Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160503Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McNight and Keith Goode. Jasmine Tygre arrived a few moments later. Skippy Mesirow, Jason Elliott, and Jesse Morris and were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES March 15, 2016 Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve the draft minutes and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. April 19, 2016 Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve the draft minutes and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aspen Alps Planned Development Mr. Goode asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn asked Mr. Alan Richman, applicant representative, if any documentation had been provided to any members of the public regarding neighborhood outreach as indicated in the summary. Mr. John Corcoran, Aspen Alps General Manager, responded he had provided some of the drawings included in tonight’s packet to Mr. Donnie Lee, General Manager of The Gant. Ms. Quinn then informed Mr. Goode notice appeared to have been properly provided. The affidavits were submitted as Exhibit E (in packet) and E.1 (not in the packet). Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to Staff. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 2 Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted this is a public hearing for the commission to provide a recommendation to City Council for the replacement of the 300 building at the Aspen Alps Planned Development (PD) and subdivision. The project is currently in a project review phase which approves the building dimensions including floor area and height. There are a number of reviews to be considered including:  Amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD)  8040 Greenline Review  Mountain View Plane, particularly the Wheeler Opera House  Growth Management Reviews  Residential Design Standard (RDS) reviews Ms. Seminick noted the application was deemed complete before Referendum 1 as well as the recently adopted design standards, so it will be compared to the older standards, not those adopted more recently. Ms. Seminick then provided the history and site orientation of the proposed building. Using a slide of the site, she stated the Aspen Alps consists of eight parcels and is located to the east of the Little Nell Ski Run. Building 300 is located on lot 3. The Aspen Alps was developed over a period of about 10 years starting around 1960. It was the first condominium building in the state of Colorado. Overall, the Aspen Alps has a total of 73 multi-family units, three affordable housing units and a parking garage. The parking garage and affordable housing are located on lot 7. Presently, the existing structure suffers from lateral loading causing the entire building to be somewhat out of alignment. The management and homeowner’s association (HOA) initially explored repairing the structure, but with the potential of identify other structural issues and the associated expense it was decided to replace the structure. This is a 100% multi-family residential building and it will be replaced with the same use. Ms. Seminick then displayed and explained elevations of the existing building as approved in 2013 in the PD process. The building orients north-south and is built into the hillside. While the project review includes proposed dimensions, she wanted to touch on design changes as they pertain to other aspects of the required 8040 Greenline and RDS reviews. The applicant is proposing the following: a) Change the overall architecture of the building while maintaining the basic form b) Add a green roof c) Include more glazing as demonstrated on the east elevation Similar materials will be utilized and the stone chimney features will be retained. Egress is currently off the west elevation. On the new building, the egress will be provided from the inside on the west elevation and a second egress will be included as required by code. Ms. Seminick then displayed a slide of the proposed dimensions (Table 2, p38 of the agenda packet). The applicant is requesting to increase the overall floor area, number of units and height in the new structure. She noted this project is within the lodge zone district with a PD overlay. During the PD process, the dimensions are compared to the underlying zone district. The lodge zone district allows for 1:1 floor area ratio and a maximum building height for a single residential use of 28 ft. The existing structure has seven units averaging about 1,300 sf. Units 302 and 306 were combined some years ago Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 3 and they are planning to split the units back out. The proposed project also includes two new units. All the units will have a net livable of 1,500 sf and each unit will grow on average, 377 sf of net livable area. Staff wanted to point out the 300, 400 and 500 buildings were built at approximately the same time and are of equivalent size. The approved dimensions of the 300 building include 9,942 sf of floor area with 3,131 sf of deck area. The applicant is requesting to increase the approved dimensions to 17,547 sf of floor area with 8,495 sf of deck area. The amendment represents an increase in floor area by 7,865 sf or 79% increase in overall floor area. The deck area will increase by 5,328 sf representing an overall increase of 170%. Additionally, the applicant has proposed increasing the height of the structure to 44 ft which is currently 35 ft with a 44 ft chimney allowance. Staff does not support the floor area amendment request and feels there needs to be a reduction in the massing, floor area and the deck area to respect the surrounding buildings and be more consistent with the neighborhood context and to be better aligned with the underlying zone district. The applicant has also requested to amend the setback dimensions. In one area of the property, the proposed building setback is 1 ft 8 in. The underlying zoning allows for five ft on all sides and Staff feels that by reducing the deck area, the setback requirement would be reduced in the particular area. As mentioned previously, the building suffers from structural issues and the preliminary geotechnical investigation did not provide the level of detail required to place the mitigation such as retaining walls and other features. The mitigation will be assessed in the detail review process. Staff is proposing an additional setback requirement of zero ft pertaining to the retaining features to allow greater latitude in the placement of the features to ensure they are appropriate geotechnical solutions. Concerning the Growth Management Review, this project will generate 4.51 FTEs. The applicant has proposed to satisfy the mitigation requirement by acquiring affordable housing certificates. The application has been referred to APCHA and they would prefer to see a combination of both on-site and certificates. Regarding the Mountain View Plane review, the proposed building is within the Wheeler View Plane and is about 2,000 ft from the point of origin. She provided a slide demonstrating where the view plane intersects the building. The applicant provided a series of photos showing the relationship of the 300 building to the view plane both from the ground level and from the second floor. She noted there are structures on the Hyman Ave Mall and beyond prohibiting viewing the structure even if trees were not there. Staff feels the impact on the view plane would be minimal from the project. In regards to the 8040 Greenline review, the primary issues are geotechnical in nature and the preliminary investigation looked into why this is happening at the site and has determined a need for mitigation. The Engineering department was referred to and they have provided a number of requirements and conditions to be met during the detailed review and build permit process. Staff does have concern of potential light leakage and light pollution on the elevation of the building. Next, Ms. Seminick discussed the RDS. Multi-family uses are only touched on in a few areas of the RDS. One being street facing principle windows and the proposed windows project into the no-window zone between 9 - 12 ft above the first floor plate. There is also a requirement for a minimum of two street facing entrances on the project and a requirement for no stairwells forward of the front most wall of the building. The applicant met with staff after they received the memo and noted they would provide the dimensions for their front entryway to show how they meet the requirement. The applicant will also propose a solution to the 9 - 12 ft window zone and incorporate retaining features into the stairwell. Staff does feel the number of windows on the façade is an improvement from the existing condition. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 4 Overall, Staff is supportive of replacing the structurally deficient building in the interest of the health and safety of its residents. However, Staff does not support an increase in the overall floor area of the project and the height increase or the glazing proposed. Staff recommends a restudy at this time. Mr. Goode asked if any member had questions for Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked where the 8040 Greenline intersects the building. Ms. Seminick replied it is below the building. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, represents the applicant and introduced the following individuals of the applicant’s team: Mr. John Corcoran, General Manager of the Aspen Alps Mr. Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, serving as the project architect Mr. Jesse Swan, Sopris Engineering, serving as the project engineer Ms. Pam Cunningham, former General Manager of the Aspen Alps Ms. Nina Eisenstat, assisting with public outreach Mr. Richman then provided background of the project stating they originally submitted it almost a year ago and have been working with staff on refinements in effort to meet staff concerns. Last June, at a Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting, they heard a number of significant concerns about the design, size of the two new units and the inclusion of a parking garage (11 spaces below the building). The applicant concluded from the DRC meeting they needed to make some revisions including:  Remove the entire parking garage reducing the gross area of the building by about 6,800 sf  Changed the form and skin of the building  Reduce the building in width and length (demonstrating on a slide the outline of the originally submitted building and the current proposed outline)  The two new units (each 2,000 sf) which are allowed in the zone district if TDRs are retired, were reduced to 1,500 sf. They thought these changes demonstrated their responsiveness to Staff’s concerns and felt it made the project better overall. They were clearly disappointed when they saw Staff is not supporting the project at this time. They do appreciate Staff’s recognition of the need to replace the building. They disagree with Staff regarding the appropriateness of the design of the building. Tonight, they want to show P&Z how they have created a design they believe takes its inspiration from the historic influences of the property and sets a modern tone for the Aspen Alps. They will be focusing on:  Proposed height  Size of the units  Important functions of the proposed decks and access ways serve the building – the decks actually help to reduce the perceived mass of the building They feel this building is important for the tourist economy. The condominium segment of Aspen’s tourist inventory never seems to get the attention or the public support the traditional lodging sector receives. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 5 Mr. Richman reviewed the existing conditions of the current structure and showed slides of the history of the Aspen Alps. He noted it is located at the lower reaches of Aspen Mountain and accessed from Ute Ave and via Aspen Alps South Rd. Mr. Corcoran noted the current slide was dated pre-1972 because Ute Ave is shown between the 100 and 200 building and it is no longer there. He thought the closure agreement was in 1973. Mr. Richman continued stating the first building was constructed in 1962 followed by the 300, 400 and 500 building built mid-1960s making the 300 building approximately 50 years old. When the original buildings were condominiumized, the owner essentially cut out donut holes from the existing parcel for the buildings. He demonstrated on a slide the location of the lots within the donut holes for all the buildings. The developer retained the surrounding land. In 1992, a land use application was submitted by the Aspen Alps in conjunction with the developer enabling the Aspen Alps to obtain the title for the surrounding land as well. In 2001, the City rezoned the Aspen Alps which was covered by a series of zoning districts including R-15, conservation, lodge (L-2) to allow condominiums for all the buildings as Lodge with a PD overlay. This made the use conforming, but there were still many nonconformities in the buildings. In 2013, the Aspen Alps obtained approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan. This plan did not propose any new development. Its stated purpose was to allow the Aspen Alps to plan for future improvements to the property without being encumbered by the nonconformities. Before this plan, many aspects did not comply with underlying zoning. Density, height and floor area were all more than allowed on the underlying zone district. While the Lodge zone district was appropriate for the use, it did not fit in terms with what had been built on the property. The PUD made all these features conforming which designated the existing dimensions of each of the buildings as the approved dimensions and thereby eliminating any nonconformities. This leads to an issue they have with Staff’s comparison of the building with the underlying zone district. The PUD went on to state any changes to the dimensions would require a PUD amendment. It did not say no changes could be made to the dimensions nor that the dimensions were set in stone. He believes it was because the Aspen Alps and the City recognized the buildings were built some years ago and many aspects of them were dated and substandard in regards to the zoning as well as other codes. He feels if the building is held the dimensions defined, it is being doomed to be a substandard building. He wanted to mention the PUD created eight lots. The lots correspond with the buildings area deeded over by the developer. Lot 6 was basically all the land other than the donut holes which surround the buildings. He pointed out lot 6 on an overhead view of the property. He also pointed out the parcel line of lot 3 and how it does not bear any relationship to any real factor on the ground. When floor area ratios and set backs are calculated, the land area in lot 3 is taken into consideration. But if you look at in a bigger perspective, there is a lot more open land around the building not considered in the calculations. He noted the location of the 1 ft 8 in setback is where the lot line is nearest the building. The open area behind the 300 building will remain open. He asked P&Z to keep this in mind. Mr. Corcoran noted he has been the General Manager of the Aspen Alps for eight years. He noted the Aspen Alps was one of the earliest players in the short term rental of apartments to visitors. He showed some historical pictures of the 100 and 300 buildings. He noted by 1992, 777 Ute petitioned into the Aspen Alps, the property was about 7.5 acres with 83 condominiums. He then discussed the condition of the 300 building. He noted throughout the discussions, P&Z will see dramatic changes to the two spruce trees located behind the building as well as other plantings on the property. He stated the issue began when a concerned owner called stating he felt the building was leaning. Mr. Corcoran showed images of the hallway and noted he called a geotech engineer, Dr. Allan Thurman. It was his opinion the access to and livability have been severely impacted by ground Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 6 movement at the 300 building location. Unless the building is stabilized, the ongoing movement and ever increasing lateral loads will destroy the building. In exploring their options for repairing the building, they learned more about the costs and uncertainty from jacking up and straightening a 52-year-old building and were not sure this was an optimal outcome. They then started to think about replacing the building. Obvious improvements including access, safety, materials, and energy efficiency. In conversations with some owners, they clearly wanted the necessary improvements in safety and access as well as improvements to the space for families and extended families. Mr. Corcoran noted people are looking for better and more expanded spaces than they did 50 years ago in their vacations for their families and extended families. Most people come to Aspen for the outdoors and they want patios and decks to blur those lines. They want to offer more than the ability to have two chairs with a cocktail table. They also wanted ceiling heights higher than 7.5 to 8 ft. As designed, they feel the apartments will provide a better living space for their customers including some modestly sized three bedroom units. In the past, Community development and others have communicated to him that rental condominiums are an important part of our tourist economy which is 40% of the bed base in Aspen. He feels experts in mountain resort travel would describe the inventory as aging and in need of refurbishment. Throughout the process they have obtained feedback from the Design Review Committee (DRC) and City Staff to improve the proposed building. he as well as the owners to see this project move forward. The owners want to continue to be a part of this community. They have had four generations of families in some of the condominiums. Mr. Sanchez provided slides showing the placement and boundaries of the existing and proposed buildings on the site. He discussed the uniqueness of the site including the existing vegetation and setbacks. He pointed to the corner where the smallest setback exists. The edge of the property is another 65 – 70 ft away from this corner. The open lawn is an amenity of the Aspen Alps and also the de facto backyard for the 300 building. The defining parameters for the location of the 300 building is the 400 building, S Alps Rd, existing cottonwood trees and spruce trees. They have negotiated with Parks on how to keep the Spruce trees. The proposed building is actually shorter, but fatter than the existing building. The proposed building is further from the road to accommodate four parking spaces, sidewalks, curbs, a bike rack and landscaping opportunities. In addition, some site walls are included to retain the street and mountain as well as manage any flow of debris. They are not certain at this time exactly of the location and size of the walls. They will also expand the existing trail. They are proposing a green roof to allow the water to be treated before entering the storm water system and contribute to the thermal performance of the roof. He then provided a slide of the proposed building showing 4 stories of habitable space as does the existing building. He noted they are adding mechanical basement space. He then discussed how the height is determined. It was their intent to respect the 44 ft height limit for the tallest element of the current building as identified in the PUD. Their application within the agenda packet includes heights along the roadside of 24 ft 6 in to 28 ft 6 in as measured from the proposed grade to the top of the building. The lawn side is more challenging and measures 42 ft 6 in to 44 ft. They expect substantial concrete work in order to hold back the mountain. They also want to minimize the floor structure to keep the height as low as possible. The floor system or floor pack will be anywhere from 16 in to 20 in. The floor systems are thicker than they were in the 60’s to accommodate greater loads and sound transmission reduction requirements. The ceiling heights will be from 9 ft to 9 ft 6 in to provide better spaces and harvest daylight. The Staff recommendation is very challenging because the proposed 35 ft height results in floor to ceiling heights of 8 ft 9 in minus the floor pack allows for ceiling heights of 7 ft 3 in which is shorter than the current building and is not in compliance with the commercial design guidelines for buildings serving Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 7 the same purpose as this one. He then read section 1.33 which states the height should be 9 ft for all rooms on all floors. The International Building Code states the ceiling height cannot be less than 7 ft 6 in. The feel what they are asking for is reasonable and achieves the goals of the City guidelines and the spirit of the PUD. He then provided and discussed floor layouts of the proposed building. The main distinction between the proposed and existing buildings is that the existing building consists of duplex units that are two floors each. The original proposal recreated this concept but in response to the mass and scale issues raised and discussion with the owners, flats were designed on the ends of the building and the two new units located in the center of the building retain the two floor design. The building circulation is against the road and includes corridors, stairs and an elevator. One of the exits to the street requires a step up to the street due to the grade change. On the upper floors, the end units are exposed on three sides and take advantage of the available light. Mr. Sanchez this discussed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Staff’s memo notes they are asking for 377 additional sf on average per existing unit. The memo also states about 125 sf of this amount is used just to satisfy current code for thicker walls to achieve better thermal performance, acoustical separation and larger spaces for ADA accessible doors. The remaining 250 sf is distributed among the other living spaces to make them more comfortable. Another topic discussed in detail is the deck area. In the memo on p 38, a chart identifies the deck area as 8,495 sf. The third footnote on p 39 notes the deck area includes exterior stairs and walkways. To be accurate, the number actually includes interior stairs, elevator, corridor as well as the decks. Just the interior access area includes almost half of the deck sf. In order to comply with current code, the new building has two stairs instead of one, an elevator, wider corridors on all floors to support the flats. The current decks for the units are less than five ft wide limiting their use. The owners want to experience more of the outside. The new decks range in size from six ft to eight ft and up to 10 ft. Mr. Sanchez then discussed the design influences including Mr. Fritz Benedict who initially designed the Aspen Alps 300 building. He provided pictures of other buildings designed by Mr. Benedict and Mr. Frank Lloyd Wright emphasizing strong horizontals, balconies with a limited palette of materials. He discussed the design of the existing building noting how the decks play a part in the character of the building as well as the use of glazing. Mr. Sanchez also displayed and discussed the design of the 100 building which was also designed by Mr. Benedict. The 700 building was not designed by Mr. Benedict, but also expresses similar horizontal qualities. Mr. Sanchez feels their proposal attempts to pick up these same qualities. He provided drawings of the building to scale (noting the ones in the packet are not to scale) from each side and described the form elements and massing that mimic the existing building. The materials used will still be wood, stone and glass. Each entrance will be identified with a porch and the measurements will be 50 sf. Exterior walkways incorporated in the front plane of the building. The intent of the windows above the entrance is to help identify the entrance and is broken by the floors. He then showed the lawn façade and described the design features including the horizontal and vertical elements. The materials on this side is glass, concrete and stone at the base. They feel the glass on this side is appropriate to help establish indoor and outdoor relationships. They will consider other details including the type of glass, reflective vs. non-reflective properties, thermal performance and how it is distributed. They may utilize opaque glass in some areas. They feel the glass is appropriate for this side because it will maximize daylight and reflect park elements instead of buildings to diminish the mass of the building. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 8 The end elevation also includes balconies which they feel help to break up the mass by providing deep shadow lines. The east elevation is a very integrated assembly intended to maximize the daylight harvesting while controlling the heat gain from the direct sun. He provided a slide demonstrating how the design also helps to control light spill from viewers on the ground by using the angle of the balconies to the light to reduce more than 50%. Light is also diminished as the distance increases from the building. He also noted the parapets of the balconies serve as shades for the light for an observer standing outside the building. The parapets will be higher on the lower levels to further reduce the light from the building. He noted it is a balancing act to maximize the daylight harvest while controlling the sun from inside the building and minimize the and light pollution. These details will be further studied. He then displayed some perspective views of the proposed design including:  Up by 400 building looking south  Looking back toward end of building  Lawn side view Mr. Richman then discussed compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). He feels the project’s compliance to the AACP is a measure of its success. He read a section from the AACP identifying a basic theme of the AACP which guides future development supporting the tourist economy including replenishing the inventory to support a diverse visitor base. In order to achieve this goal, the City has paid a great deal of attention to small lodges and creating incentives for the development of smaller lodging units. While critical, it is not the only segment of the inventory that needs to be renewed or replenished. A report produced in 2012 by himself focused on the condominium portion of the inventory and identifies about 40% of short term rental is condominiums and many of those units built in the 60’s and 70’s are aging. The report focused on areas of the code which present obstacles for upgrading and redeveloping the condominium lodging. First and foremost are the dimensional limitations in the lodge zone district. Residential multi-family structures in the lodge zone district have height, floor area and density penalties. The lodge zoning was typically applied after these structures were built and then the lodge zone district was significantly modified in 2005 to encourage lodge development and discourage multi-family. Many multi-family structures at the base of the mountain became non-conforming with this iteration of the lodge zone code. The second major obstacle is the limitation of the City’s nonconforming provisions which prevent redevelopment from occurring. The report included possible strategies to deal with the obstacles. One being the City might consider “leveling the playing field” between multi-family and lodge structures. Lodging is heavily favored over multi-family structures. Another suggestion would be to add a new zone district for the multi-family structures to include greater flexibility. The report noted the PUD process might be a way to address the nonconformities. The Aspen Alps designated it property with a PUD in 2013 to eliminate the nonconformities. Mr. Richman noted the following:  The building largely fits within the existing footprint  The proposal basically complies with the impact oriented standards of the code including parking, affordable housing, engineering standards and sustainable building.  