HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030204ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
COMMISSIONER. STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 2
MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................. 2
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD ...............................................................................................................
DANCING BEAR - 411 SOUTH MONARCH LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN
VIEW PLANE. SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE ..................................................................................................... 8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FebrUarY 4, 2003
Jasmine Tygre, chair, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 pm in the Sister Cities
Meeting Room. Eric Cohen, Dylan Johns, Jack JOhnson, Roger Haneman and
Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger Was excused, sta£fin attendance:
David Ho&er, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, James Lindt, Scott
Woodford, Community Development; Kathleen Strickland, ASsistant City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
The commission discussed Bert M~in's remo~fil from th~ Pl'anning and zoning
Commission noting that there were inappropriate statements made, which should
strike home to all members regarding their position and Scope of authority.
Joyce Ohlson stated that she wOuld be happy to prepare a draft for the resolution
and email it to the commission.
MOTION: Roger Haneman proposed the Aspen Planning and Zoning
CommiSsion request a proclamation for Bert Myrin's Service on the
Commission; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 520,
Joyce Ohlson noted that the 220 East HoPkins DRAC variance has been
withdrawn. That was the Quadrant BOok Store; they receiVed a change in use
from the planning commission for a single-family residence. The plan was
changed to conform to the underlying zone district to meet the setback
requirements and dimensional standards WithoUt the need for a DRAC variance.
Ohlson said the city attorney's office determined that there was n° need for the
planning and zoning commission to revisit these planS beCause the new plans Were
in conformance with the underlying zOne diStrict by taking down the entire
structure.
Ohlson said regarding Harley Baldwin's situation with the addition of the rOof and
doors; compliance was sought for a short time by the removal of the doors and
Historic Preservation permitted the roof enClosure but they were out of compliance
again with the doors and would be cited for a zoning Violation.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Haneman mOved to apprOve the minutes from
December 3, 2002 and JanuarY 7, 2003; seconded bY DYlan Johns.
APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
David Hoefer stated that Jack JohnSon was c°nflicted'and S~epped down for the
Residences at Little Nell but would be available for the Dancing Bear hearing.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONINGCOMMISSiON February 4, 2003
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/03/03; 01/07/03, 01/21/03):
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD
Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Residences at Little Nell.
Cohen stated that the last meeting included the applicant, staff, public and
commission comments and questions. Scott Woodford provided a handout in
response to some of the commissioner questions regarding comparisons of FAR,
proposed heights and model heights.
Woodford said the consensus was that the architecture was acceptable; there was
concern for the height on the restaurant and lowering the height on the east and
south elevations, which was detailed in the resolution. There was concern for the
overall building heights, particularly the southern portion and portions that
reached 53 feet on the east elevation; the goal was to have the structure heights
better conform to the existing structures and not be so prominent on the hillside.
The mass of the building should be initially broken up with more visual variety to
the roofline, reduce mass in the southwest comer of the building to provide buffers
and reduce construction concern for large excavation being conducted so close to
neighboring properties (conditions 4a-h). There was concern for the setbacks on
the west side; it was requested that the building be pushed to the east for a larger
buffer space. There was no concern for open space. There was support for the
on-site building orientation but there was concern for the traffic flow from the
porte cochere. The parking m 1 space per unit for the affordable housing was
okay. There was concern by the neighbors for the construction plans prior ro final.
There was concern with the non-conforming issues with the single-family
residences for the setbacks and the off-site affordable units should be encouraged
to be placed on-site. The location of the on-site units was of concern and
encouraged the mitigation of the noise and headlight issues. The rezoning issues
were the existing site from LTR to CL and the proposal for the SkiCo conservation
parcel to CL.
Woodford requested adding re the resolution (1) soil study and slope stability
analysis submitted prior to final application (2) shipping and receiving to the
project be located at the new loading dock and not from the Little Nell Hotel.
Sunny Vann stated that the off-site affordable housing mitigation be located in the
urban growth boundary subject to a site-specific review with a separate
application. Brooke Peterson said that the site at the Airport Business Center was
back on the table as a potential off-site location. Roger Haneman agreed with
Sunny Vann because there were not a lot of places left in the city for affordable
housing projects and it did not make sense to remove another lodge from the
Aspen bed base for a conversion to affordable housing. Dylan Johns agreed with
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
the urban growth boundary being mitigated in that way. Jasmine Tygre stated that
she understood the applicant's difficulty for placement in the city limits but to
conduct an efficient lodging facility it was traditional that a certain percentage of
the employees should be housed on site because it was better for the hotel
operation. Tygre stated that it was in the applicant's interest to increase the
number of on-site units because it would make a better project. Tygre said that
philosophically she would like to see everything in the city limits but was certainly
aware of the difficulties in doing so and agreed reluctantly to go outside the city
limits if the applicant had no other alternative and could not accommodate any
more units on site. Haneman agreed with Jasmine Tygre that more units could be
placed on-site. Eric Cohen agreed with Jasmine Tygre and philosophically wanted
to see everything in the city limits but it probably wasn't practical. Cohen said
that with the changes to the AABC area and North Forty made it more suitable for
this type of housing. Cohen said that consensus was that the commission was
okay outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary.
Woodford said that the second component was related to the residential multi-
family replacement program; the code reads for replacement on site unless there
were site constraints or adopted neighborhood plans that request outside
placement. Woodford stated that the highest and best use of the property would be
for lodge units adding to the bed base. Staff requested that as many units as
possible be placed on-site but recognized that a balance was needed with a
condition. Haneman asked for as much compliance with multi-family replacement
as possible. Woodford stated that they were required to have 12 bedrooms and
4,469 square feet of residential replacement. Vann stated that the issue was not if
they would be replaced but if they would be replaced on site. Vann stated that the
units were category 3, oversized, above grade and placed in a good location.
Tygre stated that she would consider the replacement off-site if more employees
were housed on-site; the code required more on-site replacement housing but she
would consider more employees housed on-site associated with the running of the
operation. Cohen agreed with Jasmine Tygre because there probably needed to be
more employees housed on-site. Ohlson stated that there would have to be a plan
for the employee housing mitigation on-site and off-site prior to final submission
with some requirements. Vann said that he heard that the commission wanted
more on-site employee housing but it would have to be reviewed in the context of
the other issues of height, size and other considerations. Johns stated that there
could be more employees housed on site. Cohen noted the possibility of smaller
units with more bedrooms. Tygre clarified that they would like to see more bodies
housed on-site sacrificing the spaciousness of the proposed units. Cohen said that
to compensate for a smaller unit there could be storage space somewhere else on-
site for those units; he said that it would be a livable situation in a better product.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4~ 2003
Haneman suggested that the employees might not make enough to fill up the units
of category 3. Johns said that he didn't like the location. Cohen said that the
conumission 3-1 agreed with the housing issues.
Woodford asked the commission if they supported the rezone from LTR to CL and
Conservation to CL. Vann said that this was the most crucial issue to this project
to accommodate the uses and amenities at the base of the ski area into this small
site; the SkiCo parcel was needed to accommodate the proposal moving the
buildings to the east toward the ski area to increase the setbacks. Tygre said that
the CL zoning was important for this project to have those commercial uses.
Tygre asked where additional conservation zoned land was picked up to replace
this loss to the conservation zone. Vann replied that the area was probably
rezoned in the early 1970's with little rezoning since then; the intent was to
preserve open space at the base of the mountain but did not believe that this sliver
of land was necessary for the operation of the Little Nell Ski Area. Vann replied
that the impact of development with the exception of a few neighbors did nothing
to diminish the community's views of open space or the mountains and was
appropriate with the infill statement, Aspen Area Community Plan and Economic
Sustainability. Vann stated that this project met the 25% open space requirement,
not with the street front presence but the entire parcel needs to be rezoned to fit in
with the proposal. Tygre was concerned about the ever-shrinking base of the
mountain; there were encroachments from other areas not just this project. Tygre
noted that Aspen Mountain came right into downtown but was shrinking. Vmm
said that the SkiCo had the ability under the overlay SPA to propose similar
restaurant facilities or whatever at the base of the mountain. Haneman felt the
rezoning of the parcels occurred only because of this project and not because the
parcels themselves needed rezoning; he agreed with rezoning the Tippler, Tipple
Inn and Tipple Lodge because of the Commercial Lodge zone with the vision of a
strong street-front with pedestrian action on at least one side, which could handle
an intense use. He continued that the commercial lodge zoning up the hill from
that was inappropriate even though there was promise of not ]putting any
commercial space there but keeping it as the LTR but they wanted the CL zoning.
Haneman said if the commercial lodge was not needed then it doesn't get rezoned
along with not rezoning the conservation area; he said to go for a variance for the
FAR. Vann suggested alternative approaches but asked where the commission
wanted to go with the project. Haneman stated that he was comfortable with the
density in the north half but wanted less density on the south half because it did
not have the pedestrian area or intensive use on that side of the street. Johns said
that there was much opposition expressed for the rezoning considering the FAR
and height. Vann stated that the rezoning to CL echoed what the commission
forwarded to council on the infill program. Vann said if the commission
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February, 4, 2003
supported the nature of the uses for this project then the support of the rezoning
was appropriate subject to the comments on the south end and the height and
mass. Cohen said that the change in the zoning allowed the increase of the FAR
and the zoning change was just a cleaner way to do that. Cohen said that in
general he did not have a problem with the rezoning. Tygre asked if an SPA
would be an acceptable solution with different zone districts. Ohlson replied that
staff wanted to have the zoning as clean as possible without different areas
covered by a SPA because dimensional standards are varied but to treat the entire
parcel as one, which the PUD would be the primary tool to accomplish that.
Ohlson said that the site specific PUD would be where the reliance was for P&Z.
Vann stated that P&Z had the final authority to review any changes to the PUD
after final approval by Council; any P&Z decision for an amendment to the PUD
was final with P&Z and not just a recommendation but could be an appeal to
Council. Woodford stated that if an amendment were inconsistent with the
original plan then it would go to Council.
Vann discussed the possibility of leaving the top 2 lots LTR that were being
demolished and rezoning the lots that fronted Dean Street, the Tippler and the
Tipple Lodge (the flat area of the site) to CL along with the conservation portion.
Vann asked Haneman if that was an amenable approach. Haneman replied that
was good. Cohen agreed but asked about the allowable FAR in that zoning; would
there be large variance requests. Vann responded that they would look at height
and bulk in that particular portion of the property as well as proximity to the
adjacent structures on the right; he said that he took it to reflect the zoning on that
portion of the site. Haneman said that it would also help the applicant to direct
where the massing and dimensions have the greatest impacts in the reduction of
those impacts. Haneman, Cohen, Johns and Tygre agreed to that change in the
rezoning.
Woodford stated that the time-share portion required a motion for conceptual
approval by P&Z. Vann said that the time-share use plan complied with the
adopted regulations. The commission had no issues with the time-share portion.
Woodford said the final amendment was to the Little Nell SPA. Vann explained
that the base area of Little Nell was zoned (C) ConserVation area and
accommOdated about one-third of the Little Nell Hotel, the Gondola Building,
Ajax Tavern and commercial uses underneath the plaza; the SkiCo received
approval for an SPA over a portiOn of the base areai Vann said the sliver, lower
portion of the parcel that they were acquiring from the SkiCo between the out door
on the Tippler deck and the Gondola piaza was part of that SPA; this strip 0fland
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
must be legally subdivided fr0mthe SkiCo in order for it to conveyed in fee. The
minimum lot size in the conservation zone was I0 acres and neither the sliver nor
the rest of the SkiCo property zoned SPA equals 10 acres, however under the SPA
regulations permit the establishment of lot sizes. Vann said by amending the
SkiCo original SPA they can convey the sliver of land to them without violation to
the town's subdivision regulations and doesn't change any of the previous
approvals from the SkiCo. Vann said that was why he felt this wasa
housekeeping matter to legally convey this sliver so it would be an underlying
permitted use in the CL zone district; it was required not t° Violate the subdivision
regulations. Cohen said that this was technical The CommiSsion agreed with the
zoning on the top portion of the property LTR and the rest of the property to be
rezoned to CL.
Tygre stated that there should be more guidance for the direction of the heights
and massing. Vann said that the LTR zOne probably was more appropriate in that
location taking in the height concerns. Tygre wanted to make sure that this was
clear between P&Z and the applicant. Vann stated that this was a recommendation
to Council, which had to still go back tO the architectS to make sure that it was
possible. Hoefer stated that was a good point being a four-step process; certainly
if it varied greatly from conceptual to final, P&Z has the right for denial.
Public comments:
Lermie Oates, public, stated that he was representing the NOrth of Neil Condos and
Aspen Alps Condominium AssoCiatiOn. Oates Said on behalf of the Aspen Alps
he presented specific language for the monitoring of the slope after the guidelines
had been set and specific language for servicing the project from Dean Street.
Oates reiterated the North of Nell Concerns on the rezoning and permitting
structures on the conservation land that was being rezoned. Oates said that there
was a problem with the height of the commercial building to be Used as a
restaurant showpiece.
Steve Falander, public, said that there seemed to be progress at the south end of
the project; he asked for a resolution for the need to reduce the building. Falander
said that if it does not change from CL to LTR on the south end of property he did
not want any commercial uses allowed at the south part of the property. Falander
agreed with the soil testing. Falander Stated major concern for the amount of cut
at the south end of the site; he asked for a clear statement asking the cut be
reduced from the 7 stories at the south end of the site.
Haneman asked if a sloped roof mimicking the slope of Aspen Mountain had been
considered. Vann replied that there Was a condition in the resolution pertaining to
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
what can be done to address the North of Nell concerns to reduce the impacts of
the height, slope and pitch of the roof.
Johns expressed concerns for the amount of excavation and the general practice of
cutting a slope back; a soils report may not be adequate for the whole area. Johns
asked for the possibilities of a feasibility study by an expert engineer before they
get to far along. Vann stated that would be included as part of the final package
with the soil study and the feasibility of the proposed cut addressed. Ohlson
replied that it was three pronged with the soil slope stability, feasibility of that cut
for construction and at final the on going monitoring. Hoefer suggested that the
final word-smithing of the resolution be done for the next meeting for the vote but
not reopen the public hearing.
Cohen requested stronger language for the vehicular traffic fi. ow from the porte
cochere to the parking garage.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve Resolution #4, series
2003 for a conceptual planned unit development, conceptual time-share,
conceptual planned area amendment for the Residences at Little Nell
with the amended and added conditions and to review the Resolution at
the February 18, 2003 P&Z meeting; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll
call vote: Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes.
APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DANCING BEAR- 411 SOUTH MONARCH LODGE PRESERVATION
PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, SUBDiVISiON~
TIMESHARE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Dancing Bes~:. David Hoefer
stated that the notice had been provided with all of the jurisdiction requirements
met. Tygre explained that staffand the applicant would provide an overview of
the project; she said that this would be continued for commissioner and public
corrlments.
James Lindt stated MSE Aspen Holdings, Mitch Haas planner presented, provided
the application. Lindt said that it was a 10-unit (3 bedroom each) time-share lodge
where the current Aspen Manor lodge was located. The land use requests were for
minor PUD approval, rezoning to include Lodge Preservation and PUD overlay,
the property was currently zoned Lodge Tourist Residential (LTR), time-share and
GMQS exemptions for lodge preservation as well as Mountain View Plane
Review (because of the Wheeler View Plane) and Subdivision. This was a 2-step
review process not a separated conceptual/final because it was a lodge
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
preservation PUD; the Planning & Zoning Commission was the recommending
body to City Council on all of the land use requests.
Mitch Haas explained that he was the planning consultant and representative for
MSE Holdings and David Brown was the architect on the project. Haas stated the
main ~ssue with staff was the mass, bulk and height; he would only explain the
proposal tonight. The Aspen Manor Lodge has been out of operation for 4-5 years
and boarded up; it has not contributed to this town for a long time portraying a
negative image. Haas said that the owner has requested redevelopment as a lodge
with complete demolition and rebuilding as a time-share lodge. The lodge would
include a total of 20 units (ten 3 bedroom suites including a 1 bedroom lock-off);
20 keys and 10 units. The time-share would be [/8 shares of the 10 units with a
total of 80 time-share estates. The proposal included four stories w~th a glass
gazebo structure set 27 feet in from the edge of the building. There was a 7-foot
change in gradient from the corner of Durant and Monarch to the northwest corner
of the property on the alley. David Brown utilized drawings for illustrative
purposes. Haas said that from Monarch and Durant a full 4-story building would
be seen with a parapet wall.
Hass stated that the site plan indicated that the parking was brought in through the
alley with a few partially covered spaces at the ground area, a loading area,
dumpsters and service area with a ramp to the garage further down with a total of
24 parking spaces provided. The ground level was a lobby ~vith a front desk, a
lounge with a bar/grill operation, not really a full-service restaurant, which was
open to the public. The first floor also included one of the suites on the western
side of the building. The 2nd, 3rd and 4t~ floors were identical containing three 3-
bedroom suites. Below grade there were 3 additional floors with the 1st floor
below grade containing services and guests facilities with a theatre room,
computer room, game room, conference facility, lodge operations and ramp to the
parking garage located on the 2na level below grade with some storage. The final
floor below grade was the storage units for the time-share owners and meeting
room, which would be available for public use. The rooftop contained gardens,
landscape, benches, hot tub, weight room, elevator shaft and a non-reflective glass
gazebo. Haas said that the existing Aspen Manor Lodge was 23 units with 4 on-
site parking spaces, which were really in the alley.
Haas stated that this project would increase that vitality of the area. Haas noted
that this project would serve as a green in-fill development in the design,
construction and use. Haas stated that they have sufficient parking, a fleet of
bicycles, on the bus route and a sufficient fleet of hybrid gas/electric vehicles,
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2003
which would be at the owners disposal on site so that they did not have to drive or
rent a car.
Haas said that the employees would be provided bus passes. Haas stated that all
employee housing would be off-site as buy-down units within the city limits; the
property was under 12,000 square feet, which would have meant the employee
units would have been sub-grade. Haas said that employees may not want to live
underneath where they work when they could live above grade in town in a unit
deemed livable by the Housing Authority.
David Brown mentioned that his firm was the architect for the Timbers in
Snowmass Village and that was the concept for the unit sizes and amenity
package; the square footage was 2850 for each of these units. Brown utilized
drawings for the description of the units; the comer units had an indoor/outdoor
space (sunroom). Each unit had a great room, library that becomes a 3rd bedroom
and a master suite. Architecturally it was in keeping with the downtown of most
of the older buildings in town; the mansard roof was a way to make the fourth
floor look like a third floor with a flat roof. The lighter col°r Was rusticated
sandstone and the darker color was recycled antique brick and a sandstone
cornice; the west end of the building was rusticated sandstone with wrought iron
and glass canopies with every bay having a bay window. There was modulation
vertically and horizontally to break up the scale; there were various vantage points
around the project including one from the Wheeler:
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for
the Dancing Bear to February 18, 2003; seconded by Eric Cohen.
APPROVED 5~0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
~nscribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10