Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030318ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 COMMENTS - Commissioners, Planning Staff and Public ..................................... 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ............................................. 2 DANCING BEAR LODGE MINOR PUD, REZONING~ MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, TIMESHARE, SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ..............................2 PARK-DALE SUBDIVISION .................................................................................. 8 ST. REGIS PUD AMENDMENT, TIMESHARE, SCOTT WOODFORD ........... 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 Jasmine Tygre opened the regnlar Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 pm. Commissioners present were Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre present. Staffin attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Manager; Joyce Ohlson, James Lindt and Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS - Commissioners, Planning Staff and Public Joyce Ohlson reminded the commission of an extra meeting on March 25th and the change of April meetings from the 1st to the 8th. Gideon Kaufman stated that he represented the third item on the agenda, the St. Regis, and four people from Orlando Florida were present for this item tonight. Jasmine Tygre mentioned the scheduling problem with tonight's agenda having too many substantial items on the agenda. Tygre asked that the agendas be dealt with in a better manner because it wasn't fair to the applicant, public or commission. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes form March 5, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS Dylan Johns stated a conflict with the Park-Dale Subdivision. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/18/03): DANCING BEAR LODGE MINOR PUD~ REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, TIMESHARE, SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Dancing Bear Lodge Minor PUD, Rezoning, Mountain View Plane, Timeshare, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing. James Lindt stated that there were several concerns from the previous hearing from staff and the planning commission. The height and massing, lack of on-site affordable housing in regards to the mitigation requirements, questions regarding the occupancy rates that were proposed, lack of check-in and delivery parking and the width of the ramp for the parking garage were the issues or concerns, which the applicant addressed significantly. Lindt reviewed the revised PUD plans noting that the height was reduced from 63 feet to 57 feet at the mid-point of the gazebo on the 5th floor. In addition the mass was reduced by stepping down and back the western portion of the building to 2 and 3 stories on drawing A3.1; the turret was 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIQN-Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 removed from the southeast corner of the roof and there were cutout balconies on the southeast corner on the 4th floor as well as the northeast corner. Lindt said these translated into interior floor plan changes (A2.4) providing 2 on site affordable housing units, a three bedroom and a studio unit proposed at deed- restricted category 2-rental. The other changes were the recess to the Durant Avenue facade for the lounge area to accommodate outdoor patio seating. The first floor southwest corner unit was converted from a 2800 square foot 3-bedroom unit to a 1400 square foot 2-bedroom unit. Thc second floor (A2.5) was amended by dividing one of the 2800 square foot units into two 1400 square foot units; the bedroom count dropped in each of those units from 3 to 2. The third floor (A2.6) changes were to the balconies and reduction of square footage to the western unit. The fourth floor (A2.7) western unit was reduced to accommodate the new balcony area to break up the mass further and the eastern units balconies were also added. Thc fifth floor (A2.8) was still maintained as a recreational facility for guests of the timeshare lodge; the parapet wall was removed and replaced with iron railing setback in certain areas. Lindt stated the staff opinion regarding the massing changes, which were thc stepping down and cutting back for balconies and were a better transition to the town homes to the west, 2-3 stories in height. Lindt said thc reduced height to 57 feet was still over the 52-foot height limit and if the commission was still concerned about the proposed height then they should recommend thc applicant remove the fifth floor. Staff believed the applicant went a long way to provide on- site employee housing; the two units would allow 4.25 employees, which left the .9 employee housing mitigation to be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment, which would be about $166,000.00 to the affordable housing fund. Staff proposed a condition for 3 of the parking spaces for the AH units unless the occupants of those units did not have cars then those spaces would go back into the lodging pool. Lindt said that the occupancy rates of the units were provided through a report (exhibits C & D). The applicant proposed a floating maintenance schedule so that only one unit would be out of commission at one time. Staff proposed a condition for the guest checkqin pull-in space to be mitigated by assigning 2 of the alley spaces as 30-minute check in parking and for deliveries. Staff felt that the changes made met the review standards with thc exception of the height issues. Mitch Haas elaborated on the changes that addressed the concerns from the commissioners and neighbors. Haas said that they were now at 11 units and 22 keys; there were 2 above grade quality employee units with cash-in-lieu for the fraction ora unit. David Hoefer asked the square footage of those units. Haas responded that they were 1,000 square feet and 400 square feet net livable space respectively. Haas noted that they tried to make the lounge grill open to the public on the top floor but it did not work out between the marketing people and numbers 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18~ 2003 so the lounge/grill remained on the lobby ground level with store front type windows and a recessed area for outdoor dining on the Durant side. Haas stated that removing the parapet wall and 9 inches in plate height from each floor to lower the building 6 feet reduced the height. The design was revised to a wedding cake type building; a color-coded drawing was entered into the record depicting the different heights of the building showing how the center of the building was taller. There was a two-story element of balconies on the comers of the buildings. Haas said that they prefer 2 employee parking spaces, at one per unit, but that Wasn't a make or break issue. Haas said that the volume was broken up and the height and massing was consistent with other projects in the area. There were now §8 timeshare estates with a revolving maintenance schedule so there would not be too many units out of service at one turn to help the occupancy figures. David Brown explained the architectural drawings and he presented the scale compared to the previous plans. Brown stated that the comers were 2 and 3 stories with balconies and the overall building was 6 feet lower. Brown reiterated the changed plans for each floor; the public area under the roof on the main floor that is open to the outdoors with operable glass windows to allow for the restaurant bar to have outside seating. Brown noted that there were 2 different products now with four 1400 square foot 2-bedroom suites and seven 2800 square foot suites with 3- bedrooms; all with lock-offbedrooms. Brown said that if the entire fifth floor tame off it was 39 feet, 36 feet, and 42 feet at the comers. Roger Haneman asked if the fifth floor were removed would this project be within ~he height limits of the infill. Lindt replied that it would be close if the fourth floor WoUld be less than 50%, it would be close. Ruth Kruger asked the ceiling height on the fifth floor. Brown responded that it was 9 feet to the roof of the greenhouse with sloped ceilings. Kruger inquired into the air conditioning. Brown answered that the mechanical was also on the fifth floor with photo voltec on the glass surfaces to reduce the heat load and gain some electricity utilizing operable glass with fabric below it. Eric Cohen questioned the employee housing mitigation with a studio and 3- bedroom. Brown replied that there were 1400 square feet for the maximum number of employees per the Affordable Housing Guidelines for 4 employee equivalents. Haas described it as one roommate situation or 2 roommate situations; either one unit with roommates and one without. Brown said that they could do a pair of 2-bedroom units but there wasn't the same number of employee equivalents; they would continue to work with the Housing Board and Staff on the equivalents for a different mix. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 David Brown presented a model, whicli ill~st~a~e~d' tile redesigned building with removal pieces for the balcony corners. Brown utilized a shadow illustration board depicting the seasons. Johns asked if2½ baths were required in the employee unit. Brown responded that there were 3 baths in the 3-bedroom unit. Haas noted that only one bath was required in the 3-bedroom unit. Lindt replied that Housing reviewed the proposed units and found they were consistent with the guidelines in relation to size; housing would make an inspection prior to the project gaining a CO. Johns asked how the balcony would work on the 2na floor southwest corner units with access from the unit as well as the lock-off. Brown answered that was not worked out yet but it would probably be used for only one unit at a time; it was a key problem. Tygre asked for clarification on the entrance to the lobby andk the drop off configuration. Brown responded that 2 spaces would be assigned for check-in with an internal split for the grade change from the bar/restaurant to the check-in lobby area. Brown explained the delivery area was at dock height for deliveries m the alley; the alley had a 20-foot right-of-way. Tygre asked if there was also an entrance on the east corner for the lounge area. Brown replied that entrance was for the lounge with the doubled corner and a vestibule airlock at each corner. Johns asked if they looked into a pull-in in front o£ the buildi~ag with dedicated parking spaces for check-in. Brown replied that they had looked into a nn'n around with a curb cut similar to what the Nell has but the city engineer, traffic, streets and the planning staff'looked unfavorably on that plan. Lindt responded that the city engineer was opposed to the leasing of spaces because the public would loose parking spaces; the city attorney did not look favorably of'taking the public right- of-way. Brown said that they would continue to try for a couple of spaces much like the Jerome or Mountain Chalet. Eric Cohen asked if the city currently leased spaces at other properties. Lindt replied that was true but this interpretation was made about a year ago to continue the leases as a grandfathered situation however will not approve any new leases. Johns asked if there was discussion of impacts on the alley traffic; he asked if that was the optimum way to get into to this site. Lindt answered that staff felt there was sufficient setback from the parking garage and Monarch Street, which was less busy. Tygre asked how would it be made clear that the actual hotel entrance was on Monarch Street as opposed to the corner, which enters into the lounge. Brown replied that signage could be done but he wasn't concerned because those spaces flowed into the other internal spaces. Tygre stated concern for the external circulation; people being dropped of'fat the corner rather than where the lobby entrance was located. Brown responded there would be enough communication 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 with the people prior to their arrival from brochures and floor plans plus there would be staff to bring in the luggage. Johnson asked if the alley was still dirt. Lindt replied that it was and the city has not adopted a policy at this time; HPC was opposed to paving. Haas stated that the only condition that was given was to provide a concrete apron where the alley meets the sidewalk so that dirt wasn't tracked out of the alley. Brown said that they would be willing to enter into an improvement district for sidewalk, curb and gutter. Johnson stated that the study mentioned the exclusivity of the project. Brown replied that was fairly consistent with other timeshares for privacy and exclusivity was something many of the buyers wanted. Brown stated that the timeshare regulations demand non-exclusivity and rent out to the public; they were willing to conform to the rules and hopefully the market will be able to 1511 the units. Brown stated that it wasn't in their best interest to be non-exclusive; Snowmass and other areas did not have the ordinance that Aspen does. Johnson asked how lodge preservation was determined. Lindt replied that any property that has historically operated as a lodging establishment was eligible for the LP Overlay to prevent those properties from going over to a residential use or allow for expansion to bring back part of the bed base. Haas explained the conditions for rezoning to LP were to protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood in respect to the manner which has historically operated and to provide an incentive for existing lodges on site or adjacent properties. Haas said that everyone previously wanted to develop free-market townhomes on this property; the 23-unit lodge could convert to 3 townhomes with a use by right. Haas said that they were preserving a lodge use on this property. Johnson asked why the income asset restriction was waived for the employee housing. Ohlson replied that was for more flexibility for the lodge employees to be placed in those on-site housing units. Johnson said that there were several good faith efforts addressed for the LEAD, hybrid autos and bike fleet; he asked how the new owners would address these efforts. Lindt replied that it was addressed in condition #21 in Resolution #6 as part of their PM-10 mitigation plan. Johnson asked about the 25% open space requirement in relation to the project's proximity to Wagner Park and the Cooper Street Mall as amenities. Haas replied that they have done a trade-off because of what someone typically thinks of as 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING CO~SSiON ,Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 open space, but was it not necessarily defined as open space by the City to meet the requirement. Haas stated that they were providing more usable open space in facilities for the people buying into this project; the amenities and facilities package and the rooftop deck would be open space, which don't meet the open space requirements of'the code. Public Comments: Carl Levy, public, stated that he was president of Southpoint Condominium Association; he appreciated the drawings in response to his comments for the views from the southwest. Levy said that because of the grade of Durant Street most of the first level garage was above grade on that side se, it was in effect 6 stories not 5, which leads to the bUlk and mass of the building. Levy said that it was not truly wedding caked but only a small wedge to the top layer; the new model in a darker color makes the building look much smaller than the garish look of the first one. Sue Woolery, public, said that she was a member of the family that owned and operated the Limelight Lodge, which was across the alley so!¢th of the proposed Dancing Bear Lodge. Woolery stated concern for their economic well being; this proposal was consistently over the allowable height and asked the COmmission to look at the existing requirements. Woolery asked the commission to consider the existing laws concerning height requirements and how this project adversely affects the neighbors. Rodney Knudson, public, said that it was premature to judge what the infill regulations would say; there were questions about allowing buildings of this height even if in-fill was approved. Knudson said that the open space provision was not being met by the glass atrium on top of the building. Knudson said that there was not adequate access for handicapped people. Tygre suggested the commission provide brief comments on this project then table and continue to April 8th because of the magnitude of tonight's agenda. The commissioners' comments included reworking the employee housing mix of a 3 bedroom and a studio because those were the least desirable; replacement was suggested with one and two bedroom units because they were the most desirable size units. Eric Cohen mentioned that the guidelines were to use the existing zoning, which would not allow him to vote in favor of this proposed project as presented even though he was in favor of the infill ordinance. Roger Haneman expressed a desire for a reduction in the height, more keys and the category 2 wage and income restrictions in place for the AH units. Dylan Johns stated that the 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 design has come in a positive direction but the west side of the building was still under treated with scale, mass and articulation, MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the public hearing for the Dancing Bear Lodge Minor PUD, Rezoning, Mountain View Plane, Timeshare, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing to April 8, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: PARK-DALE SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Park-Dale SUbdivision. David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice met the jurisdictional requirements. James Lindt provided amended conditions to the commission, which he explained and appear in the motion for the approved resolution. Lindt said that the applicant was Coast Pacific Asset Management Inc., who requested approval to reconfigure lots 4A and 5A of the Independence No.2 Subdivision (1180 Dale Avenue and 215 Park A~enue). The reconfiguration would include two 6,000 square foot lots with a single-family house on each lot and one 9,000 square foot lot with duplex or 2 residential dwelling units that meet the R-6 dimensional requirements. Lindt noted the access for the 9,000 square foot lot would be for one unit off Dale and one unit off Park; staff took issue with that proposal. Lindt said that the proposed development application was in conjunction with a City Council approval to relocate Dale Avenue back into the platted right-of-way; currently Dale Avenue sits on Lot 5A. The city engineer requested a 5-foot easement for purposes of a buffer zone for future improvements such as sidewalks. Council determined that it was not an appropriate time to install sidewalks. Staff requested the use of a common driveway for the 9,000 square foot lot rather than 2 accesses and curb cuts. Mitch Haas provided the history of the lots noting that there were 3 lots originally with a slightly different configuration for this proposal. Haas mentioned that in the R-6 zone currently 4 dwelling units could be placed on 2 lots but their proposal was for 4 dwelling units on 3 lots, which they felt to be a more orderly development pattern and better for the client. Haas stated that the client did not want to give the 5-foot easement back tO the city because there Were not sidewalks planned in this area and the neighborhood did not want sidewalks. Haas stated that there was already a 40-foot right-of-way that they were using 21 feet of and did not 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION :Mihutes ~RCH i8~ 2003 feel that taking another 5 feet was necessary. Haas smd that they would probably have to go to council over the 5-foot right-of-way issue but would like the P&Z to recommend that it was not necessary; Haas noted that they were opposed to condition #12 for the driveways access on Dale and opposed to the 5-foot right-of- way easement. Roger Haneman asked if the FAR dimensions were the same with 2 lots or 3 lots. Lindt replied that there was an increase Of 2,000 square feet by going to 3 lots. Hoefer asked what the allowable Was if it were just 2 lots. Lindt responded that Lot 4A would be allowed 4,110 square feet and Lot 5A would be allowed 4,314 square feet for detached duplexesl Haas said that proposal was for 2 detached units on the south lOt using the duplex FAR but the structure of the floor area would be broken up into two smaller structures. Haneman asked the allowable FAR on the 3 lots. Lindt answered that the bottom lot was 4080square feet, the top lot was 3240 square feet and the middle lot was 3360 square feet. Eric Cohen asked the rational for condition #12. Lindt reSPonded that for site planning purpose the location of the driveway would be combined for the 2 units on the southern most lot to reduce the pavement and curb cuts; it wasn't necessary. Dale Avenue was preferable because it had less traffic than Park; the city engineer has not reviewed the new plans for the 2 curb cuts. Hoefer asked if the Fire Department reviewed the access points. Lindt replied that they had not. Joyce Ohlson noted that good site planning was to minimize the amount of curb cuts. Lindt stated that part of the pavement would be flush against the property line and the street department was concerned about possibly damaging landscaping during plowing of the street within the 5-foot right-of-way or any pavement from the driveway therefore the city requested the 5-foot right-of-way easement. Tygre asked for clarification on the bottom lot with the 2 units as to the front yard on Park Avenue for one or both units. Hass answered that the way the code was applied was that it would be for both units even though one unit would face Dale. Haas said that the last site plan brought th~ driveway behind the buildings and would not require a variance from the design review standards. Public Comments: Tom Marshall, public, stated that he lived across from the big lot. Marshall provided the history from 1967 when he purchased his home in the Riverside Addition, which was annexed into the city in 1962; it was platted but never surveyed consequently the rights-of-ways were not in the correct roadways. Marshall stated that 15 feet of the roadway in front of his property was actually on his property; the city re-surveyed in 1974 and he lost 8 feet from his property and it pushed him into the roadway. Marshall stated that the road has been that way 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 since he has lived there; he said that sidewalks were not an issue for them because this was supposed to be resolved with city council. Marshall stated that they did not want any additional density in the area and would appreciate the commission keeping the density that was there now. Brian Speck, public, said that he grew up 3 houses down from Tom Marshall and he agreed with Tom Marshall. Speck said that there were some problems with the platting of this area. Speck said that he also spoke for his mother who lived on Riverside. Rodney Knudson, public, stated that he lived at 1212 East Hopkins. Knudson said that they should leave the lots as they are and build what they are entitled to as of right. Knudson stated that there were access problems in the area; Park was at a higher topography with enough access onto Park. Knudson said that 2 more curb cuts would exacerbate the problems because this infringed on the footbridge trail with cars parked on the trail. Knudson said that Dale was a safer street. MOTION: Roger Itaneman moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 p.m. seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 4-1 Jack Johnson asked how old lot lines compared to these new lot lines for the 3-lot division. Haas replied that they were similar; he provided a 1957-plat map. Jasmine Tygre said that personally she did not see any problem with the 3 lots because the density and number of units would remain the same. Tygre shared the concern for the extra curb cuts on Park Avenue because of the traffic congestion. Tygre said that the redevelopment of the property was appropriate with the density that was currently allowed with great access to the foot trail on East Hopkins and public transportation. Tygre said that the easement was a reserve for future possible necessities; she said that in general she was in favor of this proposal. Ruth Kruger agreed with Jasmine. Roger Haneman agreed with everything and said that the easement might be needed in the future, which would be impossible to get back if given up at this time. Tygre asked if the easement would affect the allowable FAR. Lindt replied that it would not count against the FAR. Haas stated that it affected certain landscaping. Ohlson noted that the pavement would not straddle the right-of-way equally but was flush against the front property line on the southern most part of the property; the normal curb and gutter did not exist here and that was the concern from the streets department for snow removal. Haas stated the city made a decision to put the edge of pavement on the property line and leave the south side of the road undeveloped. Lindt clarified that prior to the right-of-way improvements agreement going to city council the applicant's I0 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 attorney drafted the right-of-way ~mprovements agreement for council to review, which included a 5-£oot wide easement. Haas disagreed strongly with Lindt. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #9, series 2003 recommending City Council approve the application to subdivide Lots 4A and 5A, of the Independence No. 2 Subdivision to create Lots 1, 2, and 3, of the Park Dale Subdivision, with the following conditions: (1). The applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval. (2). The applicant shall grant to the City of Aspen a five (5) foot wide general easement for future City approved improvements and snow storage along the southern property line of Lot 3 pursuant to the terms that are set forth in the approved right-of-way improvements agreement. The dedication of this easement shall not affect the lot area for purposes of calculating allowable FAR, density, or other dimensional requirements. Additionally, the required setbacks shall be calculated from the property line. The applicant shall improve this easement with a compacted gravel shoulder along Dale Avenue to provide roadside drainage and pavement protection. This easement shall be dedicated on the final subdivision plat. (3). The applicant shah sign a sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement to install future City approved sidewalk, curb, and gutter on the adjoining/surrounding right-of-ways prior to recording a subdivision agreement and plat. (4). The applicant shall relocate the existing sewer line that runs under the proposed Lot 3 along Dale Avenue back into the Dale Avenue Right-of-Way at the applicant's expense prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot 3 of the subdivision. The sewer line shall be relocated in a manner that allows for a ten (10) foot separation distance to be maintained between the water and sewer lines. (5). The applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal in any of the proposed residences that exceed a gross floor area of 5.000 square feet. (6). The applicanl shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. (7). The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shah be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. (8). The residences to be developed on the newly created lots shall meet the R-6 Zone District's dimensional requirements and comply with the residential design standards or obtain a variance therefrom. (9). The applicant shall pay a propor~ana, te amount of aH applicable impact (Park Development Impact and School Land Ded~cation) fees prior to issuance of a building permit for each residence within the subdivision. (10). The applicant shah install an underground outlet and streetlight circuit from the transformer located adjacent to Park Avenue and E. Hopkins Avenue when the overhead utility lines are placed underground. (11). Vehicular access to the two (2) units to be constructed on Lot 3 shall be from a common driveway that enters off of Dale Avenue. Seconded by Eric Cohen. Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-1. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to extend the meeting to 7:30; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 5-0. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH 18, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: ST. REGIS PUD AMENDMENT, TIMESHARE, SCOTT WOOD]FORD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Stl R~egis pUD T1~e~hare Amendment. Eric Cohen took over as chair of the meeting. Scott Woodford said that the applicant was SLT Aspen Dean Street LLC an affiliate of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, represented by Joe Wells and Gideon Kaufman. Woodford explained the changes were in the ballroom level, which would be for an expanded Spa (15,300 square feet) where currently a meeting room and pre-function space, the business center, hotel sales and accounting offices were located. Woodford utilized drawings to illustrate the changes. The new hotel offices would be placed on the 2nd floor of building B, where the existing Spa was located now, The conversion of 98 hotel rooms into 24 two and three bedroom timeshare units was proposed with 1/11th fractional increments, some biennial units. Woodford said that in building C (Blue Spruce Building) there was a reduction of the number o£un-built, yet approved hotel rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors from 22 {o 20 rooms (16 hotel rooms and 4 one bedroom suites). The 22 units were part of the original approval, but were never built. Woodford said that the land use approval request included a PUD Amendment for the conversiOn of the hotel to timeshare units and the reduction of the number of hotel units in building C as Well as the ~i~eshar~i ~er~ ~ ~qu~s~ for ~owth Management Quota System Exemptions for accessory uses in a mixed-use development to remodel the hotel into timeshare and the Spa. There was a change of Use request to convert hotel rooms into one residential unit (24 timeShare and 1 undivided condo unit). There was a request for subdivision approval for condominimization. Woodford said that the criteria were met for the PUD Amendments and Subdivision. The timeshare financial tax process was still on going for determination. Woodford said that the reduction of existing bedrooms went against the timeshare ordinance but the overall number of bedrooms was slight and sleeper sofas were used; staff did not take issue with that provision. Woodford said that the employee mitigation set by Housing used food and beverage numbers for the Spa, which came out to 14 new employees; there were no numbers on what Spas generated in employees because of the level of amenities. Housing suggested an audit of employees after one year. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH ~8~ 2003 Ruth Kruger aSked where the whOle unit wa~ loCated and What the PurpOse of that unit was. Kaufman replied the unit was located on the 6th floor and the code allowed one unit exempt from GMQS. Roger Haneman took issue with sleeper sofas being counted equal to a bedroom. Kaufman responded that there was a difference of 8 beds without the sleeper sofas. Dylan Johns asked for clarification on the remodeling of the existing ballrooms and meeting rooms; he requested additional information regarding the historic usage of those rooms. Kaufman stated that there would be three new areas to have meetings in the ballroom and the rooms were used for conferences and for community functions. Kaufman stated that they were updating the hotel for today's market; currently there was a lot of under utilized space. Jack Johnson asked how the Comedy Arts Festival would be affected by these changes. Kaufman replied that the portion that would be lost for Comedy Arts would be the part of the currently not completed building C but there Would be 20 extra hotel rooms and there would be the re-configured ballroom to accommodate additional conference space. Eric Cohen asked if there were any public comments. Kaufman noted that the Florida people did not want to speak tonight. Kaufman voiced concern for the timing of the approvals for this building season. MOTION: Dylan John moved to extend the meeting another 15 minutes; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. APPROVED 5-1. Cohen asked the total number of existing hotel rooms and what will the new number of hotel rooms be. Kaufman replied there were 257existing; there will be 154 hotel rooms and 25 hotel suitesl Kruger stated that the new rooms were finally being built, the Whiskey Rocks will remain, there will be an audit process for the employee mitigation for the Spa; she said that she could support this proposal. Haneman said that based on cutting the regUlar hotel rooms, cutting the conference space from 25,000 to 15,000 square feet and the economic devastation that this will bring was second only to turning Aspen Mountain into a private club. Haneman noted that the St. Regis conference business also brought people to the other lodges; this hotel was sold to the Aspen voters because it would bring in conference business and off-season business. This proposal would end this hotel's conference business and make it a lUxury Spa, Haneman stated that the impact on the town could not be afforded; he said he was strongly against the proposal. 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes MARCH !87 Z003 Kaufman stated that over 80% of the conferences would continue to be accommodated with this change and the large conference ballroom Would ~emain the same. Kanfman said that this was a pure economic situation; they took the reality of what happened to the hotel, not what was first planned but what has going on today. Kaufman said that there was a $30,000,000.00 remodel and to keep the exact same number of room days with the 256 rooms versus the 179 rooms and the bonus the town gets all the extra room nights fi.om the fractional ownership. Kaufman stated that statistics show that under the fractional ownership people tend to occupy the unit more often; this will result in the maintaining the entire vast majority of the conferences and it will bring to the town a lot more room nights. Kaufman stressed that this was a win-win because the conference rooms were retained with more people coming to town, which would create an economic benefit. Haneman quoted fi.om the Residences Hobson Ferrarini report (page 5) regarding occupancy in private residences clubs in ski areas that the averages were 80% in the winter, 70% in the summer and 20% during the shoulder seasons; he said that would be a 58% year round average occupancy for Aspen. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the St. Regis PUD Amendment and Timeshare to April 15, 2003; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. DENIED 3-3. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the meeting until 8:00 pm; seconded by Dylan Johns. DENIED 3-3. Kaufman requested any issues that the commission wanted addressed at the next meeting. Johnson wanted to review the original PUD application discussions. Johns asked for additional study on how big the Spa needs to be and what was the appropriate size conference space for more different kinds of conventions that were possible at this conference facility. Cohen said that he was uncomfortable taking the flagship hotel in a great resort town and further condominiumizing and timesharing it. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the St. Regis PUD Amendment and Timeshare to April 15, 2003; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. APPROVED 6-0. Adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~ckie Lotl~i/a~, Deputy City Clerk 14