The Aspen Alps has been moving towards more sustainable operations including a policy requiring the use of electric vehicles, or per foot, bike or public transportation for employee trips.  Free bus passes for staff.  Storage for owner’s bicycles.  Noted as being the first condominium complex to reach the Z-Green summit certification.  Provide memberships to the We-Cycle program for employees, owners and guests. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 9 Other aspects that have been in compliance with the AACP for years include: 1) Parcels around the Aspen Alps purchased to protect open space including Spar Wedge and an access between the Aspen Alps and the Little Nell complex. 2) Affordable housing built on site as part of the parking garage when it was constructed. They provide housing for five to six employees. The owners decided they would offset the requirement of this project today and not use the previously build units. Mr. Goode then asked for a break. Upon return, Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for clarification on the applicable zoning. Ms. Quinn stated the underlying zoning is uses as a reference point and does not necessarily dictate what must occur. In a situation where the current building is disappearing and the heights were established in the PD overlay, it might be appropriate to look at the underlying zoning. Ms. Seminick stated in the project review standard it does state the underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not as an absolute limitation to the dimensions which shall be considered during the development review process. The project did undergo a PD review to essentially lock in what was on the site in 2013. This application would be an amendment to the allowed dimensional tolerances previously granted. Staff is supportive of the 35 ft height limit granted by the 2013 review. However, because they need to consider the underlying zoning as the standard required, which is 28 ft for a multi-family residential unit as a single use, Staff does not have a level of support for an increase in the height. Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked for clarification for the reference to a 44 ft height limit for the tallest building element. Ms. Seminick stated the 44 ft height limit was from the 2013 approval and is an allowance for a chimney. Ms. Tygre asked what percentage of the Aspen Alps units are available as short term rentals. Mr. Corcoran responded two thirds. Ms. Tygre asked for further explanation of the lateral loading. Mr. Sanchez responded the mountain is moving downhill. The building sits in a cut in the mountain and the back wall is essentially holding back the road as well as the mountain. As water infiltrates the soil, gravity pushes the soil downhill. The foundation is more stable than the vertical walls, so it remains in place while the vertical walls are pushed. Ms. Tygre asked what they will do with the new building to prevent this. Mr. Sanchez responded the new building will be designed more substantially to retain the movement and the building will be built as a retaining wall. Site walls will be used to address the change in grades and deal with mud flow. Ms. Tygre asked what would happen if the geotechnical reports dictate they move the building. Mr. Sanchez responded an engineer could devise a solution to almost any problem. There is a cost associated with any solution and it may be cheaper to place the building elsewhere, but they are dealing with a fairly limited footprint. Mr. Richman noted a building would typically be moved if located below a site specific hazard you wanted to avoid such as snow or rock. In this instance, the slope is a factor to be considered, but moving it incrementally on the lot will not change the geologic factors. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 10 Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked for clarification regarding if the entrances being included in the decking sf calculation. Mr. Sanchez responded the internal access area is included in Staff’s overall calculation total. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they have illustrations of the 400 building given it is closest in proximity. Mr. Sanchez responded it is almost exactly like the 300 building. The 400 building is essentially 35 ft to the eave. Neither the applicant or Staff had the height measurements of the 400 building. Mr. Corcoran noted because of the grade, the 400 building sits 12-14 ft above the 300 building. He added the 400 building was rebuilt in 1992 and the 500 building was half rebuilt in 2010 after a fire. When they rebuilt the 400 building, it was soil nailed in. The 400 building was tested at the same time the 300 building was checked and it remains plum. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are decks on the street side to which Mr. Sanchez responded there are none. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if concrete will be used for the balcony walls to which Mr. Sanchez agreed. He added the decking of the balcony will be concrete, but the railing will be glass. Mr. Walterscheid asked on the 2013 approval, was the determined height at existing grade or lowest point. Mr. Sanchez believed it was from the existing grade. Mr. McNellis asked in regards to the lodge zone district, what is proposed vs what is allowed. He sees the difference only at 200 sf. Mr. Richman noted the floor area for parcel 3, the 200 sf difference is correct. Mr. Richman noted the PUD recognizes the same numbers and identifies it per building and as a total. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the existing ceiling heights. Mr. Corcoran noted they are a hair over 8 ft. Mr. Sanchez noted they are lower on the upper floor where the eave of the vaulted ceiling is close to 7 ft 6 in. Mr. Goode asked if they considered a roof top patio instead of extending patios on each floor. Mr. Corcoran responded they did not. He feels there are a lot of governance issues with use of common elements. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to acknowledge there were some concerns raised with the trash enclosure. Ms. Seminick stated the applicant was referred to the Environmental Health department regarding the enclosure and will need to go through a special review for the proposed enclosure and will be addressed at the detailed review. Mr. Walterscheid noted the application notes there are eight spaces across the road. The applicant had proposed a below grade garage which was later removed from the project. Mr. Corcoran noted on the PUD there were eight spaces established, most are located up the hill across from the 500 building. The application includes the creation of four additional spaces and there are also six spaces in the garage. Staff informed they needed three spaces for the new units and they decided to create four spaces to provide an accessible space. Mr. Corcoran noted all the street spaces are unassigned. Mr. Goode asked if they are mitigating the affordable housing with 50% on site and 50% off as certificates. Mr. Richman responded they had considered options for onsite mitigation and determined it was too difficult when only considering one building. Any land is owned by the entire home owners’ association. They will mitigate entirely with certificates. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 11 Mr. Goode then asked if there was any public comment at which no one requested to comment so he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Walterscheid stated he was on P&Z for the 2013 approval. He completely understands the cleanup of all the random zoning and dictated heights. He has a bit of heartburn trying to now change the heights. He understands it currently is one building, but this is the first in a series. He is nervous to allow the change in height. There is exemption in the code for elevators and chimneys, but the overall height should be held at 35 ft. He feels they are really close on FAR. He can also agree to the setbacks because they own the surrounding property. He appreciates the history and location and understands the need for this application. Ms. Tygre felt the 2013 PUD wasn’t in the classic sense a PUD. It was an approval of existing conditions so people could get loans for improvements. She voted against if for the very reason P&Z is now facing. She feels the applicant is asking for a variance from the PUD which was itself a variance. The issue of nonconformity is important because you are not allowed to increase to a nonconformity. In this case she does not feel what they are asking for is all that unreasonable and she is torn because a facility like the Alps should be continued. She agrees with Ryan regarding the setbacks. She feels the height is an issue even when you can’t see it from anywhere. It is more a matter of principle to allow an expansion on the height which will then be requested by other buildings. She is reluctant to set this type of precedent. She encouraged the applicant to reduce the height to get it closer to the PUD amount of 35 ft. She realizes the reflection in this location will reflect trees as opposed to other buildings is much more appropriate, but is concerned about leakage. She does not like the tall windows and feels another solution should be sought to identify the area as an entrance. Mr. McNight enjoyed the history provided during presentation. He has similar concerns with setting a precedent for any decisions made by the P&Z. He originally did not think this application was a good fit, but their presentation has changed his mind. He is concerned with the height as well. In regards to the glazing, it is frustrating to really understand what it will be by looking at renderings. He likes the direction of taking the Aspen Alps into something of this time. He is also concerned about what may happen to the rent of the units and will it remain affordable. His main concern is the height. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels there are conflicts between traveler’s trends and preferences and residential trends and preferences regarding building needs. She is supportive of the setbacks and feels the site constraints make it appropriate. She is supportive of the windows over the entrance. In 8040 review, she has concerns with glazing but given the forested nature of the site lessens her concerns. She feels it is appropriate to include some encouragements for Council’s consideration. She feels the request regarding the view plane is appropriate. She feels the height is problematic and feels it is appropriate to look at the approved PUD dimensions and encouraged the applicant to reconsider. With regards to affordable housing, she is okay with it but feels it may set a precedent for the other buildings since they are not addressing a comprehensive master plan for the Alps and what that might include for employee housing. Mr. McNellis shares most of the comments already made. He would like to see the total sf adjusted to be below the allowable for the lodge zone. The height also gives him heartburn mainly because of the precedent as discussed by the others. He is somewhat comforted that if building 700 were to go through the same process, it would have to go through the same process as the 300 building at which point that building would be evaluated as to if the requested height was appropriate. He does not have too much of a problem with the requested height on this building, but does not feel it would be necessarily appropriate for the other buildings. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 12 Mr. Goode agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury regarding looking future affordable housing. Unfortunately, it is not part of this application. He is agreement with the others. He likes the project and appreciated the description of how the light from building. He feels it may be helpful to have something that depicts nighttime light coming from the building. He agrees with the other regarding the height. He was also at the 2013 meeting and recalls it being a very difficult with conflict. He thinks they are on the right path. Mr. Corcoran remembered a conversation with Ms. Jessica Garrow when they were doing the PUD. The problems they wanted to resolve all dealt with nonconformities. The first step was to eliminate the conformity. He said Ms. Garrow called him one day and asked if they wanted to add height to the buildings. At the time he did not know but asking for it then would have generated a question regarding what it would look like. He felt the mission of the PUD was to memorialize and eliminate conformity, they did not ask for more, understanding at the time the PUD provides a platform to ask for it later if appropriate for a particular site. He felt he had been directed at the time that a PUD provides for site specific improvement requests. Mr. Richman asked P&Z to think about if from a practical numerical standpoint. They have a four story building and if they limit the floor to ceiling height in each story to 7.5 ft, it would be below design standards as well as what the market is looking for and building. Based on the minimal required height between the floors, the building would be 36 ft. He understands their attachment to the 35 ft in the PUD, but it has no practical meaning for the project because it can’t be achieved. Mr. Sanchez heard everyone mention precedent but feels this project is unique because it is an existing four story building. The 700 building is three story and the 100 building is two story building. It is his understanding that P&Z is to weigh applications case by case on its own merits. Mr. Goode stated if they were to ignore the residential design standards, they what is to stop them from asking for a six story building. He added they have to set a standard at some point. Mr. Richman added they will look at the height, but he doesn’t feel it technically doable. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated P&Z want to see the best product and a substandard building is a lost opportunity. They want to respect the public process which resulted in the code. Mr. Goode asked if there was a motion to continue past 7 pm. Mr. McNellis motioned to continue the meeting for five more minutes which was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor. Mr. Goode suggested a motion to continue the hearing. He noted the concerns regarding height. Mr. Richman acknowledged they need to look at glazing. Mr. McKnight asked why the floor to ceiling heights are changing from what currently exists. Mr. Sanchez responded the current building has 8 ft ceilings. Mr. Corcoran noted it is about 7.5 to the timber beam which supports the ceiling. Mr. Sanchez stated the existing building is a timber frame building and described structure of the current floor section. In modern day construction, there will be a concrete slab which will be 5-6 in thick. On top of it, another floor system 2-3 in thick will be placed to minimize sound. A concrete beam will also be placed below the slab and below that will be a suspended ceiling. The code and structural requirements require more than what was required when the structure was originally built. He thinks the smallest the new system can be will be 1 ft 4 in to 1 ft 6 in. It could be as deep as 2 ft. Mr. Richman noted this is multiplied by the number of floors. He added they won’t come back with a 35 ft number because it is a number they are not going to be at. Ms. Tygre moved to continue hearing to May 17th and was seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion passed. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 3, 2016 13 OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager