidate them and then bring them forward as to what they think will work for the community. She noted the entrance to Aspen has been a 40-50 year dilemma. It started 40 years ago, when people wanted to connect the top of the mountains and it wasn’t going to happen. She proposed with the tramway engineers out of Glenwood and the Ski Company as did Mr. Blankenship. They discussed an aerial connection from Aspen to the airport, then to the Brush Creek Intercept lot and then up to the Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 2 Snowmass Base Village. She personally has been working on identifying the easements and any hiccups that might occur. One of the big issues with one of the projects to be discussed tonight is the existing lift 1A. She wants to keep everyone in the loop. She noted the airport as part of the environmental assessment, they included spots for multi-modal locations. She then handed out a two-page handout (Exhibit Public Comment 1). MINUTES – March 1, 2016 Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes for March 1st with the noted word correction on page 6 and was seconded. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lift One Lodge - PD Amendment – Continued Public Hearing Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing for the Lift One Lodge and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Community Development Planner, is filling in for Ms. Jessica Garrow. She reviewed the application, noting tonight’ hearing was continued from the March 1st hearing. She stated the project was originally approved by Ordinance 28, Series 2011. The current application is an amendment to the approved project. They are requesting the following.  Minor amendment to a PD review  Commercial design amendment  Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) review for commercial space and affordable housing  Conditional use review for commercial space The amendments would include the conversion of lodge space previously associated with a private club to commercial net leasable, reconfiguration of the interior floor plan, architectural changes, material changes, the addition of a green roof and minor setback changes resulting in no changes to the overall floor area ratio (FAR). She then reviewed the items P&Z had asked the applicant to further explore at the March 1st hearing.  Options to reduce glazing  Alternatives to the glass railing materials  Material samples shown in the renderings  Additional views of the ski corridor from Lift One Park She stated the applicant is providing two options of the renderings at today’s meeting. Staff continues to believe other design changes to the building are appropriate to ensure the building’s fit with the character of the area and would like to see more articulation in the mass including pitched or sloping roofs. While Staff believes these changes would improve the buildings relationship to the Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 3 surrounding area, P&Z did not support significant roof form changes. Given the two options the applicant has brought forth for tonight’s hearing; Staff feels option one meets P&Z’s request for a reduction in the glazing. Staff has provided two proposed motions in the agenda packet on p 12 of Staff’s memo. Mr. Goode asked the members if they have any questions for Staff. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff why they feel option one is better suited. Ms. Seminick replied Staff did not like the appearance of the railings in option two and felt option one better suited the area. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, along with Mr. Scott Glass, Guerin Glass Architects were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Michael Brown, the applicant, was also present. Mr. Vann asked Mr. Goode if there was a motion to approve, he would like time to comment prior to a vote. Mr. Glass stated they appreciated the discussion from the previous meeting and felt it pushed them to get to some places earlier. He stated the three things they focused on included the following. 1. Amount of glazing and amount of light from the building 2. Materiality 3. Sense of the ski corridor Mr. Brown added they also looked at options for the railing designs. Mr. Glass stated they can discuss details of the railing options and they used Staff’s leaning toward option one to develop their presentation. Mr. Glass then displayed the following slides with comments: a. Glazing reduction slide – Mr. Glass noted they looked at this a number of ways, but they did not want to change the identity of the building, because the form seemed to be acceptable.  Introduced detail surrounding each bay to shrink the size of the bay but keep the thinness  Introduced a screen panel over the glass on select bays to reduce the amount of light coming out  On the outside of the wood frame, they added projecting fins to reduce glazing  For each bay, they were able to reduce the amount of glazing by about 25% b. 3D diagram of the bay demonstrating glazing reduction methods including panels on some bays. Mr. Brown pointed out the location of the old and new apertures. c. Close up rendering of a bay to show how the extra outline helps to shrink the bay, screens, curtains and glass. Mr. Glass pointed out the copper colored trim material. d. Another view of entire window walls on the upper and lower levels of the building including the ski slope level. e. Materiality slide including the following.  Rusticated, oversize granite base (examples available) sourced regionally  Dressed / stacked granite on top of the base  Wood frame will be a clear cedar cladding  Solid clear cedar trim surrounding the frame Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 4  Blackened steel used on fascia and for accents  Patinated copper metal screened panels  Antiqued bronze hardware & accents f. Slide showing where the materials would appear. Discussed where they would appear on the windows and upper levels of the building g. Another slide showing elevation from S Aspen St including the levels as it steps down the hill. Mr. Brown described how the Lift One Park and where retail, possibly a coffee shop may be located. Mr. Glass pointed out where the materials would be used as well as the fins separating the glazing units. Mr. Brown also pointed out the green roof which Mr. Glass stated would be covered with snow in the winter to connect with the landscape. h. Another slide demonstrating where materials would exist on the structure. Mr. Glass pointed out there are many types of glazing but they are trying to maintain a balance between heat, insulation, light bleed, and reflection. i. Another slide showing the corner of the building from the park. Mr. Glass pointed out the planters, depth of the wooden frame, stepping of dressed stone verticals and the setback of the upper levels. j. Another close up of showing the façade and materials. k. Another view looking down the ski corridor showing the composition of materials. l. Another slide showing how the stone will be used for different areas of the structure. m. Updated Lift One Park renderings noting:  Space to be fully controlled by City Parks and Open Space  Ski corridor width was determined and approved by the tramway board  Planting scope is minimal so it can read as part of the ski slope coming down n. Diagram showing the area with the top having a width of 50-55 ft and keeps opening up as you come down the corridor. o. Close up view of the park. p. Rendering looking from the lower portion of Lift One Park up between the two buildings. Mr. Brown stated it is a space that has nice width to it for skiing. q. Another couple of slides looking up slope depicting a new lift and one with the existing red barn. r. Another set of slides looking down the mountain with a new lift and one with the existing red barn. Mr. Glass pointed out the amenities that would be available from the top of the building. s. Another slide to demonstrate how open and connected to park. t. Updated renderings from the first meeting showing the updates. Mr. Vann stated he asked Ms. Garrow to clarify section three of the proposed resolution prior to tonight’s hearing. He wanted to make sure the clarification had been added to the resolution and was distributed to P&Z. He stated since the full extent of the use of the commercial space has not been determined, the applicant took as much space that would likely ever be commercial. As the project progresses, the amount of commercial space may be scaled back. He added in the application it was noted they would clarify the amount during the building permit process to the extent that if smaller, the commercial quota would be reinstated and the affordable housing mitigation would be adjusted accordingly. Ms. Garrow agreed to add the following words (underlined) to the last sentence of section three. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 5 Final net leasable square footage and associated FTE generation shall be verified by the zoning officer and FTE mitigation requirement adjustments as may be required, during building permit review. Mr. Vann then asked to address one other issue. When the original project was approved, there was an additional affordable housing mitigation requirement over and above that which was being provided in the skier chalet building. The condition Council placed on it was that it could be met by purchasing affordable housing certificates, building or purchasing housing within the roundabout, or by provision of cash-in-lieu. But cash-in-lieu in excess of a fraction of an employee would require a subsequent approval of City Council. When this application with the increased amount of commercial, was sent to APCHA for review, APCHA recommended the cash-in-lieu option be eliminated. The applicant is concerned they have unilaterally recommended the elimination of something which Council specifically allowed the applicant to do subject to their approval. The applicant would like to maintain the ability to ask Council if in fact, cash-in-lieu is a subcomponent of the solution. The current version of the resolution eliminates the option to use cash-in-lieu for the additional requirement. Mr. Vann requested the same condition that was placed on the original project regarding affordable housing. Mr. Goode asked Staff for comments regarding the two requests. Ms. Seminick stated Staff’s recommendation regarding affordable housing mitigation remains unchanged with regard to this additional mitigation requirement in that they would prefer to see either affordable housing certificates or buy-down units for the mitigation requirement. The prior approval does still stand and the applicant does have the option of going to Council for the mitigation required of the 2011 approval. However, for this approval Staff would like to stand with their recommendation and APCHA’s recommendation and not allow for the Council option. Mr. Brown stated their goal with converting the space from accessory to commercial was to create vitality. The amount of affordable housing required as a result of the change, is extraordinary. There are not enough certificates available so they would like to have a mechanism available so the project can be built with the level of commercial vitality rather than reverting the space back to accessory. Mr. Vann added that in leaving the language as originally approved, they do not have the unilateral ability to provide cash-in-lieu because it is subject to Council approval. They would like to have to opportunity to talk to Council. He also reminded P&Z they are voluntarily mitigating at a 100% which is a challenging requirement. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff why they do not think it is appropriate. Ms. Seminick stated it is consistent with what is required by today’s code and APCHA’s recommendation. Ms. Tygre asked the applicant why they prefer glass railings. Mr. Brown stated to achieve the reduction in light, they looked at several options and felt the glass railings worked best with the building and achieved the reduction in light. Ms. Tygre asked about using railings that were not glass. Mr. Glass asked if she was referring to some type of picket railing at which she responded yes. Mr. Glass stated they have placed a frame around the glass rail which helps to dematerialize the glass. He displayed an image of a picket railing studied and reiterated they had studied several options including a picket rail and felt the glass railing was visually a bit tighter. Mr. Morris asked if staff had concerns with the project moving forward without any changes to the roof forms as stated in their recommendation and asked Staff to articulate their position. Ms. Seminick stated Staff wanted to be consistent with their original recommendation which included greater articulation in the mass relating to roof forms and having a more alpine appearance. However, option one does meet P&Z request for a reduction in glazing. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 6 Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant about Staff’s comment regarding alternative roof forms. Mr. Brown replied the height reductions at points of the building were up to five ft. They met with their neighbors, particularly the three buildings to the west showing them the reduced height. They also felt they heard support at the previous P&Z hearing regarding the forms. Mr. Vann stated the other issue is the neighborhood was pretty much void of anything with an alpine design at this time and the approved Aspen One residential project extends from the top of S Aspen St down to Dean St is a very contemporary design solution. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Toni Kronberg stated she would like to see the project move forward and her statements are not an attempt to stop the project. Her goal is to have bona fide skier access both up and down the hill and the vitality is accessible. She searched and located the tramway board’s approval of the variance. She called Mr. Bob Daniels who was the original planner for the project and found in the subdivision agreement the recorded variance from the board that had been approved at the time. She provided a copy of the recorded variance (Exhibit Public Comment 2). She noted on p 2 of the variance, the tramway board noted a requirement to close skiing traffic while the platter lift was operating. She then handed out a copy of an email from a program manager at the tramway board (Exhibit Public Comment 3) which states another variance would have to be requested since the variance is 7-8 years old and the lift was never built. She then stated the variance is one of the conditions of the approval for the development order, subdivision plat and PUD agreement, building permit, and certificate of occupancy. This project happened because the ski corridor was preserved. She added she would like to see an aerial connection built and handed out a copy of the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board Rules/Annexes (Exhibit Public Comment 4). She stated the requirements are the same for a platter surface lift as they are for an aerial connection. She stated she spoke with Mr. Jim True, City of Aspen Attorney, and she is not sure who would apply for the platter lift; City of Aspen, the Ski Company or the applicant. She feels the City and the applicant are responsible for applying for the variance. Her next question is who will pay for it. There is $600,000 already placed in an escrow account for the platter lift and her understanding if the lift is not built in five years, the money goes away. She is concerned and feels the community and the Ski Company would like to see the lift come all the way down. She also questioned if the lift would be better on S Aspen St. She asked P&Z if they can move forward on this application if the variance has not been granted by the tramway board. Her goal is to pull everyone together to determine the best solution to get people up and down. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. At this time a copy of the resolution modified since the agenda packet was provided (Exhibit I) and a copy of an email from Ms. McNicholas Kury (Exhibit J) stating her opinions of the application was provided to the P&Z members. Mr. Goode asked Staff for any comments to the public comment. Ms. Seminick stated the amendments being requested today are for lot one and do not concern lot three. Nothing is being requested of the easement at this time so Staff feels the component of the project is up for discussion. Mr. Vann stated the poma lift is dictated by the width of lot three, known as Lift One Park, which is owned by the City. In order to demonstrate a poma could function in the narrowest part of the corridor with the project as proposed initially, the applicant went to the tramway board and obtained a variance stating it could be done. This was sufficient for Council to allow them to move forward with the approval of the project. As a condition of the approval, the applicant agreed to pay $600,000 for the construction of the poma lift. They are not involved in the operation or maintenance of the lift, which will be operated by the Skiing Company and the lift will exist on City’s Willoughby and Lift One Parks. He stated Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 7 Ms. Kronberg is correct in that if at the end of five years, no one has made any progress on the lift, the money could be used on potentially another method of moving people up the hill. He added the money is committed, but it is not the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the variance stays current. Mr. Vann stated the applicant is in compliance with the original requirements of the project. Mr. Mesirow asked the other P&Z members to refresh their opinions since he was not at the previous meeting. Ms. Tygre appreciates the attempt to reduce the glazing. Her big problem from the previous meeting was the amount of light leakage and the amount of glass on the project. She does not have the concerns regarding Staff’s request for alpine roof forms. She likes how the project sits into the hill and sloped roofs would require a taller building. She finds this an acceptable trade-off for lower heights. She feels the applicant has addressed her light and glass concerns pretty well, but she dislikes the glass railings. She feels they are non-functional and feels there is a bit of a privacy issue having floor to ceiling glass. She feels adding bronze and copper to the materials for warmth is a nice touch. She also feels there is a nice variation in the materials. She stated if the applicant does something with the railings, they would have her approval. In regards to the original approval allowing the applicant to ask for partial cash-in- lieu mitigation, she feels it is appropriate considering the amount of mitigation they are providing. Mr. Walterscheid stated he voiced in opposition of Ms. Tygre’s position at the last meeting. He feels the applicant has done a spectacular job of taking a footprint and height from a previous time and refining it in a cohesive and developed concept. He does not want to see P&Z go through and hack it apart to try to turn it into some form of a building surrounding it. The height of the building blends completely with the other projects adjacent to it. The planted rooftop, as you come down from Aspen Mountain, will be the elevation of the building you will see as part of the guidelines discussed that the plane of the building needs to be designed as well. He would much prefer to see usable space than either mechanical systems or sloped roofs. In regards to the previously discussed gabled forms seen in alpine conditions are typically more in rural areas not adjacent to a ski mountain. He feels the concept brought forward is extremely well presented. He feels the square trellis across the building as defined by the glass railings harkens back to the mining days when you would see that trellis form. He feels it is a better building than the originally approved building. Mr. Walterscheid stated last time he cautioned the members to not make decisions on their biased and sometimes arbitrary thoughts. P&Z should have very defined reasons why they state something. Currently, there is nothing in the code restricting the amount of glass on a building. There are lighting codes which keep the light pointing down and restricted to within a property line. He feels members are stepping outside their boundary when they state they feel or they don’t like something about an application. Mr. Walterscheid then stated the guidelines state the materials must be durable and there must be variation. Beyond that, he does not feel P&Z has grounds to comment on the materials. He feels they have an excellent palette and the materials can be sourced from this area and speaks well of the region. He is in full support of the project moving forward. Mr. Goode loves the materials presented and agrees with Mr. Walterscheid regarding the glass. He feels the glazing will reduce light more than the type of railing. His only concern is if the poma lift will be ever be built and realizes it is not part of this hearing. He concluded he is on board with the application. Mr. McNight asked how the glazing came up at the last meeting. Mr. Goode stated Ms. Tygre had issues with it and he was concerned how the building would look at night from downtown. The last thing he wants is a huge light box. He stated he has reflected on Mr. Walterscheid’s comment about contemporary architecture vs. looking fake like Vail. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 8 Mr. McNight feels it is one of the nicer looking buildings he has seen in a while. He feels it fits in well and it’s a building of our time. He does not see any issues with it fitting in with the surrounding buildings. He also does not have too much of an issue with the cash-in-lieu option. Mr. Morris also feels the same regarding the cash-in-lieu option and he agrees with Mr. Walterscheid regarding micromanaging design choices like glass railings. Mr. Mesirow feels it is a very elegant building and will fit in well in the area. The project will have his support and he prefers the glass railings even though he feels it is not in their purview. Mr. Goode asked Mr. Walterscheid his thoughts on the cash-in-lieu option. Mr. Walterscheid is not aware of any certificates currently available so he is curious how they would provide affordable housing. Ms. Phelan expects there will be some available within three months. Depending on the supply, he prefers they should be built or certificates be provided, but anything over and above he doesn’t want to see the project stop so he would support keeping the option available. Ms. Quinn clarified the proposed language allows for the proposal go before Council. Mr. Mesirow added he would also support leaving the option open to the applicant. He trusts Council to make a decision and appreciates the applicant going above and beyond what is required for mitigation. Mr. Goode asked for clarification on what section in the draft resolution needs to be changed. Ms. Phelan stated section three had been modified as shown on the edited resolution handed out to staff at the meeting (Exhibit I). Ms. Phelan noted the second sentence should read as follows (additions underlined): The 55.84 FTEs generated by this amendment may be satisfied through the provision of off-site units, housing credits, or cash-in-lieu (only for a fraction of an FTE unless approved by City Council). Ms. Tygre asked where in the resolution it identifies which of the options proposed by the applicant are approved. Mr. Vann stated in section five, it states the materials and architecture as represented at the planning and zoning meeting and the exhibits will be attached to the resolution. Mr. Goode asked for a motion. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve Resolution 2, Series 2016 as revised. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of six Yes and zero No (6-0). Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 9 200 S Aspen St - Hotel Lenado - Remand Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for the Hotel Lenado remand. Mr. Walterscheid was not present for this hearing. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application, noting it is a remand of Resolution 20, Series 2015. She provided background of the project saying P&Z granted conceptual commercial design review on November 17, 2015. Any commercial design reviews granted by P&Z or the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is referred to City Council. City Council has the ability to call up the decision and discuss it, which is what happened with the Hotel Lenado. When Council calls up a decision by a commission, they have three options. 1. Accept the decision made by the commission 2. Remand it back to the commission with direction 3. Request additional information City Council called up the project in January, 2016. After discussion, Council decided to remand back the decision to P&Z, asking the commission to reconsider their decision. Specifically, the issues outlined in the memo were to consider the following: 1. The third floor height of the building 2. The mass and scale of the building 3. Specifying one of the affordable housing units as a for sale unit 4. Verify the dimensional requirements be met Council also wants P&Z to consider how the property best relates to the neighborhood as a single family home or a duplex. In reconsidering the decision, P&Z may: 1. Uphold the resolution granted 2. Request changes of the projects by the applicant 3. Ask for additional information to be provided Ms. Phelan pointed out Exhibit E which is the public notice of the remand indicating notice was properly provided. She also noted Exhibit F which includes two public comments, one from Ms. McNicholas Kury from P&Z and one from the applicant. Ms. Phelan then touched on the issues brought up by Staff during the previous hearings and their recommendations. With regard to height, parts of the third story still appear taller than other floors of the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy building, particularly in the south free market unit and recommends a reduction in floor height be required so the floors are more in line with each other. Overall, Staff still has an issue with the mass, scale and design of the project. Staff feels with the continued refinement it gets better, but believes the building is too big for the context of the neighborhood and requires a serious redesign rather than continued the minor adjustments which seem to be a push and pull of pieces on the building. The overall mass has not been reduced enough to fit into the neighborhood context. Staff does not feel guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 are met which is to develop a building with variation in height, scale and modulation in the roof scape. With regards to growth management, Staff still recommends one of the affordable housing units be for sale. Staff is not Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 10 recommending any changes to the dimensional requirements and feels they can be memorialized and verified during the final design review. There was also discussion by Council regarding the appropriate development for the property. Staff recognizes a mixed use building is permitted in the zoned district and their bigger issue is in regard to the actual scale and massing of the building. The Mayor brought up a concern regarding the mass and he felt a single family home or duplex would be more appropriate development for the site. Staff’s recommendation is to reduce the third floor height, really look at the mass and scale of the building, stop the push and pull, and complete a serious redesign and to require one affordable housing unit be for sale. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. Mesirow asked how the commission can conceptually look at the application differently. He feels they have looked at the code and determined what P&Z believes it meant for the project. He is not aware any of the underlying code has changed so he is not sure how the commission can come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence. Ms. Phelan believes for a remanded application; P&Z has the ability to make a different determination based on reflection. Mr. McNight noted all the members of P&Z had struggled with the context. He was not present for the approval, but attended the previous meetings. He could see how Council would come to their decision. Ms. Quinn noted when an application is remanded, Council is saying please reconsider. It does not mean P&Z has to change its decision. P&Z may reconsider and stay with their original decision. Mr. Morris asked what happens with the application if P&Z stays with their original decision. Ms. Quinn and Ms. Phelan answered it is done and the conceptual approval will stand and the applicant may apply for final. The final review only goes to P&Z. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He stated the building and logic remains the exact same. He wanted to run through other design options. They did come up with options because they were asked by Council to consider the Hopkins St façade. Mr. Wilson showed the following slides for his presentation and described the design options. 1) Vicinity and zoning map demonstrating types of surrounding uses and size of surrounding buildings noting it is a transitional neighborhood 2) Existing structure noting the number of stories, challenges with the entrance, not up to code or ADA requirements 3) Slides depicting the iterations of the design from the previous P&Z meetings 4) Slide of the project facts:  Nine specific rooms  Each room is 435 sf  Gross area is about the same  Residential free market units are larger  Produces more affordable housing than required  Increases curb appeal  Increases public amenity space  Minimizes parking without asking for a variance Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 11 5) Slide with table listing the allowable sf, floor area ratios, affordable housing, height for the existing building and each of the four submittals 6) Elevations from each side of proposed building showing how it meets the height requirement 7) Elevations from each side of proposed building showing the height of the proposed building compared with the heights of the neighboring buildings 8) Façade from Hopkins St showing the heights 9) Façade of existing building and the approved building 10) Amenity space on Hopkins Ave 11) Amenity space on the park side 12) Amenity space on the entrance side on Aspen St (existing and proposed) 13) Building perspectives as you walk around the building 14) Approved building – He commented they heard similar concerns from Council In response to City Council’s comments from the January 11, 2016 City Council meeting:  The applicant respectfully disagrees with the duplex comment because they do not feel it is the right use for the site and Aspen doesn’t need another single family home this close to the core.  Reducing the heights, mass, scale and design as it relates to the neighborhood - Includes the 5.5 and 5.7 guidelines  Meeting the growth management – The applicant feels this will be determined at the final review.  Verifying the dimensions - The applicant feels this will be determined at the final review. Mr. Wilson then displayed an image of the new Hotel Lenado with the latest design options. He acknowledged it is yet another push/pull on the original theme the last four meetings. They tried to incorporate more residential materials, a little more variation in the height of the building. Mr. Wilson stated the net lodge area will increase a bit but everything else remains the same. This design version includes:  The FAR remains close to 10,900 sf  The net lodging area and affordable housing sf has increased  The free market sf was reduced  The height of the building remains at 28 ft. He then showed a slides noting the heights of different points of the building and noting the heights are based on the proposed grade. The moats will be removed and along Aspen St there a first story element will exist with the grade walking up Aspen St. Along Hopkins St they broke the central gable into two smaller gable elements pulling the gable element up the hill. Along the park side, they have flattened out the side. He noted the third story is 16 ft back from the edge to give the building more of a residential mass and scale. They have also pushed back the stair tower to the roof and eroded the presentation to the corner to include balconies and porches. He displayed slides comparing the height of the proposed building with the neighboring structures to demonstrate they are keeping within the scale of the neighboring buildings. He added it has been difficult to accomplish this due to the sloping site. He then displayed slides and discussed the setbacks and how the setbacks are increased with the upper levels facades pushed back. He then displayed a slide of the Hopkins St façade and pointed out the variation and residential feel. He feels the materials have helped to quieten down the façade quite a bit. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 12 He displayed slides of the other facades and discussed the setbacks, materials and variation. Mr. Wilson then noted excerpts from an email (Exhibit F) from Ms. Cindy Christensen, Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, regarding the purchasability and why she is recommending for rental units because loans for units within buildings are more difficult to obtain. He feels they have already made a great case why they want to keep both units as rentals. Ms. Phelan added she had a conversation with Ms. Christensen who remarked people have been able to purchase units within mixed use buildings. He then showed slides pertaining to guidelines 5.5 and 5.7. He feels they have come a long way on their design while respecting the original scale and modulation. He concluded stating they would like P&Z to uphold the previous approval as modified in option two. Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. Goode asked if the height had been adjusted for the third story at which Mr. Wilson stated there had been some height adjustments made. Ms. Phelan asked what the floor to ceiling height was for the south unit. Mr. Wilson did not know exactly, but was certain if conformed with the height limit. Ms. Phelan asked if it is higher than the other floors at which Mr. Wilson replied it is higher on the rear south corner. Mr. Goode noted Council’s comment stating the height of the third level should be reduced to in line with the entry and park levels. Mr. Goode asked if it was or not. Mr. Wilson stated there is a fundamental problem because the building is a split level so as you move towards the back, it would not be possible. Ms. Phelan asked the height of the floor to ceiling of the third floor and Mr. Wilson stated 11 ft. Ms. Phelan noted this is a couple of feet higher than the other floors. Mr. Wilson responded it is one ft higher. Mr. McNight asked if the heights of 11 ft in the basement, then nine ft throughout the rest of the building from option one or not. Mr. Wilson responded the heights are for option two. Mr. Goode asked if the affordable housing units meet the management requirements for above grade net livable space at which Ms. Phelan responded Staff will be able to verify that at the final review. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Mr. Scott Davidson, Member of the Park Central West Condo Association Board (building located across the alley from the proposed building) felt the alley side did not receive as much attention as the other three sides. He asked for a view of the alley side and asked if the garage doors open to below grade space. Mr. Wilson pointed out the door leading to a car elevator, the doors to the trash, the electrical service area and the doors for the two above grade parking spaces. Mr. Davidson stated an earlier version showing the east corner of the alley showed a big deck and a Jacuzzi on the roof near the alley. Mr. Wilson displayed an image showing approximately the location of the deck setback over the lower floors. Mr. Wilson then showed a layout of the roof and the location of the Jacuzzi. Mr. Davidson is concerned about the noise late at night from the roof because the Park Central West units on the alley are all residential. Mr. Davidson asked if there are any restrictions on the hours of the Jacuzzi. Mr. Wilson stated City code covers this. Mr. Davidson then stated they would prefer the affordable housing units be owned instead of rented. They feel owners take better care of the units than renters. Ms. Ruth Carver lives at the corner of Aspen St and Hopkins St. She feels the side facing Hopkins is the main face of the building. She noted there is a commercial building on the corner of Monarch St and the Hotel Lenado, and otherwise it is residential and parks. She feels visitors admire the homes on the street Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 13 and feels it is important to blend in. She prefers option two and feels option one is too dark. She does not want Aspen to be cookie cutter and turn out like Vail. She quoted from a report by City Planning which concluded saying the common theme of zoning in Aspen over the decades is a commitment to preserving the heritage and unique character. Mr. Davidson asked to possibly work with the applicant on replacing a transformer. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment section and opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Wilson wanted to note the hot tub is set back considerably from the side of the building and it sits down behind some walls. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Phelan about her conversations with Ms. Christensen and if there was anything to support a unit being a for sale unit. He also wanted to know if Council had commented on it. Ms. Phelan stated Council remanded back based on the bullet points from the November meeting and one of the points was the for sale unit. Ms. Phelan stated Councilman Daily showed concern. She stated the Community Development Department and APCHA disagree on this point based on their interest how units operate and the department is following a code requirement that units are for sale unless the unit is for a lodge. In this case, the mitigation for the lodge is only one unit and the mitigation for the two free market units is the other affordable housing unit. Ms. Tygre feels City Council has been specific about certain points to be reviewed but she feels it’s a bit of buyer’s remorse allowing additional dimensions for hotel uses because if the hotel use disappears, the City is stuck with a larger building with a use that is not wanted. This change of use has been a suspension whether it is justified or not. She feels the code allows this to happen and Council is regretting the fact they have this provision and the applicant decided to the use the hotel dimensions instead of residential dimensions. She also shares in the regret but feels it is the result of a mistake made a long time ago. She feels the height of the upper level is not a problem for her. She does not care for the architecture but that’s not here or there. She feels the applicant has done even more to break up the mass along Hopkins St in the proposal presented tonight. Based on the current code, whether we like it or not, she feels it meets the code. In regards to the affordable housing unit as a renter and a landlord, she feels there is an advantage of having a renter because when a renter is bad, you don’t renew their lease and you can evict them. She is inclined to go with APCHA’s recommendation. Mr. Morris does not have a problem with the height, supports both units as rentals. He likes Ms. Tygre’s buyer’s remorse description regarding the mass and scale. He stated it feels like P&Z is being asked with the remand to make a political decision which is completely inappropriate. He does not like the history of how this project came to be, but feels it meets the code. Mr. Mesirow feels his comments from the last meeting were pointed and they haven’t changed. He does not feel it is a good project for the town. Although it meets the height requirements, it is smaller and offers fewer rooms. In regards to Council’s comments, he feels a house would be significantly worse than what has been proposed. He does not feel it is right, but reflects a problem with the code and feels that would be addressed by Council and not P&Z. He feels it is important to follow the code and provide a level of certainty for applicants. Mr. Mesirow stated the applicant has his support for all the previous reasons he has stated despite not liking the project. Mr. McKnight agrees with the other P&Z members and feels the only thing to have a discussion on is the latest design and the neighborhood context. He does feel the project has improved with each iteration. He still supports approving the application. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning March 15, 2016 14 Ms. Carver asked to say one more thing. She feels it could be improved with different materials that are not so dark. Ms. Phelan explained P&Z is only looking at the mass. The final review includes materials in more detail. Mr. Goode stated he likes the latest proposal and agrees with the others. He feels it was kicked back because they did not like it either. Mr. Goode noted Ms. McNicholas Kury’s letter was pointed as well. Mr. Goode asked the group which option they were looking at and most of the members replied number two. Ms. Tygre stated the options are either to uphold Resolution 20, Series 2015 as written, request changes but that does not seem to be where the commission is headed. Ms. Quinn stated they could approve the resolution as it exists with the new design presented tonight. Ms. Tygre moved to uphold Resolution 20, Series 2015 as amended in the application as presented at the meeting today with option two. Mr. Mesirow seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre wanted to clarify it includes APCHA’s recommendation. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of five Yes and zero No (5-0). Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager