Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030408ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08, 2003 COMMISSIONEI~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 2 MINTUES ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................. 2 DANCING BEAR LODGE MINOR PUD REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE TIMESHARE SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTIONs FOR LODGE PRESEiiVAT~ON AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS REZONING and CONSOLIDATED PUD .................................................. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08, 2003 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting at 4:30 pm at the Library Meeting Room. Roger Haneman, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Eric Cohen arrived at 4:35 and Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:40 p.m. Staffin attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONEP~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jack Johnson said that the newspaper stated that there were infill signs next to the Crystal Palace; he asked if political speech violated the code even if it were incorrect. Joyce Ohlson responded that political signs and issues were allowed subject to setback requirements, right-of-way installation requirements as well as dimensional requirements. Those signs were too big and James Lindt wrote a letter addressing the violation of the code. Roger Haneman asked about a follow-up on the 1470 Red Butte Drive flood plane issue; he asked where the flood plane line was located on that premises. Jasmine ~fygre asked if the former Quadrant Book Store site was a change in use with a remodel retaining only sub-grade walls. Joyce Ohlson replied that was correct and then they came ~n with a proposal that was in compliance with all the regulation without any further planning commission review. James Lindt replied that they went into a full demolition of the existing structure, which they have to mitigate for employee housing as well as be in conformance with all the zone district setback requirements. Tygre noted that when they applied for the change in use there was no demolition requested. Lindt and Ohlson agreed that was true. Tygre was concerned that the applicant's representations were not "full disclosure" and asked what could be done with that type of situation. Lindt stated that staffmet after they basically demolished the building and found the use was still going to be the same as a single-family use. Tygre asked for the application to review what was requested at the time without demolition. Tygre said that 3 people approached her upset about the ~ssue of hiring ora new downtown manager and consultant. MINTUES MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from March 18, 2003 and March 25, 2003; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ,, April 08, 2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/18/03 ): DANCING BEAR LODGE MINOR PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, TIMESHARE, SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION XND 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 reviewed the commission concerns with the Affordable Housing unit configuration (2 two bedroom units were requested rather than a studio), a revised building height and additional density with more keys. Lindt distributed revised conditions #4, #25 and added #39. Mitch Haas, applicant planner, asked the commission to consider approving this proposal with the height because other projects were approved with full 5 stones. David Brown, architect, explained the employee housing spaces could be made into a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit easily and possibly into a pair of two bedroom units but the living space would not be as good. Brown asked the commission to recommend what was wanted and they would modify the plans for city council accordingly. Brown asked that they be treated for mitigation from a financial standpoint because this package worked with the one and two bedroom units. Brown stated that they were not interested in reducing the building height any further; he passed the building model around to show the height reduction from the first rendition. Brown said that the 4t~ floor was ten feet nine inches (10'9") and the extra one foot nine inches (1 '9") provided for structure, mechanical and ventilation. Brown said that they did not want to give up the 5th floor and did not feel that it was an impact to the community; it was set back far from the perimeter. Brown stated that the interior mix was revised in response to the commissioners with four two-bedroom suites and seven three-bedroom suites for a total of eleven suites, a total of twenty-two keys, which was more than the original proposal. Brown stated these were smaller suites with smaller price points therefore more affordable, which fits into the context of the neighborhood with five stories in the Lodge Tourist Accommodation zone district. Brown noted the ramp in the garage was modified to twenty-one feet. Eric Cohen asked the height at the top of the fourth floor. Brown responded that the height varies from forty-two (42) feet to forty-seven (47) feet to forty-nine (49) feet with a seven-foot (7) slope because of the topography. Jasmine Tygre stated 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08, 2003 that the 4th floor heights were in the forties depending where they were on the building; she asked what would be allowed ifinfill was approved. Lindt replied that it would be fifty-two (52) Feet but it was based on a building with a partial 4th floor that was less that 50%. Tygre inquired about what the residents asked about the alley being adequate to handle deliveries and traffic from this proposal. Haas replied that there would be two spaces closest to the street side for check-in and drop o£f with hal£hour time slots and a separate loading dock with service doors. Brown pointed out that the structural elements of the building were set back from the property line so there was additional maneuvering space for the garage doors and ramps. Tygre requested additional clarification for the entrance on the corner as opposed to the entrance on the side street and as opposed to Durant because of the congestion on that corner. Tygre asked which way would guests arrive at the facility. Brown replied that they talked with Nick Adeh, city engineer, at the conceptual as well as recently and the city was not willing to give up any parking spaces on any street for loading or special parking similar to what the Jerome had. Brown stated that there would be contact with the guests prior to arrival with maps for the property; there would not be a problem with guests arriving through the other first floor areas. Haas stated that if staff or this commission wanted a loading space to be pursued on Durant he was willing to bring that up at city council. Tygre stated that was a concern with the busy corner; if there were a design to minimize the congestion on that corner would be something to take into account but she said that she did not have an answer for it. Brown stated that was the intent for the parking on the street to minimize the congestion; there would be awnings on the Monarch Street side with identity signage as part of the design. Public Comments: Mary Upton, public, stated that she was opposed to the mass and height; it was too much. Upton said that the change at the corner would be favored to the unsightly building now but the traffic on Monarch and Durant with buses turning would be a mess. Upton stated that the height was her complaint and did not know if it could be feasible to change that. Ruth Kruger asked the square footage of units #9 and #10 on the 4th floor. Brown replied that they were about 2800 square feet each before opening up the balconies. Kruger asked the square footage of the lower units. Brown replied that they were the same for the three-bedroom suites and 1400 square feet for the two- bedroom units. Kruger asked how drastic would the financial impacts be if the entire 4th floor were setback like it was on the one side was setback. Brown answered that it would be s~gniflcant because they would loose a unit. Kruger asked if they would loose the project. Brown said that it was possible but he did ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08~ 2003 not have the authority or direction for that decision. Kruger stated this was a massive structure; she supported density at the base of the mountmn but this was in a more transitional area. Kruger said that this might be more acceptable to the neighbors if the 4th floor were reduced with setbacks as it was setback on the west side to even more wedding cake the building, which would be less of an ~mpact and more acceptable to the neighbors. Kruger said that if the 4th floor were recessed then the partial 5th floor would be acceptable. Kruger stated that she would support two two-bedroom units than the current configuration of a studio and 3 bedroom; also one-bedroom units were popular. Kruger stated that she would support a cash-in-lieu to make up for the difference. Eric Cohen agreed with Ruth on the employee housing assessment and would support the exact same configurations of 2 two bedroom units or a 2 bedroom and 1 bedroom with cash-in-lieu. Cohen stated that he was still struggling with the underlying zoning. Roger Haneman stated that the commissioner conclusions were pretty much the same but maybe weighted differently. Haneman favored the copula; endorsed street parking (leased from the city) on Monarch; any of the housing options were acceptable; the height remained an issue in this location. Haneman noted that this would be visible from blocks away and eliminating the 5th floor Would not be enough for his vote. Dylan Johns agreed with Roger, Eric and Ruth about the height; he did not have an issue with the 5th floor because it was stepped back; the majority of the height concerns were with the 4th floor; timeshare was still bothersome; the most bedrooms on site was beneficial without concern for the configuration. Jack Johnson stated that the affordable housing was okay with either configuration; the 5t~ floor amenity was good; agreed with Ruth's suggestion for further height reduction of the 4th floor; supports dense lodge use on this site and believed it to be a quality project but could not support it at this time because of the height and mass. Jasmine Tygre agreed with the reduction of the 4th floor as suggested by Ruth; reducing the 4th floor was a more creative idea rather than chopping offthe 5th floor. Tygre stated concern as well as other commissioners with the height and mass; the site visit was instructive because the Durant Street fagade became less of an issue than the alley and the western side of the building. Tygre favored the architecture, turret on the southeast corner and concept of the project because it will fill the larger timeshare unit niche. Tygre noted that this was a site-specific 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08, 2003 project with the immediate adjacent properties being affected. Tygre stated that if there was a way to reduce the 4a~ floor then she could go either way on the 5th floor. Tygre agreed with Ruth and Eric that two 2-bedroom units were probably more usable for the employees of the building and would be willing to consider a 2 and 1-bedroom plus cash-in-lieu. Tygre summarized the commission's feeling on the proposed heights and mass as not being acceptable as currently presented. David Brown responded they discussed dorm rooms as needed plus a living area and kitchen instead of separate units; he stated that he was flexible. Brown requested a condition in the approval for the number of feet for the setback from the eve of the 3rd floor for the 4th floor. Brown suggested a glass and steel transparent 4th floor perimeter as a solution, keeping the sandstone on the floors below. Brown said that they could go three, four or five feet in from the edge on the 4th floor; he said that would go a long way in reducing the apparent height. Hoefer stated there would be a light issue with all glass. Tygre noted the Durant Condos looking like great big TVs at night; she did not want to recommend a condition with "x" number of feet to be setback and stated concern for the commission redesigning a project. Johns commented that his acceptance of the 4th floor was because in the majority of situations glass was not transparent but had a lot of reflection; it may risk the potential of making the building more massive with light being opaque. Johns said that he wanted to see a lodge project like this rather than townhomes on this site but the height Was a problem; he asked what was the project that could be built on this site. Brown encouraged the commission to make a motion with conditions that were acceptable. Hoefer stated concern for speculation and that a plan was needed to take a vote. Tygre agreed because in the past decisions alwayS had revised plans for review with substantial changes. Johnson stated that he could not support a resolution without specific drawings; he said that they were not doing anyone any favors by whittling away at a design and re-conceiving the whole architectural vernacular. Johnson said that he could not support the project. Cohen stated that as stands the applicant could build a certain number of townhomes unless infill was passed and then only conforming uses would be allowed in the LTR zone district. Cohen mentioned the possibility of the applicant submitting another application for a different project on the site. Kruger said that she could see what the project would look like with the 4th floor setbacks and would support that recessed 4th floor with trust in the architect to keep the integrity of the architecture; she stated respect for the decision making ability of city council with the P&Z suggestions and recommendations. Kruger 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08, 2003 supported parking on the street because ~t was useful for people coming into the building and restaurant; she said there would be more of a problem with people driving around wondering where they were supposed to park and enter the building. Kruger stated the need for tourist friendly and easily accessible. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #6, series 2003 recommending city council approve with conditions the Dancing Bear Lodge Minor PUD, Rezoning, Mountain View Plane, Timeshare, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing with amended condition#25 for the affordable housing units allowing for the option of the applicant and housing for a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom with cash-in-lieu or two two- bedrooms; adding that the 4th floor be recessed equivalent to or minimum of ten feet from the 3ra floor all the way around with the exception of the tower, adding the turret and adding two on-street parking spaces; seconded by Eric Cohen. Haneman, no; Johns, yes; Johnson, no; Cohen, no; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-2. Discussion: Roger Haneman stated that the motion and design was a leap forward but he said that this town prefers ro move slowly and cautiously; he said that he felt that he had to vote no at this point. Haneman said that in 10 years this project would go but not today. Tygre stated that she was not comfortable approving a project of this size and importance without a specific plan in front of P&Z; she felt that the P&Z responsibility was to review the plans therefore she could not vote in favor of the motion. Cohen said the changes in height and mass exceptions were for proJects.that add to the community; he said the project could still be reduced and wanted to see the reduction rather than voting the potential of the reduction. Cohen said that he would accept the overall reduction of stepping back the 4th floor and keeping the 5th floor. Tygre suggested another motion for a continued meeting with a sketch plan to be brought back to P&Z for the commission to work with the applicant to move the project forward. Brown stated that he did not know if this redesign would make or break the project; he said that his client would not go along with a three-story element. Hoefer stated that a plan needed to be submitted so that there weren't any surprises in the final plan for the final vote; he said that this continued hearing could be placed first on the next agenda. Tygre noted that there may or may not be a unit lost, which will affect the plans as well. Brown wanted a positive vote tonight. The commission already voted and it was denied. Tygre asked for the continued public hearing with a simple redrawn plan. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 08~ 2003 Ohlson noted the other option was that the applicant could proceed to city council without P&Z approval. Brown replied that they wanted a positive motion to go to council. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to table action and continue the public hearing for a modified redesign of the Dancing Bear project to April 15, 2003; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS REZONING and CONSOLIDATED PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Sagewood Condominiums rezoning and consolidated PUD. David Hoefer asked for the proof of notice and list for the mailing. The applicant, Scott Gallager, stated that he posted the notice on all the doors within 300 feet of this building. Jasmine Tygre stated that the public hearing could not proceed unless the attorney was satisfied with the requirements of noticing. David Hoe£er stated the applicant needed to obtain a list from the County Assessors Office of everyone within 300 feet and that provides the basis for either hand delivery or mailing. Hoefer explained that just going door to door without the list you could miss even one residence and the was an objection, the entire hearing would be considered null and void. Hoefer said that the notice had to be properly executed, republished, reposted and re-noticed. There would be a new hearing date the second meeting in May. The commission asked, especially when someone has not gone through the process that the specific requirements be available to the applicant prior to the public hearing in an understandable manner. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Uackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk