Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160705Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Ryan Walterscheid, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris, Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis was not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. Ms. Debbie Quinn noted for voting purposes, all the members can participate but Mr. McKnight will not be able to vote if all the other members vote on a motion. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no minutes to review. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development Mr. Goode opened the hearing. He then explained a sheet will be distributed for meeting attendees to sign-up to comment during the public comment portion of the hearing because of the large number of people who want to comment at this hearing. Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she had reviewed the notice finding the affidavit and notification to be appropriate. She added it appeared the posting, mailing, mineral rights and neighborhood outreach had all been provided and appropriately documented. The notice will be entered as Exhibit K. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Jen Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, noted the hearing tonight was for the Gorsuch Haus and provided a general overview of the application review process, noting it will be a three step process. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 2 1) P&Z may have one or more meetings to review the mass, scale, and applicant’s proposals. P&Z will then make a recommendation to City Council. Public comment will be heard at this hearing. 2) City Council will then have a hearing and will also take public comment. 3) If and when City Council approves the project, P&Z will then conduct a final review for the skin and materials of the project. Ms. Phelan then described how a public hearing is conducted. Ms. Phelan noted additional public comment received by Staff since the agenda packet was published was compiled as Exhibit I and distributed to P&Z via email and as printed copies at tonight’s hearing. She reviewed who sent the public comments and their stance on the project. Ms. Phelan stated she would review the land use request, the reviews associated with the request, Staff’s key issues and a Staff’s recommendation. She then described Gorsuch Haus as a lodge development proposed on land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo). The applicant was proposed by Norway Island LLC with consent given by SkiCo. The proposal contains four parcels of land primarily within the City’s boundary with over 278,000 sf or over 6 acres of land. The property is located at the southerly end of S Aspen St, aka Lift 1A. It was an original portal to the mountain. Currently, the site has the lift, some SkiCo operations in a building and the remainder is skiable terrain zoned Conservation (C ). The proposal to redevelop the site is a new lodge including:  81 lodge keys which is a mix of traditional hotel rooms and condominiumized lodge rooms.  Accessory uses including back of house for hotel  Amenities including lobby, fitness space, spa  Over 9,000 sf commercial space uses including a public restaurant, grab-n-go, SkiCo operations, AVSC offices  6 free market residential units  1 two-bedroom affordable housing unit  58 below grade parking spaces  Ski Lift to be replaced and relocated up the hill and to the east  Various site improvements The land use reviews include:  Rezone from Conservation (C ) to Ski Area Base (SKI) which does allow all the permitted uses proposed and has no underlying dimensions regarding minimum lot size, maximum height, maximum floor area, or setbacks. The SKI zone district is a site specific approval and must be obtained via planned development approval.  Reviews for development in environmentally sensitive areas: o The Wheeler Opera House Mountain View Plane which intersects the property o The 8040 Greenline review  Major subdivision approval because it is proposed to change the configuration of the four parcels as they currently exist. The proposed changes also require vacations to three rights-of- way (ROWs) including half of Hill St, all of Summit St and half of S Aspen St.  Conceptual Commercial Design review  Growth Management Reviews to ensure the amount of development is permitted along with the appropriate amount of affordable housing is provided. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 3  Request for the vested property rights to be increased to ten years. Current State law provides for a minimum of three years of vested property rights for approved development. Ms. Phelan then stated she would discuss the key issues instead of each review. The key issues include: 1) Site Plan Currently there are four parcels which she identified on a picture of the site plan. The applicant has requested and demonstrated where the property extends beyond the City’s boundary. She noted all the development is proposed to be in within the City boundaries. She also pointed out where the ROWs exist the applicant has requested to be vacated. The site also has multiple easements for drainage, utilities and fire access. The proposal with the four new lots will put most of the building on lot one, which she outlined on a map. Some balconies, decks and subgrade improvements will go beyond lot one. The proposal has some improvements associated with different lots. The new lift will be located further east and up the hill from its current location. The terminus for S Aspen St is proposed as a cul-de-sac and will include a guest pull off area, transit stop and pedestrian access to the lift. The lift access involves walking around the toe of the building and up to the lift. There are a number of retaining walls proposed because it is a steep site. A skier return is proposed on the east side of the building which allows for skiers to return down through the corridor of the Lift 1 Lodge down to Dean St. The summer access road on the mountain that currently goes up on the west side of the property is proposed to be accessed from the east side of the property. Staff has the following concerns with the site plan: a) The footprint of the building closes off the lift from the street and prevents direct access to the lift. Staff also has concerns regarding the accessibility for anyone with a disability. As currently proposed, you would need to go through the hotel, take an elevator and go thought the build to access the skier plaza. b) Proposed retainage throughout the site both in scale and the impacts to skier return down to Dean St. c) Neighboring properties, specifically Lift 1 Lodge, was designed to incorporate a platter lift for future access from Dean St up to Lift 1A. It is unclear how the proposed lift will work with a platter lift. d) The request to vacate over 13,000 sf of ROWs will further close off access to the mountain from S Aspen St. e) The Engineering Department does not support vacating Hill St witch has utilities located beneath it. f) The new configuration of the lots is irregular in shape and improvements are dispersed on the lots. g) Engineering has concerns regarding the design and size of the cul-de-sac. It is unknown how much capacity the pull offs can handle. h) The Fire department has concerns with the ability to access the building all the way up the slope. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 4 2) Dimensions The property is currently in zone district C which is pretty limited and allows for single family homes, parks, temporary special events and ski lift facilities under a conditional use. The zoning would have to change for the project to happen. The applicant has requested it to be changed to a SKI zone district which allows the proposed uses but does not have any underlying dimensional standards. All dimensional requirements would be set through site specific approvals. The neighboring zone districts include a C zone district around the Shadow Mountain Townhomes, Lodge (L) zone districts, residential and affordable housing zone districts. In the staff memo on p 8 of the agenda packet she included a comparison of the dimensional standards for the C, L and SKI zone districts. She reviewed the heights for the C, L and SKI zone districts and noted the floor area for the L zone district is based on the density of the project. For this project, based on the size of the lot, it has one lodge unit per 550 sf of lot area. She noted there is an incentive in the L zone district which would allow the height to go above 28 ft. Staff’s position is if you are asking for a project in a SKI zone district, you only get what is allowed for the district. The applicant is requesting just under 68,000 sf of floor area. The C zone district would permit between 4,300 – 5,700 sf of floor area for a single family home on a similar size lot. This is based on the steep slopes present on the property. The L zone permits between 27,000 – 36,000 sf based on the density and existing steep slopes. Within the requested sf, the following is included:  60 traditional lodge units, 7 lock out condo units that could be locked off into individual rental units for a total of 21 units. The total units available for rent on any night is 81 keys. The six free market units proposed in size from 1,400 sf to just under 2,000 sf. There is also one 2-bedroom affordable housing unit proposed onsite. 58 parking spaces are included and the commercial space.  Two additional reviews for this project are the 8040 Greenline review and the Wheeler Opera House View Plane review. The applicant feels the view plane will be minimally infringed upon because of the existing buildings and trees between the Wheeler and subject property.  Overall, Staff is concerned with size and height of the building. They would like additional information on the view plane to analyze the impact. They also would like a better understanding of the grading on the site to allow for the skier return on the east side of the property. 3) Design and Architecture The proposal generally identifies flat roof buildings, broken into modules going up the hillside. From the bottom to the top is a length of 330 ft for about a 90 ft grade change. Different heights are proposed, but Staff feels it is predominantly a four story building. Staff recommends breaking up the mass in a more substantial and meaningful way. They also recommend changing the roof lines. The neighborhood has a lot of chalet style roof lines. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 5 4) Mitigation For every type of use being proposed with a new development, the City only allows a certain amount within a calendar year. The applicant will need allotments for the free market units, lodge bedrooms, and commercial space. Staff’s calculation for the affordable housing generation is 56.69 full time employees (FTEs). The proposal is for one onsite unit and the remaining mitigation to be credits or offsite housing. Staff recommends additional onsite housing if possible and a clarification on how many credits and offsite units are proposed. The Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) would like to see a mix of physical units and credits. Staff’s recommendations are as follows: 1) Restudy the site plan to locate the ski lift lower on the site and consider the platter lift’ design needs. 2) Restudy the footprint of the building to open access to the lift from the street providing a more traditional view corridor. Staff does not want the lift closed off from Aspen St. 3) Review the cul-de-sac design. 4) Reconsider the skier return dimensions and retaining walls on the northern, lower portion of the site. 5) Provide a better understanding of the proposed grading changes to the site. 6) Provide further documentation on the visual impacts of the building with regard to the Wheeler View Plane. 7) Restudy of the mass, scale and height of the building. 8) In regards to the lots, Staff would prefer to see them in a more typical configuration. 9) More information on whether it is practical to vacate some of the existing easements. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners for any questions for staff. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked if the vacations would be considered part of the subdivision review. Ms. Phelan confirmed it would be part that review and noted all of the requests would be recommendations by P&Z to City Council for a final decision. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked should any rezoning occur; would it be subject to Referendum 1. Ms. Phelan stated Referendum 1 was subject to properties located in specific zone districts as of January 1, 2015. This particular request is not in a zone district identified in the referendum. However, the rezoning action itself is referable so it could be petitioned to be on a ballot. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about Staff’s involvement regarding the creative process for the development of this area of town. She felt P&Z provided some direction to the former Community Development Director and is curious if that information was captured. The direction provided by P&Z was that Staff would work with all interested parties in that area of town to produce positive development. Ms. Phelan doesn’t feel that has really occurred. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the cross over into county have any implications. Ms. Phelan stated it does more so on a technical level at this point. The County was referred and as long as they keep the proposal in the existing parcel and do not separate the parcels, the County is fine with it. Ms. Phelan stated some Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 6 notes would be added to the plat. The County feels if the development is within the City, then the applicant extinguishes their development rights on the portion of the property in the County. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid asked about the level of interaction between Staff and the applicant as work began on the planned development (PD). Ms. Phelan replied the first she heard about the application was through the public outreach during the meetings at the Limelight. The applicant did come in for the pre-application conference where all the reviews are outlined. Staff’s typical involvement starts after the application had been submitted. Mr. Mesirow asked how decisions made by P&Z would be impacted based on the projects predication to a successful zoning change. Ms. Phelan noted an ordinance would be necessary to change the zoning of the property and conditions could be included with P&Z’s recommendation on the final review. Ms. Quinn added P&Z could make a recommendation as well regarding the zoning. Mr. Goode asked Ms. Phelan to point out were the 8040 line exists on the property. She displayed a site plan as shown on p 44 of the agenda packet and noted it was the green line. Mr. Walterscheid asked what other properties are zoned SKI. Ms. Phelan replied Aspen Highlands is zoned SKI. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if any portion of the Lift One Lodge zoned as C. Ms. Phelan did not believed so, but was not certain. She will confirm. Ms. Jasmine Tygre asked if the land associated with the requested vacations will become part of the floor area ratio (FAR) calculations. Ms. Phelan noted there are inclusions and exclusions in regards to a lot’s gross size, so you end up with a net lot size used to calculate floor area. Typically, pubic ROWs are deducted from a properties gross lot size which the applicant has done in their application. Steep slopes are the other big deduction for properties like this one. At most, you can have 25% of the floor area deducted from the allowable. The applicant is asking for approximately 67,000 sf of floor area. As a PD, a certain amount of area can or cannot be locked into the PD. The easiest way would be to state lot one has 67,000 of floor area and not deal with deductions. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid asked if the dimensional numbers provided earlier were based on the size of lot one and Ms. Phelan the numbers were based on lot one which is roughly 4,400 – 4,500 sf or just over an acre. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the dimensional numbers if they weren’t subdividing the property into four lots. Ms. Phelan replied she only focused on the lot with the proposed lodge on it. She added the bigger the lot, the smaller the floor area allowed. Mr. McKnight asked in regards to the site plan, has there been any interaction between the applicant and the Lift One Lodge developers or is there any required interaction to review the pedestrian access. Ms. Phelan replied there is no requirement and she will let the applicant discuss any interactions. Mr. Jesse Morris asked if it is a recommendation regarding the platter lift and Ms. Phelan replied Staff is recommending the applicant look at how a platter lift would work with the neighboring properties. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jim DeFrancia, Norway Island LLC Principal, introduced the following representatives for the applicant and asked Mr. Gorsuch to speak about the genesis of the project.  Mr. Richard Shaw, Design Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 7  Mr. Jeff Gorsuch, Roch North American LLC Partner  Mr. Bryan Peterson, Roch North American LLC Partner Mr. Gorsuch calls Aspen home and his family history goes back approximately 76 years. His grandfather, parents, aunts, uncles and cousins have raced on the Lift 1A venue. He and Mr. Peterson began discussing acquiring the property in 2008. At that time, they studied the values and what the community was looking for in this area. They wanted to connect the mountain and the community back to the historical portal. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, this site had the world’s longest ski lift. With that notion, they wanted to take the spirit from the earlier pioneers in Aspen and carry if forward. The goal for him personally is to provide access to the mountain to enjoy the tradition and legacy of skiing. They also wanted to have hot beds and provide transportation to town to connect this area back to town. They put together a group of developers and feels it is time to reinvest in this side of town with bold, courageous ideas of the early ski pioneers. He feels there have been a few miscommunications regarding the project. He feels it is absolutely a public project and vital for Aspen. Mr. DeFrancia noted Lowe Enterprises has developed locally for 42 years. His family also has a long history in the area. He wanted to respond to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s question regarding collaborative efforts and stated there have been communications with the Brown partnership predating their acquisition of the Lift One property. He added there were detailed communications starting last fall up through November when they were presenting their designs for their review and commentary. Changes were made based on input from them. Mr. DeFrancia then remarked to Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question regarding interaction with Staff. He stated there had been a lot of interaction including several meetings with Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. Mr. DeFrancia also responded to Mr. McKnight’s earlier question regarding interaction between the applicant and the Lift One Lodge development. Mr. DeFrancia stated in addition to the Lift One Lodge development, they also met with S Aspen St Townhouses to coordinate on issues regarding the utilities. Mr. Richard Shaw then discussed the characteristics of the project, the neighborhood in which it sits and the portal it represents to Aspen Mountain on the west side. As it relates to the history of the mountain and the City, the development of the Silver Queen Gondola and the Little Nell Hotel took place on land including public ROWs which now forms the public edge to the main portal to Aspen Mountain. The Gondola always has been and will always be the main portal because it has the services and capacity for skiers as well as the transportation relationships and the public door offered by the Little Nell. The Lift 1A site has many of these characteristics if it can be planned in a way in which the public entrance is provided. Today, lift 1A can move about three to five percent of the total skiers on Aspen Mountain. With the redevelopment occurring the vicinity, that will increase in modest amount. Mr. Shaw provided pictures of the site and stated they visualize the neighborhood to include Gorsuch Haus at the top of S Aspen St. There are a number of projects that have existed for a long time in the lodging and residential categories. Some under construction and some in the approved, not constructed phase. The applicant is thinking of the project in the context of all the projects in this area as completed. He feels this area of the mountain is quite dated. The slower lift has been in place since 1976 and does not provide the mechanical reliability to serve the skiers. The buildings in the area have also been there for quite some time. Some were erected as temporary, but still remain. In the summer, it looks more like Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 8 a construction site. Staff has indicated this is parcel on three acres. It is made up of unusual properties, both in their shape and origination. Some of the lots are irregular in shape because they come from government lots and mining claim acquisitions. He provided examples of the Mountain Queen Condominiums and Shadow Mountain are on irregular shaped lots. He noted the existing grading of the site was to make the fall line come to the low part of the site and described the location and types of existing trees on the site. Originally, there were multiple parcels contemplated here as the town expanded. That is the way in which the ROWs occurred. There are three of them including Hill St, Summit St and S Aspen St. The Lift 1 project below this property has vacated the streets as part of their project including the southern half of Hill St, and half of S Aspen St is also part of the project. They are requesting the remaining half of Hill St to be vacated as would S Aspen St. Summit St was originally contemplated as an alley because it was impractical to develop. The project also includes a turnaround at the top of Aspen St with the abandonment of the ROWs and combining private parcels. Mr. Shaw provided slides of the skiing experience and stated it works like a river and falls with the topography. He then described position of new lift as remarkably close to its current location and it takes advantage of the skiing going down for loading on the eastern side. The return skiing will be wider and more gentle than as it currently exists. New technology will impact the lift’s position. Above the lift is a ski run which connects to an area for slowing down. He then described the mazing area for loading from the rear of the canopy into a detachable chair lift. The milling zone is used for arrival and ski storage. Behind the milling zone is the skier’s plaza which provides skiing and public services including restrooms. The front door of the hotel will also front the skier’s plaza. On the east side, skiers may return to the lift or continue down existing ski corridors to the Lift One Lodge. Arrival to the area will be by public transit using a public corridor. They visualize a 30 ft wide pedestrian amenity area on the southern end of the property which continues directly into the milling area. The mazing area defined will accommodate the maximum number of skiers on this side of the mountain. The return for the Norway run above the lift occurs at about 8,065 ft and at a point where the lift climbs out. He then pointed out the existing ski lift loads at about 8,018 ft at the front of the canopy. When compared with the new lift, the distance is about 70 ft different. The new lift tracks closely to the existing alignment and veering slightly to the west. He then described where the public would arrive by public transit and then go up to the stairway with four inch risers. The transit route being contemplated would be from Rubey Park Transit Center to the turnaround using Aspen St, Dean St, and portions of Durant to make it possible. He then noted there has never been an easy way to climb up to the area where competitive skiing finishes. He showed a route which would allow spectators to arrive to the finish area without crossing the lift lines. The Lift One Park is about 39.5 ft wide and has a return ski down to Willoughby Park which completes the downhill portion of the system. Gorsuch Haus will be part of a simple transit to move people from Rubey Park to Gorsuch Haus. On an average peak day, about 350 people in total would use the transit. Broken down by hour, it would be about 30 people per hour. Based on these numbers, a 4-wheel drive vehicle seating 10 people would make the trip eight times per hour. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 9 Mr. Shaw then noted Mr. Gorsuch’s vision to achieve the intrinsic value of lodging and hotels and provide a front door to Aspen Mountain. It is not a residential project. It is not a project blocking off public amenities or a lodging project that has been converted to other uses. This will be a true hotel where members of the community may go for dinner or enjoy during and after skiing. This will be a hotel with a broad diversity of room types from a standard room sized at 415 sf and provides the capability of linking rooms for different party sizes. The average size of the rooms is 580 sf in total. He then provided a slide identifying the following:  81 lodging keys  6 free market units  1 affordable housing unit  Lobby amenity  Restaurant / Bar / Après ski deck  Ski Operations and Ticketing  Aspen Valley Ski Club (AVSC) Room  Public Lift Plaza He then displayed a slide depicting a building which steps up the slope with varied heights and rooflines. He discussed locating the parking and mechanical underground beneath the Skier Plaza. The hotel is made up of two, three and four story sections of the building. As you climb up the slope, the lowest portion of the building is at the highest location. Many projects in the community have done the exact opposite turning the best of the site private and selling it off. The four story or highest density sections are located in the middle. The three story section buildings support the skiing and are located further down the site. The roof forms consist of gable, flat, green and pitched roof lines. He then provided a slide of example high quality exterior materials depicting local alpine character. He then discussed activating the public space with a restaurant. It is connected to view recreation, accommodate culture and community activities. Amenities will be located along both sides of the hotel. He then provided a slide showing the existing and proposed zoning and noted the this is not like a conservation easement area with preservation application. It is a district of uses. He then stated the SKI zone district recognizes the complexity and special needs of combining the ski lift, skiing and access with the services and land uses which occur at the base of skiing. The SKI zone district allows for specific dimensional characteristics to be identified. A simple way of looking at it is to think of it as a PD with skiing. Aspen Highlands is an example of the specific dimensional characteristics and applied uses exist. When the Little Nell was built in 1987, there was a conservation land use in the development and the redevelopment of the base. He then displayed a slide of dimensional standings:  Lot area excluding the ROWs: 36,000 sf exclude row  550 sf gross area per lodge unit  Range of building height of 24-49 ft  Floor area: 67,781 (FAR 2.5:1) – They want to align with a FAR consistent with the neighborhood as well as the site’s capability and desirability.  The commercial and skier services represent about 13% of the total project. He then provided a slide comparing this project with other projects about town.  Shadow Mountain is at an elevation 8,079 ft Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 10  Top of mill is at an elevation of 8,096 ft  Single family homes above the Aspen Alps is at an elevation of 8,110 ft From the Wheeler Opera House, they examined two Main St and the Wheeler Opera House square site line. It is pretty clear Main St is not applicable because it is not visible. The Wheeler view plane has many buildings and vegetation which actually form the edge of the view. He then provided a slide of the view plane depicting two spots where there is visibility of site. He also provided two photos of the visibility s from the highest elevation of proposed building back to town. He then provided a slide of project benefits:  Replacement of Lift 1A  Improved public access to skiing, the lift and services  Enhanced access to competitive skiing events  Advances many Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) goals  Provides lodging in relation to recreation  Completes transit network for all seasons and provide flexibility based on demand.  Complementary with the redeveloped neighborhood. There are very few sites on Aspen Mountain where decisions have not already been made. The remaining opportunity is down to one site.  Revitalizes the western portal of Aspen Mountain which is scaled to be the right kind of portal representing an investment into the future of aspen. Mr. DeFrancia provided a quick summary. The present condition is unsatisfactory and not easily accessible. Their objective is to revitalize the area by adding a modest amount of lodging, improve the lift and lift access while being respectful of the public elements. They are not asking the City for parking waivers or housing and only asking for a minimal intrusion into the Wheeler view plane. Mr. Goode stated based on the sign-up sheet, there is about an hour of comments from the public. He stated there will be at least three meetings for the project and also recommended emailing their comments. He stated they may not be able to have everyone speak tonight that had signed up for public comment. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked the distance in ft from the drop off on S Aspen St to the lift. Mr. Shaw responded 225 ft. Ms. Tygre asked if the applicant will be providing a vehicle to take people up and down S Aspen St. Mr. Shaw responded the project’s commitment is to implement a public transit link and would hope to do it with other beneficiaries of the transit link. The City Transportation Department suggested a combination of a private hotel and public use would be very compatible. Ms. Tygre wanted clarification the project was not proposing a separate dedicated tram or car to move folks. Mr. DeFrancia stated they contemplated having transit run strictly up and down from Dean St to the hotel during peak hours. They are trying to coordinate with the City and looking at the broader transit from Rubey Park and the solution may be a combination of the two. Mr. DeFrancia stated they are planning to have a vehicle at this time. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the source of the estimated 350 skiers per hour and the lift’s capacity per hour. Mr. Shaw stated they took the top five days in which skiers initiate their day and use the lift to access Aspen Mountain. The lift capacity up the slope is SkiCo’s decision and they typically would range 1,500 to 2,500 per hour. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 11 Mr. Walterscheid asked why they are providing only one affordable housing unit onsite. Mr. DeFrancia stated from their experience in lodging, employees do not really want to live at the location and are typically restricted from using some of the common areas. He also noted it is not a family environment for children and there is an absence of neighborhood. Mr. Walterscheid asked them to speak to the rationale behind the lot subdivision configuration as proposed. Mr. Shaw stated the properties are combined through various combinations of irregular shapes. The town site does not extend into this neighborhood in the lots and blocks found elsewhere. Secondly, they looked at how the ownership including a Home Owners Association (HOA) and the operations works at the Little Nell and the arrival to the mountain. Public access is retained on lots two and three. The ROWs are picked up in the documents which will perpetually control those lots. The hotel, dining and access at the Little Nell is exactly the same as in the current proposal. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would anticipate further condominization of the hotel to allow for commercial uses instead of hotel uses. He is trying to understand the rationale behind the subdivision and the further assumed condominization. Mr. Shaw responded further subdivision will occur. For example, the few residential units will be wholly owned. The layering taking place on the slope including the skier plaza and the lift area are actually on the same lot as the hotel. It would be difficult for all the skiing based activities to be on one lot. He reiterated it is identical to the Little Nell. Mr. Mesirow asked why they chose to articulate the building to be open to the lift side and closed on the street side. Mr. DeFrancia stated a key element was the placement of the proposed lift and the alignment to allow it to go further down the mountain should the circumstance arise. He reiterated they do not control the properties down mountain. This constrained the placement of the building. They angled the hotel on its down mountain side in a response to commentary from the Lift One Lodge owners and wanting to create a more open sense of arrival to get to the lift. He noted in response to Ms. Tygre’s earlier question the distance from the turn around to the open plaza is about 30 paces. He also stated the shortest distance between the buildings at the Silver Queen Plaza is 45 ft and 65-70 ft on the project. It is a very open and public area. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is another example of this zoning other than Aspen Highlands. Mr. Shaw stated no, because it is a relative new district in the code. It came about with the annexation of the Aspen Highlands ski area. Mr. Mesirow asked them to speak to why they decided to designate part of the project as free market instead of fractional. Mr. DeFrancia stated an element of free market is driven by economics. He stated the City has completed studies with outside parties demonstrating that simply doing lodging is not viable and added economic viability is not a concern of the municipality. They strived to keep it at an absolute minimum. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to see comparative slides of the current and proposed lot configurations. Mr. Shaw stated it is in the application, but they do not have a slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they are committing to an escrow fund to pay for the shuttle so it can be included with the approvals. Mr. DeFrancia stated they anticipate a multi-party agreement with other neighboring properties as a condition of approval. Ms. McNicholas Kury was looking for technical response to the vacations of the ROWs, noting Staff’s stating the criteria was not applicable or they were not all met. Mr. Shaw stated ½ of the S Aspen Street from the northern edge of the property all the way down to Dean St has been abandoned. The same ROW extends up past the Shadow Mountain Condominiums where it ends abruptly on a government Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 12 lot. He pointed out the location on a slide. He stated there are some utilities in this location, but not an active roadway because it is too steep. There are some issues of storm water management in the use of the ROW today. Hill St is quite different and ½ of it has been vacated and the City has major utilities including water service. A 16 in water line is being proposed in the redevelopment. There are also electrical services located as well. Hill St never had a roadway either. Summit never had any of these things. It was originally thought of as an alley between the parcels and has no ROWs. They visualize a better site plan if the ROWs can be changed to specific easements to guarantee the permanent use of how ROWs have traditionally served. Equivalent access would be replaced with no loss to public access, utilities, and the water line. Ms. McNicholas Kury believes the applicant is envisioning the City vacations will be transform into easements to be given back to the City or appropriate entity and both Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Shaw agreed. Ms. Jesse Young, Design Workshop, provided a slide showing the existing lots. Ms. Phelan then described the existing lots. Mr. Walterscheid also noted it was included in Staff’s memo. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked who engaged in the development of the vision for the project. Mr. Shaw stated Staff’s consultation and input goes back over 24 months. They discussed the focus of the project including arrival, transportation, and appropriate changes for skier access. They have also had collaborative meetings with surrounding property owners. The City Community Development Director brought everyone together for four meetings to discuss the common interests of the project. Mr. Morris stated he did not see how the articulation of the building enhances public access. He asked what other alternatives were considered for the placement of building. Mr. DeFrancia noted it started out more of a rectangular which shortened the distance to walk from the traffic circle until you could see the lift. Mr. Shaw noted they considered an L shape building. They discussed public access to ski lift and noted at Highlands you do not see the lift when you arrive. A pedestrian corridor to the lift then provides access to the services. He also noted prior to the development of the Silver Queen, the arrival was a series of ramps and a vehicle maintenance building. The gondola is different because of the terrain. At Aspen Highlands and Snowmass, the arrival is much lower so you do not have the visual connection to skiing. Mr. McKnight asked what other iterations exist for the building’s height, mass and scale and how did they come to the design presented and not something smaller that would conform more with the other local zoning. He is concerned about the pedestrian access to the lift. Mr. Shaw stated the successful operation of a hotel needs enough bed base and amenities to work on a seasonal basis in which size is a critical factor. He feels this is a moderately sized hotel and is not as big as many hotels in town. In looking at the heights, the neighborhood has three and four story structures. If you look at the nature of the forms, you will find heights that are 53 ft above the grade. The highest point on the St. Regis Hotel is 72 ft. He feels the 49 ft maximum height is very compatible and lower than other neighboring buildings. This is a sloped site and the upper portion should not be the highest part. Mr. DeFrancia reiterated the public benefits are located in the highest point of the project including the restaurant, après ski activities, venues for post-race activities, and adjoining patios. He noted the highest point is 49 ft and the lowest is 24 ft. It was purposefully stepped to avoid a large block. The Lift One Lodge is 56 ft at its highest point. Obviously as you move closer to town, the buildings are higher. Mr. Mesirow asked what they consider a normal guest at their hotel. Mr. DeFrancia noted the four hotels which Aspen recently lost. Mr. DeFrancia then stated they looked at the normal hotel guest in Aspen and looked at providing a quality hotel based on the location, but not egregiously luxurious. They expect it to be a four-star hotel and also expect a lot of interaction with the community. Mr. Mesirow agreed with Mr. DeFrancia’s comments regarding losing hotels and wondered if any discussion was given to travelling families and felt this product may be out or reach for that demographic. Mr. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 13 DeFrancia replied it will be difficult to develop the site which translates back into what can be offered for cost to build. They were not able to get it down to what he would consider affordable lodging. They also did not want a five-star hotel. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment and noted in the next hearing they will open to public comment if they are unable to have time for everyone who signed up at tonight’s hearing. Ms. Ruth Krueger stated she served on P&Z for six years as well as both COOPS proposed for this neighborhood. They spent many hours for over 2 years to coming together with the neighborhood’s approval for a really delightful neighborhood project. She feels this is an extremely important neighborhood and it must be a ski lodge and not another condominium / townhome project. She also lived on site for year or two. Many hours were spent discussing the delivery systems including a platter lift. She is in support of project, but needs to see how to get platter lift up to the lift and urged revisiting the platter lift access. She also feels it is shameful that after all the hours and money spent to make Dean St a pedestrian street, it will be redeveloped. She also feels it is shameful that everyone at the COOP approved it and Council turned it down and feels it was one of the most embarrassing moments in Aspen. Mr. Dick Butera feels he is having a déjà vu moment. Approximately 27 years ago, a presentation to build the Little Nell was made by SkiCo with a promise from the Crown family to build a gondola if the hotel was built. He feels the Council and Planning department saw the project in more historical terms and trusted the Crown family, rather than every little nitty, gritty. The Crown family came through as they always do and the time to get to the top of the mountain went from 45 minutes to 15 minutes. Aspen was reborn. This is project is almost the same. There are a lot of people with negative things to say, but it is a historical moment for P&Z and Council to open this side of the mountain. There has to be an economic justification for this project and you can’t keep squeezing and think it will happen. Again, the Crown family has promised to build a new lift if the hotel is built. Mr. John Bucksbaum supports the project. He has been a part time resident and skier in Aspen for over 50 years. He was raised to be passionate about skiing, Aspen Mountain and the community. His first ride up Aspen Mountain was the old single chair lift and has loved this side of the mountain since then. He described activities with friends and family on this side of the mountain in the past. He had concerns of the project and recently walked the entire area with Bryan Peterson to understand the proposed changes and impacts to the existing Norway run which he found will be somewhat altered. He accepts these changes with a new hotel and lift. He also wanted to acknowledge the local project team that is 100% committed to this town. This group is trying to do the right thing, have been completely open, solicited repeatedly from the community for input, changed their plans numerous times to try to find a solution benefitting everyone. He feels skiers have far more to be concerned with than losing a few turns at the bottom of the mountain and climate change will impact their skiing far more than the Gorsuch Haus so he supports the project. Ms. Marcia Goshorn supports the project and was impressed by the amount of public outreach. She has seen the input from the meetings in their final plans. Having the shuttle come from Rubey Park makes a lot of sense. She feels this is one of the most appropriate places in town to put a lodge and much better than a gas station across from Carl’s Pharmacy. This is a place for ski in/out lodging. She encouraged anyone with a question to reach out to the applicant team and feel they have been open from day one. Mr. Ward Hauenstein feels there is one chance at getting this right and feels of all the places that can handle some height, this is a place. In a perfect world at lift 1A, he would like to see a visual corridor from the cul-de-sac. He would also like to see the City, the Browns and the applicant work on creating a Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 14 skittle from Willoughby Park to lift 1A. He also feels the development and lift updates will relieve some of the pressures at the gondola side. Mr. Cliff Weiss noted he was the P&Z commissioner assigned to the two COOPs for two years and attended 99% of the meetings. He stated the COOPS wanted two major things to come out of the development that was supposed to occur at the lift 1A area. One was vitality defined as where locals and guests can mix. The did not want a private enclave. The second thing was a connection to the gondola, downtown and Rubey Park. He feels community has been screwed because this was a master planning process and has now has become a divide and conquer. He does feel this development might be the only opportunity to have the two things identified by the COOP. Ms. Karen Hartman supports Staff’s recommendations for the project. She would also like a discussion about all the employees coming up and down the hill. There will be public parking at the Lift One Lodge which will leave people eventually walking up the hill. She feels the cul-de-sac is too small to handle the volume of traffic. Mr. Karl Hartman is against the project and feels the mass is too great given the requested zoning change. He also feels the requested 10 years vesting is too great and the project could sit empty like base village in Snowmass. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. All approved, motion passed. Mr. Clark Smyth stated he has lived and worked in Aspen for 20 years in real estate development and during this time he was on the County P&Z and Board of Adjustment. He feels the Planning Staff has done a great job indicating which areas need improvement. He has also observed the way the project is configured, about 1/3 of the Norway run will be lost unless you come all the way to the bottom and walk back up. He also questions with a 10 year vesting timeframe, will SkiCo start on the lift with an approval of this project or will the lift not get built. He feels getting transportation up from Dean St is critical. Mr. Bart Johnson is at the meeting on behalf of the Lift One Lodge. He noted he had also sent in a letter which is in the packet. He wanted to make a few points. First, if you look at the SKI zone district, it only exists at Aspen Highlands and was created because the City was annexing in a development that had already been approved by the County and they needed to accommodate something that did not fit into the City’s zoning. He stated the applicant does not have to ask for variances because the SKI zone district has no dimensional requirements to vary from. He feels if you look at the neighboring zone districts, the L zone district is a much more appropriate district. He noted the application refers to the L zone district quite a bit because he feels they realize they need something as a base for measuring. The L zone district provides a good base. If you take their density numbers and apply them to their lots which are configured to maximize their density and floor area claims, you get parameters in the range of 28 ft, 1:1 FAR, and higher affordable housing than they are requesting. He urged P&Z to look at this aspect of the application as well as the lot configuration. He added it is true the lots are configured based on their uses, but it is not exact. Obviously the applicant has explained they are going to make up for the fact the lots are strangely configured by cross easements that account for deferred uses which they could do for any lot configuration including everything in one lot. But then they would not be able to make their density claims under their L district analogy. Finally, he encouraged P&Z to look at the 8040 Greenline standards. To approve this project as planned, he feels you would have to throw the 8040 Greenline standards out the window. Mr. Michael Brown, part of the ownership group for the Lift One Lodge, and has lived here for seven years. Nowhere in the land use code does it say to be a good community citizen and you will be Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 15 rewarded with outsized land use entitlements. If an outside person was making this same development application, it would be rejected. Applications to boards should be agnostic as to who is making the proposal. At the end of the day, the only thing assured is the project will remain in perpetuity. He asked P&Z to look at the project itself and the substance of Staff’s memo and make a good land use decision. During the site visit today, he was surprised at the size of the footprint of the building based on the location of the stakes place by the applicant team. The lift is clearly moving further from town up the slope, cutting off skier access and the cutting of the Norway run such that if you fall, you will fall into a brick wall. In regards to the applicant’s outreach, he stated they did meet with the Lift One Lodge team at City Hall as well as subsequent meetings at Design Workshop. He stated they never reflected any of our concerns in their application and no material or substantial changes were made. He asked P&Z to look at the proposed site plan and heights to determine if they considered their neighbors and added they met with the Lift One Lodge group to check a box. Some of the core issues are outlined perfectly in Staff’s memo. The Lift One Lodge project contemplates a platter lift including the easements. The only thing missing is a landing for the platter lift. In addition, the Lift One Lodge project is contributing $600,000 towards the construction of the platter lift. If the project were to come with L zoning, the request you would see would be littered with variances. Variances of this magnitude are the reason this community has Referendum One. The development is totally out of scale with the neighborhood. It is 250% of what would be allowed in the L zone district if the lots were adequately configured based on the City’s standards. A 1000% of the C zoning is the FAR increase they are requesting. He asked P&Z to take a 50-year view of the project and heed the wisdom in Staff’s memo. He asked each member to think about the project they would like to have back and this may be that project so let’s do it the right way because we only have one chance to make this area right. Mr. Goode noted the next person would be the last public commenter for tonight. The remainder will be heard on July 19th. Mr. Jerome Simecek is speaking on behalf of Mountain Queen Condominiums Home Owners Association. While the association has not yet take a formal position on the project, they do have some concerns. Many are identified by Staff in their memo including the traffic, fire, and light pollution in particular with the restaurant at the highest location of the property. They hope the applicant goes above and beyond in mitigation as to what is required by code for the light pollution. The excavation and grading also raises similar concerns as those with the Little Nell for the monitoring of movement. They also want to ensure the view planes are not negatively impacted. The developer has so far been very cooperative in providing renderings of view planes which they appreciate. They also want to make sure the drainage is also monitored. They are also concerned about long term construction noise impacts as well. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue the hearing to July 19th at 4:30 pm. Ms. Phelan stated they have asked for additional perspectives to view building from multiple viewpoints. Mr. Goode stated he would like to see a shot of the building at night. Ms. Phelan reiterated how members of the public could communicate comments to Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury then seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 5, 2016 16 ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager