Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160920Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Spencer McNight, Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Brian McNellis, Skippy Mesirow, and Keith Goode. Jason Elliott, Ryan Walterscheid, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES September 6, 2016 – Ms. Tygre noted there were two instances of Mr. Morris’s name in the second paragraph of the minutes. She motioned to approve the minutes with the correction noted. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development – Continued Hearing Mr. Goode informed the members of the audience there was a signup sheet for public comment (Exhibit R). He then re-opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, noted this is the fourth public hearing on the Gorsuch Haus which is a proposed redevelopment at Lift 1A. She then explained the review process and noted P&Z will provide a recommendation to City Council who makes a final decision. She then summarized the letters received from the public (Exhibit T) since the agenda packet had been published. Ms. Phelan then summarized the third hearing in August, noting P&Z saw a modified site plan and design of the proposed building. She stated the memo for this hearing includes essentially the same proposal presented in August hearing with some minor refinements. In regards to the application for the site and proposed development, Ms. Phelan stated the following: Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 2 1. The site access has been opened up by removing a portion of the building on the northern end of the project 2. The cul-de-sac has been enlarged 3. The lift location has been lowered slightly 4. The programing for the lodge has essentially stayed the same with the following:  81 lodge keys with 7 of those in a condo/lodge configuration with 21 lock off units  60 standard rooms  6 free market residential units  1 three-bedroom affordable housing unit  Commercial sf proposed including a restaurant, Aspen Ski Company (SkiCo) operations, and parking 5. The building mass now cantilevers over S. Aspen St where it terminates in a cul-de-sac. The lodge then climbs up the hill side in two, three and four story modules for approximately 330 ft in length. The height ranges from 22 ft to 47 ft. 6. The proposed floor area is just over 70,000 sf. Ms. Phelan then stated the floor area requested and the height proposed exceeds what is permitted for both the Conservation Zone District (current zoning for the property) and the Lodge Zone District (district assigned to neighboring properties). She then noted Staff finds the design of the building in regards to materials within in context. However, Staff still feels the building is out of scale with the neighborhood context and inappropriate given the sites topography. The proposed building is predominantly a four story building above grade and expands over a block face in length going up the hill side. The applicant has made some improvements to the proposed lot configurations and are still requesting vacations of certain public right of ways (ROWs) including part of S. Aspen St, part of Hill St and all of Summit St. Staff is concerned on some aspects of lot one’s configuration and the engineering department is still concerned regarding the design of the cul-de-sac, the request to vacate the City’s ROWs and the cantilevered portion of the building over the public ROW. There are a number of land use reviews requested. Overall, staff finds the review criteria on some of the standards are not met. Specifically, with regard to planned development (PD), staff does not find the site plan allows the development to blend in with the natural characteristics and physical constraints of the site. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood based on the size and height proposed. The perceived mass and scale needs to be reduced and the building should better integrate with the landscape as noted in the commercial design standards. With regard to subdivision criteria, the project still needs to work on guaranteed access to the street for the lots being proposed. Although the configuration of lots has improved, it still needs work. Staff does not support vacating of the City’s ROWs because it has not been shown this is in the best interest of the City. With regard to the 8040 Greenline review, staff does not believe the proposal maintains the mountain as a scenic resource or the height and bulk has been minimized. Ms. Phelan stated this is the fourth meeting on this proposal and staff still feels there needs to be significant changes to the mass and scale of the proposed lodge and more refinement on the site plan. At this point, staff is recommending P&Z consider a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 3 Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Mesirow feels the criticisms from staff have been growing in breadth and specificity and asked why. Ms. Phelan does not feel they are growing. She noted staff has always stated the mass and scale of the project needed to be reduced and changes needed to occur to the site plan which were the fundamental issues and she feels they have not been addressed. She also noted there are a lot of other little things such as the sizing of the cul-de-sac, ROW vacations, and lot configurations. She feels the site plan and design issues are primarily driving the project need to be addressed before the other issues can be resolved. The other issues are dependent upon the primary issues. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jim DeFrancia, representing Norway Island LLC, is joined by Mr. Richard Shaw of Design Workshop. He feels they have addressed staff’s issues. He then asked Mr. Jeff Gorsuch to comment first about the project. Mr. Gorsuch thanked the commission and staff. He stated he and Bryan Peterson wanted to bring the right project for the top of S. Aspen St and were inspired by their love for skiing. He stated this year marks the following:  80th year for the Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboard Club  70th anniversary for skiing on Aspen Mountain  50th anniversary for world cup skiing He feels the project embraces the history and magic of skiing on Aspen Mountain. He also feels a lot of people do not have a memory of what this part of town used to be and they wanted to bring back the charm and personality previously provided by the Holland House and Skier’s Chalet. He personally feels they have the responsibility and opportunity to honor the early ski pioneers. He added he is a dreamer, not a developer. His family’s history and Aspen’s history go hand in hand. He believes Aspen has been asking for a new lift and a hotel for a long time and he feels this is the right project by the right people with the right team. He asked P&Z to look at the facts and the work that has been done and give his family the opportunity to create a base that serves everyone. Mr. DeFrancia noted staff’s comments stating this area is appropriate for lodge use. In addition, access and neighborhood compatibility are important in creating a vital base area. He then stated the essence of this application is a new lift and a lodge and those are the elements P&Z should focus on. A further community goal is that the lift and base area should contribute to the identity of the town. He reiterated this area is the beginning of skiing in Aspen and was the site of the first World Cup in the US. He stated this site is the identity of Aspen as a ski town but sadly it is presently dilapidated and neglected. This project will restore and revive this identity. As for community benefits, the new lift clearly provides dramatic improved convenient public access and the lodge provides the vitality called for at a base area. Mr. Richard Shaw then discussed the merits of the project in further detail. He stated they tried to make responsive amendments to the original submission which included the following. 1. Lift 1A needs a public portal that is visible and welcoming  Modifications to improve the views to new lift  Enhanced terminus to S Aspen St for public access including turn around  Year round multi use access utilizing public bus transportation 2. New ski lift  New lift will replace a 45-year-old lift Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 4  Proposal provides for mazing, entrances, a slow-down area and easy access  New lift will be high speed technology  Access improved over existing conditions 3. Restore historic lift 1 corridor  Building masses moved to maintain the views of the corridor  Skier return modified to allow for ability to return to Dean St 4. Increase size of arrival for unloading and public access  Enlarged the turnaround  Incorporated areas for loading and unloading  Improved surrounding pedestrian space  Improved American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards access including an elevator providing slope side access  Addressed engineering requirements and concerns 5. Reduced scale and mass of building  20% reduction in scale and mass  Increased operational efficiency of building  Included greater architecture variation to break up building facade He then provided a slide depicting a site plan and elevations comparing the location of the current and proposed lifts. The existing lift loads at an elevation of 8,018 ft. The new lift proposed to load at an elevation of 8,016.5 ft. He then provided a slide and discussed the comparisons of the approaches to the gondola, existing lift 1A, and proposed lift. He stated there will be direct access with the new lift. He noted the linear ft for each approach to the loading point. He also provided a slide comparing the elevation changes for each approach. a. Gondola: 260 linear ft (lf) traversing about 19 ft in elevation gain b. Existing Lift 1A: 265 lf and 15 ft in elevation gain assuming drop off at the dumpster c. Proposed approach: 160 lf and 16.5 ft in elevation gain Mr. Shaw then provided a slide depicting a map of the route for the proposed transportation strategy. He stated the shuttle is simple, direct and frequent with eight trips per hour. The shuttle will be 4WD providing a safe link between the base area and Rubey Park. He then provided a slide showing existing conditions and the proposed enhanced environment. He reiterated the ski lift is visible upon arrival and the return skiing forms part of the identity of the entrance. He also provided a video portraying a skier arriving at the cul-de-sac and walking up the stairs to the lift mazing area. Mr. Shaw displayed a site plan and discussed subdividing the land in regards to how it should happen and what should be included. He stated their first modification was to reduce the number of lots from four existing lots to two lots which are more rectangular. In regards to vacating the ROWs, he noted half the street below them has been vacated. Summit St is in the middle of what they perceive as the ski run today. S. Aspen St has had half of it vacated for projects located below their site. They are proposing to do the same thing that has already been done in the ROWs. The ROWs were originally generated by a planning scheme that could never be implemented due to the topography of the site. There is no Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 5 vehicular access to use of the ROWs. The City does have a need for a number of utilities and they are suggesting in lieu of the ROWs, they would grant permanent easements to allow all the functions necessary for the utility systems. In addition, they would not modify the public’s access to the property in any way. They would maintain skier, pedestrian access through recreational easements on the proposed plat. Mr. Shaw then discussed the sizing of the project. He provided a slide showing a table comparing the average individual room size for the proposed lodge, Lift One Lodge, The Little Nell, Residences of the Little Nell, Sky Hotel, St. Regis, Jerome and Limelight. Their proposed average room size is a modest 417 sf which was the smallest of all the entities identified on the table. The same slide compared the number of keys/lodging rooms as well and the proposed lodge has 81 keys. This project is similar in size to the Lift One Lodge, Little Nell Hotel and remarkably smaller than the larger hotels in Aspen. Mr. Shaw next provided a slide showing the view of the project from the Wheeler Opera House. He showed a picture of the existing view and another picture with the completed project which he noted does not significantly alter the view. The project is invisible from Main St so he did not show anything for that view plane. Mr. Shaw then provided a map indicating the location of one, two, three, four and five story buildings in Aspen. He stated the area of the project contains two, three and four story structures. He then displayed another map identifying the height of neighborhood buildings. The heights ranged up to 53 ft. A broader view of building heights was then displayed and he noted there are many buildings higher than the proposed height of the Gorsuch Haus. The average height across the Gorsuch Haus project only contains about 94% of the building below the height limit. He noted both historic and recently approved projects include a wide variety and it is not unusual to have sections of find five and six story structures in this neighborhood and within the context P&Z is evaluating. He provided elevation slides of the project and discussed the vertical separations, color variations, material variations strategies used along with light and shadows created by balconies to make the building appear smaller and respond carefully to height and mass. He then discussed how the historic view corridors have been maintained including the uphill and entrance views. He provided a slide of the neighborhood context showing the distances between the buildings. He then described density as not only the square footage, but also how is the structure built in relationship with other buildings. He noted the following distances between the Gorsuch Haus and its neighbors. He stated the other neighboring buildings  56 ft to the north  67 ft to the west  135 ft to the east He pointed out the density being closer on other neighboring buildings are as small as 4 ft and ranges of 20-29 ft. He stated the density in the neighborhood is much greater than the Gorsuch Haus in terms of its relationship with other buildings. He then reviewed the FAR values of other lodge entities including Lift One, One Aspen Townhomes, Little Nell, Residences at Little Nell, Sky Hotel, North of Nell and Jerome. He stated Gorsuch Haus has 1.5 FAR as proposed. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 6 He also stated total floor area is another way to measure the size of a project and noted Gorsuch Haus is about 70,000 sf and noted the size of other lodges. He does not feel this project is massive when compared with other lodges. He then provided a new slide identifying public benefits:  New lift located in its lowest place  Improved lift access  Functioning ski base  Skier services  ADA access  Après ski deck  Slope-side restaurant  Improved connection to Summit and Monarch streets by granting pedestrian access  Ajax trail connection is a possibility  Improved terminus to S Aspen St  Public transportation available for the entire neighborhood  Improved skier return to Dean St. A video was then shown depicting a skier coming off the west side of Aspen Mountain. Mr. Shaw stated the project will have a presence in the neighborhood. He stated they have compatibility with the neighborhood which is lodging. This area needs completion of the entire idea as a hotel. Mr. Shaw stated past proposals were for much larger projects. This project is much more modest in scale. There will be an emphasis to fit in. He then provided a slide depicting showed pics of existing conditions and noted the existing base area does not serve the community. He added the building which is currently blocking the corridor will be removed. He told P&Z they have the chance to define the future and no one will criticize P&Z for the approval of a recommended new lift, suggesting there should be a new public base, providing transportation to the new lift and their leadership for thinking of the possibilities for a revitalized neighborhood at the top of S Aspen St. Mr. DeFrancia provided closing comments. He feels they have address previous concerns with size, height, neighborhood compatibility, and skier access. He asked them to approve the resolution and provide observations and concerns for conditions to be attached to the resolution. Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow stated one of P&Z’s concerns previously stated was the contentious relationship between Lift One Lodge owners and the applicant regarding lift placement and skier return. He asked if there had been any progress on this subject. Mr. DeFrancia replied the changes had been reflected in the original application that evolved from several meetings and discussions with Lift One Lodge. He stated they had asked for wider separation between the buildings. Mr. Mesirow then asked if there had been any discussion since the last P&Z meeting to which Mr. DeFrancia replied no because they already addressed their comments and there have been no other requests. He added the lift alignment remains as it has been proposed and does not preclude them from any actions they may want to take. He concluded stating they are out of the way. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 7 Mr. McNellis asked them to elaborate about 20% reduction of the size because he had heard 7% from other reports. Mr. Shaw discussed they consolidating the public spaces and service areas, collapsed two story spaces within the building. In total, the program did not change much, what changed was the amount of land area or building area exposed above grade. More sf has been placed below grade and reorganized for efficiencies. The 20% reduction is about the surface area of the elevations. They have pressed the building down closer to the grade. He added the 7% represents a reduction in the footprint and utilizes the portion of the building cantilevered over the cul-de-sac. Mr. McNellis stated a real sticking point was the vacating of public ROWs and asked how the project maintains the easements. Mr. Shaw stated in some cases, half of the street has already been vacated for other reasons. He noted there are some significant utilities crossing the site including a line connecting a water tank to town. Right now in order to rebuild and update the water tank feed, there is an easement allowing for the water line. He stated part of the ROW is used and part is through an easement granted by SkiCo. They are suggesting to straighten out and widen the easement without any features over the top of the areas. The permanent easements would be granted to the City of Aspen. Additional utilities to be addressed include storm water management. The difficulty with the ROWs is that they don’t actually go where the utilities actually need to run. Mr. Shaw stated there are not currently vehicular access to the ROWs because they are too steep. The cul-de-sac makes a better use of the property and a better emergency access. Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Phelan if the Engineering department has had time to review this information. She answered that she received an email from Engineering stating most of the original comments stand and they are concerned about vacating ROWs. She adding vacating the ROWs also allows the building to be on part of the public ROW. She concluded they need to ask for the public benefit for removing the ROWs above the need to address the utilities. Mr. Mesirow noted the applicant team’s statements of not maximizing the area but the project is clearly significant larger in SF than what is allowed in the zoning as well as if it were Lodge zoning. He asked them to elaborate why they need it without comparing it to other properties. Mr. Shaw stated the Lodge zone only gives a baseline, not a comparison to what actually would be constructed. He continued stating in the Lodge zone district there are number of provisions including the lot size, which could allow for a much larger building than what has been proposed. He said there is a sliding scale of unit size that relates to the number of lodging units per sf of land and the Lodge zone district provides for a wide range. He believes the proposed rooms and public spaces are small, but adequate for a successful hotel. The proposed hotel has more space around it because it is dedicated to skiing and that is why you need the flexibility to adapt the lift, the access, the drop off, and the public portal for the right size project to be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Mesirow asked if the adaptability is what makes the Ski Base (SKI) zone mandatory for the project. Mr. Shaw replied it is the only zoning which allows for the proposed uses. Mr. Mesirow asked if the average sf of 417 includes all rooms such as the fractional and free market rooms. Mr. Shaw replied it only the lodging rooms are included in the calculation of the average sf. Mr. Mesirow then asked if the average room size for the fractional and fee market rooms was larger. Mr. Shaw stated it is not fractional, it is condominiums and they are counted in the sf of the unit size. The free market rooms are not. The free market is proposed to be 1,500 sf to 1,900 sf which are two and three bedroom units and are not giant penthouses. Ms. Jesse Young, Design Workshop, noted if the condo units are factored in, the average is approximately 522 sf. Mr. McNellis noted the applicant stating the lift was among the community benefits. He agrees it would be huge, but feels it is an amenity of SkiCo, not the applicant. Mr. Shaw responded the lift will not be replaced unless the project is built. He added the density of the project is required to make the new lift Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 8 possible. Mr. McNellis stated it should not be listed as a benefit. Mr. DeFrancia stated this is not an award for SkiCo, but an obligation. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Quinn if there is a way for P&Z to obligate the approval with the replacement of the lift as a condition. Ms. Quinn stated P&Z is making a recommendation to City Council who could address it. Mr. Mesirow understands the benefits of having a revitalized base, but feels it should be a positive community focused space and he asked why the contention with the Lift One Lodge has not been addressed. Mr. DeFrancia stated he communicated with Mr. Brown over a month ago that he would be happy to meet to show him the latest changes. Mr. Brown thanked him and replied he would be travelling and would contact him upon his return. Mr. DeFrancia stated he never heard back from Mr. Brown. He suggested Mr. Mesirow ask Mr. Brown about what he finds objectionable. Mr. Gorsuch added he applauds Mr. Brown regarding their project. He added they are real estate developers, doing great work in Aspen. He stated he had meetings with them as early as 2014 to share his vision. He stated they had open discourse last summer at the Design Workshop offices. He felt they worked to have the buildings speak to each other. He is not sure of the disconnect, but feels they both have great projects. He does not feel their project’s building is in the way of the lift. He added many of the Home Owner Associations (HOAs) are looking forward to having vitality brought to the area. He stated they are still listening and feels this meeting with P&Z as a leadership group to identify the tolerances so the project can move forward. Mr. Mesirow asked them to draw a picture of a race day once the project has been completed. Mr. Gorsuch showed a slide of racing finish and discussed what it would be like to walk to the viewing stands and the finish. Mr. DeFrancia added the race finish and grand stands will be where it has always been. Mr. Goode asked why the dropped from four lots to two lots. Mr. Shaw stated the land had four subdivided lots originally left over from different transactions. Originally they thought they would consolidate into four lots to accommodate the hotel, skier access and areas of Government Lot 31 which is located in Pitkin County. When they discussed with staff, they determined they could do it with only two lots. Mr. Goode stated P&Z had asked for more cooperation at the previous hearing and he wanted to confirm no changes had been made regarding the lift placement. Mr. DeFrancia stated everyone in town would like to see the lift go down to Dean St. He added they can only control the land to which the lift is on their property. They have provided a lift placement and accessibility to the lift that is an improvement from what currently exists. The alignment is such that the lift could come down lower. For it to come down lower is a function of the landowner below them, the Browns and the Lift 1 Lodge as well as the restrictions on the property including the City and the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). It also involves SkiCo to deal with the operational functions of having the lift lower on the mountain. He said there is nothing they can do beyond providing a placement to allow it to go down which they would support. Mr. Goode opened for public comment. Ms. Marcia Goshorn stated life of skiing was on this side of town in 1960. This project will bring this back. She feels it is a small lodge that could fit into the gems of Aspen. She added the wholesalers, tour operators and ski clubs are still looking for small lodges. She feels this is the best location for ski based lodging and it could bring skiers from the Gondola area. The access from Rubey park alone opens this side of the mountain up. The ROWs would probably improve access for the City because they would be Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 9 in better places. She noted this area used to have smaller lodges but are now gone. The corridor for the lift to come down is available and she understands the project below is required to do something. Ms. Junee Kirk, stated she was part of second Lift 1A COWOP and feels this project has really made amends to adapt to the community needs in that they have reduced the mass and scale. Usually the design guidelines for larger structures at the bottom of the mountain. She feels it fits in with the neighborhood. She has had the opportunity to walk the property with a planner working with the applicant and was amazed that it didn’t extend further up the mountain than it shows. It is almost equal with the Mountain Queen and did not extend much further than the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. She feels staff’s advisement in the last meeting to reduce the mass and design with a flat roof was a mistake. In order to keep the historic character of the area, it would be better to have roofline similar to Shadow Mountain. She feels a 20% reduction is significant and the public ROW is a nonissue since the lodges below have vacated ROWs. She asked how many people want to take a Poma lift up from Dean St and feels the likelihood is zero. Mr. Dave Bellack, stated for 20 years he was Sr. Vice President of SkiCo and added he has no financial interest in the project. He also was a member of the unfortunate COWOP process as both COWOP efforts were voted down by Council. He feels this project is consistent with what had been identified by the COWOP processes and he feels the area needs to be revitalized. Mr. Jeff Halferty, HPC member, stated a big regret HPC had was losing the Holland House and Skier’s Chalet. He also participated on the COWOPs. He feels the applicant has listened and made adjustments based on comments from staff and the commission regarding mass, access, and ski corridor. He applauds the commission for making this a better project. He thinks the City will gain a wonderful asset and it will provide wonderful benefits to the community. He closed by asking P&Z to recommend it to Council with an affirmative. Mr. Rob Snyder stated when he first skied Aspen, lift 1A was a brand new lift. Having lived here for over the past 40 years, he has consistently seen a clash between the City’s history and basic change. He feels this area has become a ghost town and sees this as an opportunity to create a real local’s portal. He has seen other projects go through the process and stated if you keep chipping away you end up with something that doesn’t work for the builder or the community. Lastly, having known Mr. Gorsuch and his family for 40 years, he can’t think of a better group to take this on. Ms. Marissa Lasky has been in Aspen a long time and feels the City has one chance to get this right. She hopes they consider the whole project down to Dean St. She acknowledged she lives on Dean at South Point. Everyone in the building objects to shuttles running every seven minutes. She would like to see some type of lift for locals down to Dean St. She stated she was on a zoning board for 15-16 years and she is sensitive to staff’s recommendations and what the people want to see. She does feel the rubber tire solution is viable. Mr. Stefan Kaelin has been a retailer in town for 42 years. He raced in 1964 and won the GS. In regards to the international ski community, this area is a disgrace. He urged P&Z to move forward with this project. He feels there has been lots of progress with commercial buildings in town, but not on this side of the hill. Ms. Toni Kronberg thanked P&Z and the public for being at the meetings. She asked if a letter she sent had been received and distributed. Ms. Phelan replied it was in the agenda packet. She state if staff’s recommendations had been met, there is one fatal flaw with the project which she identified as the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) study on S Aspen St. This project will not pass if you look at the criteria and the TIA. She also noted the neighbors are not speaking to each other. She feels Mr. Brown Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 10 does not want a lift coming onto his property. Since the City owns S. Aspen St, she asked what if the lift came down S. Aspen St. She feels S. Aspen St is very dangerous and should be snow melted. She asked the Gorsuch team to speak with the City, bypassing Mr. Brown to meet the community’s goals. Mr. Michael Brown, Lift One Lodge, noted he is perturbed. He stated all the overtures made by the group have never been made in earnest. They have not been interested in providing a landing spot for a platter lift which became apparent to him. He stated last year in the fall they met with the Gorsuch team and SkiCo who asked them to look at a proposal to land the lift lower on the eastern side of their site where the Skier’s Chalet Lodge is today. He also noted their project had already been approved. He stated they spoke over a period of 60-90 days and came up with an alternate plan to land a gondola into the Skier’s Chalet at the behest of SkiCo. He did not feel it would be possible to forego their entitlement, spend two years in planning, and obtain a vote of the community. They presented the plan and he stated Mr. Gorsuch was intrigued by the plan. When they followed up with Mr. DeFrancia a week later, he responded they like their project as it was and their chances and they wanted to proceed. Mr. Brown feels the best that could happen for the piece of property is for it to revert back to SkiCo who has the most at stake for creating a great mountain and can collaborate with the neighbors. He is not aware of one HOA that supports the Gorsuch project. He hopes it is not too late for this opportunity. Mr. Bart Johnson, Lift One Lodge, stated the COWOP is worth looking at and noted an approved site plan on page 12 of Staff’s memo. He wanted to point out the building highest on the site plan and noted it is about 100 ft lower on the mountain than what is currently proposed. He feels the project provides community benefits, but there is a cost. He feels the order is wrong having the lift tagged on to the hotel. Whatever gets approved will spur a new lift and it doesn’t have to be this project. In regards to the SKI zoning district, he wanted remind everyone this zone was created for Aspen Highlands when the City annexed the property from the County because the property did not fit into any of the existing zone districts at the time. He feels the Norway ski run has fallen off the table. If you stay on the left side of the run, you will have to take off your skis, and walk around the plaza. He also encouraged P&Z to look at staff’s recommendation regarding the 8040 Greenline. Mr. Craig Platt is an owner at Shadow Mountain. He bought here because it is in conservation area. He doesn’t feel the City has addressed accessing the area. He feels allowing the hotel here will change what conservation is about. According to the developers, it was zoned Conservation because they didn’t know what to do with it. He feels skiers coming down Norway will be utilizing a narrow corridor of 67 ft between the buildings. In regards to transportation to the area, he feels it is one of the most dangerous places in town today. I’m shocked the City could imagine buses and delivery vehicles traveling this street at night. He stated their HOA has huge concerns with blocked views and encroachments as well as noise issues. Mr. Tom Elbert, feels the goal of the city should be to bring the platter down to Durant St and create a people mover up the hill. This should be initiated by the City. He feels the community wants something like the gondola and feels the board should lead instead of react. He feels all the hotel projects are worthy, but the City should vacate S. Aspen St and bring a gondola down. He stated the City should start with a premise and then find a solution Mr. Matt Ferguson stated he is a friend of Gorsuch family and would prefer P&Z approve this with conditions. He heard the adjacent developer state they are not getting along and SkiCo should be developing it which is not a reason to oppose it. This project should be held up because the adjacent land owner does not agree with it. Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 11 Mr. Goode then asked the applicant to respond to the public comment. Mr. DeFrancia stated they have already responded to the business of the lift going lower. He stated it is out of their control. They would be happy do everything they can to facilitate it. In response to Mr. Brown, Mr. DeFrancia stated they deal in earnest with people of integrity. He stated they do not hold themselves as skiing experts, SkiCo is the expert and they speak to the skiing issues. Again, they would support anything to land the lift lower. He stated they have been speaking with this group for years and met on several occasions. They met in detail last November and the Lift One team presented a plan showing the prospect of a middle location for landing the lift and having SkiCo perhaps making it a gondola. Part of this included Mr. Brown losing a building if they did this. Mr. DeFrancia stated they responded that this would be fine, but Mr. Brown had an additional request to be allowed to intrude on to their site with a building that was displaced by the proposed gondola. Mr. Brown suggested this may take up to 100 ft. Mr. DeFrancia stated they responded with possibly 40 ft, but not 100 ft. They also offered to have their architects work with Mr. Brown’s team. Mr. DeFrancia was aware Mr. Brown was preparing to seek an amendment to his approval and suggested it would be a good time to bring up the changes. In the meantime, they would proceed with their own approval. Mr. DeFrancia stated Mr. Brown responded that they would simply oppose their project. Mr. DeFrancia stated they responded by creating the “knuckle” on the original building to move away from their building. They had earlier proposed a different transport system, which the Lift One Team did not want on their property. Mr. DeFrancia feels there is a bit of distortion regarding their lack of communication with the Lift One Lodge owners. In response to the others requesting the lift be brought down lower, he thinks it is a great idea but it is out of their control. He noted they have assured an alignment to allow the lift to be brought down lower. Mr. DeFrancia appreciates the concern of buses going up and down S. Aspen St, but they are proposing smaller vans, not big busses. He feels the impact will be minimal. Mr. Shaw wanted to address changing the building in response to its relationship on Norway. He stated the technology of the new lift requires a certain amount of space before it can proceed up the hill. The requirements for the space by the lift, not the building impact the skier return. He feels the majority of all the skiing has been accommodated by the positioning of the lift. In regards to ROWs, he asked how many people attending the meeting have utilities in easements and not ROWs. He added everyone does because it is a common, modern way of dealing with utilities. When ROWS are platted on topography that makes no sense, the easement will only improve the situations. In regards to comment about the conservation zone district, Mr. Shaw stated they discussed examples where other areas zoned conservation now represents the Little Nell Hotel and the Aspen Alps. Mr. Shaw wanted to reflect on comments made at the last meeting discussing the operational and functional difficulties of the platter lift. He stated the Colorado Tramway board has confirmed the issues having uphill and downhill traffic at the same time on the run down the hill. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to address the road conditions on S Aspen St. He state the Lift One Lodge approval includes the infrastructure for a boiler to address the situation. He added the applicant would be okay with a condition to include collaboration on this effort. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 12 Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant how they are asking for SKI zoning because it is a full package including skiing but they have no ability to change the lift. Mr. DeFrancia stated they can only change the lift on their property only. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury reiterated comments heard a year ago from the Community Development Department how this part of town could be one plus one equals three. She feels they are so far from this and there are some bad partners in this including the City. She feels the City should have been more involved in cultivating a conversation regarding this part of town and addressing bringing the lift further down. She feels P&Z has provided direction and they have not seen anything materialize. She is very torn and will look at this project in isolation because it her only option. She feels the applicant is at a disadvantage being second to the table. She recognizes some public benefit with the proposed use and feels the SKI zone is appropriate. She is concerned regarding the size of the building and how far the building is going up the hill. She does not feel the applicant has recognized the need of a greater balance with public benefit. She feels P&Z has been consistent across applications and has asked for responses to detailed criteria and does not predominately feel even the minor criteria have been addressed even up to the fourth meeting. Mr. McKnight recognizes the frustration experienced with the previous efforts to revitalize this area of town. He feels piecemealing it with one-off projects is not the way to revitalize the base area. In looking at what this project offers, he appreciates a lot of efforts by the applicant. He likes how the building steps up the hill, but still believes it is too big of a building. The mass, size and height is an issue. He feels this project is on a path to be something remarkable, but is not there yet. Because this area is such a special place, he cannot support it at this time. He feels the building size and the other commissioner’s comments need to be addressed. He feels the public benefit presented is great, but leans toward the hotel guests and the free market owners, rather than the general community or visitors. He feels the necessary changes have not yet occurred. Ms. Tygre motioned to continue to 7:15 pm and seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All approved, motion carried. Mr. McNellis is passionate that something needs to happen to revitalize this side of the mountain. He is excited about the possibilities but believes the building scale and mass are too large and would like to see it brought in with the scale of the mountain. He believes there needs to be a higher standard given it will be the highest building on the mountain, it is located in a Greenline area, and is currently zoned Conservation. The building will be very visible from other portions of town and you will see eight stories in its profile. He believes the PD is typically reserved for a remarkable project. Although the development team has addressed many of his issues, but not quite all issues. His remaining issues to be addressed include the following:  He remains concerned how the project encroaches on the historic ski hill and possibly constrains the ski run, specifically the meeting and patio areas.  He wants to ensure the all the easements and trees are respected in the area.  He is still concerned how the Norway ski run will be impacted.  He is concerned with the latest design including the encroachment over the cul-de-sac that will be deeded to the City. He feels it was a big gesture by the applicant to move a portion of the building to allow pedestrian access, but believes the projection of the building over the ROW privatizes the cul-de-sac. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 13  He believes there may be other methods to improve the easement situations and would like confirmation from engineering prior to pushing the project forward.  He recognizes the lift as an amenity, but will not push the project forward just to get a new lift. The lift will follow the right project.  If the board would entertain an approval, he would like a condition for approval for snowmelt to be included. Ms. McNicholas Kury expressed she is okay with the FAR and total sf as presented although she would like to see an option to break up the mass of the building. Although it was not part of any option presented, she would be open to a condition that proposes breaking up the mass of the building. Mr. Mesirow stated without having any idea how it would be broken up, he could not agree with adding that as a condition. Ms. Tygre agrees with the other commissioners on many points. She agrees the mass of building could possibly be split up, but she is not sure that would allow for efficient operations. She also feels it is not up to the commission to design the project and would feel uncomfortable having a condition for a redesign. She believes the rubber tire solution for lift access is not a viable solution. She doesn’t understand why it was possible to have a lift from Dean St in the 1960’s and now it can’t be done. She does not want to go forward with approvals until the project is one that everyone wants to see. She feels it is unfortunate the neighbors are squabbling but it doesn’t absolve the commission from its responsibilities to the community. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Tygre if there was any mechanism the commission could suggest to incentivize, such as matching escrows to the downslope neighbors as a condition for approval. Ms. Tygre feels it may take more because of all the organizations involved including the applicants, neighbors, SkiCo and the City. She stated the City may have interest in completely realigning the lift to take advantage of S. Aspen St or other locations. She added all of this goes beyond an individual project. Mr. Mesirow acknowledged Mr. Gorsuch’s investment into the community as well as members of the audience. He agrees with a revitalization of the area as big community benefit. He doesn’t feel the proposal is there yet. He noted he often feels he is in a positon of interpreting and enforcing existing law and not to make policy. He believes because the applicant is requesting a SKI zoning district, it is appropriate to suggest how the project could be improved. He feels P&Z has suggested improvements at each meeting and each time has been effectively dismissed. The first suggestion being the removal or significant reduction of the free market residential component. He believes there is a better use of this space which speaks to the vision provided by the applicant. Secondly, a better arrival/departure solution and a lift option that goes lower. He understands the complications with that but feels there a many options to get there. Lastly, although he recognizes it is not entirely in the applicant’s control, he feels better relations with their neighbors is important. Tonight, he cannot support the project until some of his concerns are addressed. Mr. Goode stated the historic nature of the location is something he did not experience. He wants to believe in the proposal, but feels it needs to address all parties. He is almost there, but feels the size is still an issue. He doesn’t feel it is a small lodge, but he doesn’t want to see this building from Smuggler. He would also like to see the lift down to Dean St. Ms. Quinn asked the applicant to provide a copy of everything presented at the hearing. She added there are two choices for the applicant. One is a request for continuance or taking recommendation of denial to Council. Ms. Tygre moved to make a recommendation of denial which was not seconded. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 20 2016 14 Mr. Goode asked Mr. DeFrancia if the applicant wanted a continuance. Mr. DeFrancia stated there is nothing they can do to bring the lift lower down. Mr. Mesirow stated they have asked the past three meetings to try to engage and a discussion has not even happened. Ms. Quinn asked him to respond if he wanted a continuance or not. Mr. DeFrancia stated they are happy with a continuance but he does not want to give false expectations as there are things they simply cannot do. Ms. Tygre’s motion was seconded. Ms. Quinn referred to the resolution included in the packet and outlined the necessary changes for it to be a recommendation of denial.  Change the title caption to state denial.  On page 2 of 10 of the draft resolution, Section one would state denial rather than approval  It would not be subject to any conditions for approval  The remaining sections are not necessary from section 2 beyond.  The portion at the end of the section discussing the items P&Z have requested of the applicant. Ms. Tygre then removed her motion. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she wants to be an advocate for a lodge in this area even if this project has not met what she need to approve it. She does not feel the City has shown up in this part of town to resolve the lift issue and they are the only true steward who can resolve the issue. She asked if something could be included in the resolution. Ms. Quinn stated if the commission felt strongly about this, they could include a statement. Mr. McNellis stated there have been instances when projects have moved on to Council and have been resolved. He feels these issues may be resolved at Council and they could kick it back to P&Z if they decide to do so. Mr. Mesirow noted Council has proven they review P&Z’s comments regarding an application. Ms. Tygre asked for the minutes to reflect the other board members are in agreement in that the City can and should be more of a player in this situation. Ms. Tygre then moved to approve Resolution 7 as amended and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes; for a total six Yes votes and zero No votes (6- 0). The motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Mr. Goode thanked Ms. Quinn for all her efforts working with P&Z. Mr. Mesirow noted it was her last meeting. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager