Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20031104ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04, 2003 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 253 SILVERLODE - DRAC VARIANCE ............................................................. 3 LITTLE RED SKI HAUS PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04, 2003 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in City CoUncil Chambers. Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, jack j0hnS0nI Ruth ~ger, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland arrived at 4:45 pm. Staffin attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ruth Kruger asked aboUt the stop sign change at Aspen and Durant; she said you are not able to stop at Durant coming down Aspen Street. Joyce Allgaier replied that she would check with the city engineer. Allgaier mentioned the City of Aspen Boards and Commissions Party would' be December 4th ar the Wheeler. Allgaier noted that she had 2 books for the commissioners to borrow on the Planning ABCs. Allgaier reminded the commissioners about the special growth management next Tuesday, November 11th, 5pm at Rio Grande Place for Park Place. Jasmine Tygre asked if council denied the application then wouldn't the growth management meeting become moot. Allgaier replied that would be correct; first reading with council was on the l0th and they can't gain final approval unless the GMQS is held. David Hoefer said that sometimes the cases get litigated and it is important to have a clean record; last week a number of members got off on personal political tangents, which should be avoided. Hoefer reminded the commission that they were a review board and not a political board. Hoefer stated that the criteria sheets were to provide help with the commissioners' comments and avoid personal philosophies. MINUTES MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve the minutes from October 21, 2003; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 7-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04, 2003 PUBLIC HEARINGi 253 sILVER_LODE - DRAC VARIANCE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer explained for the DRAC reviews there must be 4 affirmative votes for approval; the criteria sheets were distributed. The criteria: (1) it yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) it more effectively addresses the issue or problem of the given standard or provision; (3) or is clearly necessary for fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Hoefer said the affidavit of notice was provided. Scott Woodford said that there was a request for variances from the residential design standards for 8 additional non-orthogonal windows for the property located at 253 SilverLode, Lot 11 SilverLode Subdivision. Staff does not feel that it meets the criteria because it doesn't meet the goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan or lessen the non-orthogonal windows and does not have any site-specific constraints; staffrecommended denial. Woodford provided the history of other houses in the neighborhood gaining non- orthogonal windows by using FAR or restating the windows. Hoefer stated that the language of the code has been changed since that time. Tygre clarified for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Stan Mathis, represented John Elmore the owner, stated that there were previous applications for deviation from the design code. Mathis noted the design code did not easily apply to this area of town and the design code was developed for the West End of town. Mathis said that there were no alleys and the houses did not all face the streets. Mathis justified that the elements of the design code were not met by many of the other houses in this area and this area deserved extra consideration. Ruth Kruger asked when the design standard changes were scheduled to be reviewed. Woodford replied that the code amendment went to Council. Joyce Allgaier said that the Council did not want staff to proceed with residential specific design standards. Jack Johnson asked how does P&Z go about requesting the DRAC changes to the code. Allgaier replied that P&Z would request City Council direct staff to re-evaluate the Residential Design Standards and potentially make code amendments. Dylan Johns asked what issue or problem that the non-orthogonal window component of the Design Review Guidelines responds to; what's so bad about non- orthogonal windows. Allgaier responded that the residential design standards happened because of what was happemng in the West End with a great deal more 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04~ 2003 floor area with scrape and replace creating houses that were out o£ context with that neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods. Allgaier said that there was concern by the Aspen Community as to why we couldn't have residential design standards that help Us get to the kind o£window to wall ratio. There was a change in the type of windows with rounded top palladium windows that were not in keeping with the character that Aspen calls itself. The one-story element should have the feeling of the house stepping back, the garage orientation, the door orientation and non-orthogonal window standards were put in place to accommodate the character Of Aspen. No public comments. Steve Skadron said that it made for a better aesthetic and was in compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Ruth Kruger said that she drove up to look at this house and it retains and encourages the eclectic character of our community. Kruger noted the homes were high above the street. Roger Haneman agreed pretty much with what the applicant stated. Dylan Johns said that the front fagade was most impacting on the streetscape and asked if the applicant had the option to keep the non-orthogonal windows if they reduced the FAR. Woodford replied that was not an option. Johns said that more glass would be added if the windows were squared rather than rounded; therefore it could address the issue more effectively. Jasmine Tygre reminded the commission that the fairness had to be site-specific. David Hoefer stated that it was akin to a regular variance, which also had to be site-specific. Jack Johnson asked if site-specificity was defined in the land use code. Hoefer replied that it was in the code: Site Specific Development Plan (SSDP1.21 development plan that has obtained final approval from the city after review and evaluation as provided for in this Title, including notice and public hearing, and which describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific lot(s), parcel(s), site(s), or other area(s) of land. and which incorporates all of the terms and conditions of approval. An SSDP may include or take the form of a PUD. subdivision plat. development and/or subdivision improvement agreement, a use or activity permitted on review, or such instrument or document as identified and agreed upon by the city and landowner or developer. A license, map. varzance, easement or permit shall not constitute an SSDP. Johnson said that there was a contradiction inherent in the residential design standards and he doesn't see how we can promote eclectic design with guidelines that were based on only one area of town and one type of residential design. Therefore in his opinion it was unfair to hold an applicant to that standard. Johnson said that he didn't know how to promote the eclectic design yet at the same time have these guidelines based upon the global use in the city when they were based on one particular area. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04~ 2003 David Hoe£er said that the approval or denial should not be based upon speculation. Hoefer said that variances and appeals as on this situation were not designed t° be something that is easy to do. A regUlar variance Should rarely be granted but only in unusual circumstances. Hoefer said that there was no precedence allowed in land use. Roger Haneman noted that just because house was built with non-orthogonal windows doesn't allow this particular situation to be accepted. Eric Cohen stated that this was not the place to decide whether you agree with the rules but stick with what the rules are. Jasmine Tygre agreed with Eric's comment. John Rowland said that it clearly doesn't conform with the rules and he did not think the success of this building would be hampered by orthogonal windows at all. Rowland said it was an attractive house and other elements would make it juist as successful. David Hoefer noted that Steve Skadron would be x(oting and John Rowland would be the non-voting member. MOTION: RUth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #25, series 2003, for a variance to ~he re~s~dentiai design Standards to allow for more than one non- orthogonal window on each fagade for the residence at 253 SilverLode Drive, Lot 11, SilverLode Subdivision. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll cal vote: Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Haneman, no; Cohen, no; Johnson, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. Approved 4-3. PUBLIC HEARING: LITTLE RED SKI HAUS PUD AMENDMENT~ SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating for the Little Red Ski Haus PUD Amendment, Subdivision and Timeshare located at 118 East Cooper. David Hoefer stated that three affidavits were provided. Steve Skadron would be the alternate on this for voting purposes. Joyce Allgaier provided the commission with the timeshare changes that took place at the end of 2002 (Ordinance #21-02) addressing fractional ownership, Allgaier said the Planning Commission had a good position that these could be good for Aspen so the regulations were worded the way they are so that fractional 0~erships or timeshares to replicate what the lodges were like with desk people, staff in the lobby with a reception desk, concierge with amenities, as many beds as 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COM~SSION Minutes N°vember 04, 2003 the lodges had as well as units. The roomS/units should not be exclUsiVe but open and put into an available rental pool for the general pUbliC. Allgaier said they WoUld no~ reguia~e the ownership but WOuld regulate the use. James Lindt commented that Little Red Ski Haus came through With the PUD a year and a half ago to expand the lodge. It currently has 13 lodge units and a proposal to fracti0nalize to one-sixteenth (1/16); the applicant will rent to the public 4 weeks of each year for each unit during the higher occupancy times. The City Council will review the tax implications of the fractional ownership. P&Z will discuss the operational characteristics of the proposed timeshare. Staff believed it met the requirements with amenities sufficient to the lodge with on-site dining facilities conditioned that the restaurant couldn't advertise separately. There were laundry facilities, a Jacuzzi and front desk on site. Mike Franzmann introduced Bill Gouger representing the Little Red Ski Haus applicant and Beverly Fiore, one of the lodge owners. Franzmann explained that it was very difficult to operate a small bed and breakfast at a profit; the fractional ownership proposal meets both criteria because it allows a high mm over of rooms and preserves the lodge. Bill Gouger mentioned that the lodge received an award for the remodel and the current issue of SKI Magazine has an article on the Little Red, which confirms that this is a unique property and a viable way to preserve this property as a lodge. Beverly Fiore said that the day-to-day operations would remain the same with a live-on site host and she said that she was there daily; the lodge was run very personal. Ruth Kruger asked how long have they been open and operating. Beverly Fiore replied that it will be 2 years in December that they have owned it but it was closed that next spring and reopened last December after extensive remodeling. Kruger asked what kind of reservation system would they be tied into. Fiore answered they work With Stay Aspen, Aspen Ski Tours, 3 Australian Tour Groups and on- line booking. Kruger asked why the timeshare element was not brought through the first time. Lindt replied that it wasn't part of the original application because the applicant didn't think about timeshare at that time. Franzmann said that just getting through the renovation was enough and after it was finished they thought about the timeshare. Jasmine Tygre said that the prior minutes and resolution were helpful. Steve Skadron asked how the occupancy percentages were since the remodel and prior to. Fiore replied that she did not have them in hand but said that last February was good but March and April were down. Fiore said she has seen growth. Gouger said that the lodge had been closed for almost a year for 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04~ 2003 renovation. Skadron asked how the timeshare will increase the numbers for the lodge. Franzmann stated that they prepared research to compare traditional occupancy rates based upon fractional ownership versus lodging. Gouger said the fractional ownership owners on an average use their properties 85% of the time with the combination of keeping some high season available for non-ownership rentals. John Rowland asked the process for getting one of the rooms into the rental pool; how much lead-time does the owner need for notification. Franzmann replied the weeks will float from year to year and be one to two years in advance; there would be an incentive for the owner to rent the units when not being used. Lindt noted that the timeshare ordinance required sufficient notice but doesn't define what sufficient notice ~s or as to what a lead-time should be. Lindt said the applicant proposed a month prior to not using the unit. Eric Cohen asked what happens when a certmn number of fractions sell but not enough to make a difference. Gouger responded that if not more than 10% of the fractional units sell, then they would not go to a fractional ownership and change the ownership of the property. Cohen asked how many bunks were in the bunk rooms and how would they be fractionalized. Franzmann replied that the 2 rooms were fractionalized and not the beds. Jack Johnson asked how the lead-time would be policed. Lindt said that there was a month lead-time in the resolution and staff would follow-up. Franzmann said that they wanted to have the rooms available for the X-Games, Comedy Fest, Food and Wine and Christmas. Johnson asked if there was discussion of lodges of this size becoming fractional. Joyce Allgaier said it wasn't something that was overlooked; it was contemplated that there could be all kinds of varieties of time- shares. Cohen asked when the time for maintenance of the property would be reserVed. Gouger replied that 25 of the 192 possible fraCtional interests would not be sold to the public but the various owners of the LLC would retain ownership and the maintenance would be included in that time frame. Tygre asked how the operations plan was enforced and what happens if it doesn't function the way it was approved. Lindt responded that if it was operating differently than the approved P&Z or Council operations plan then staff would have to do enforcement. Allgaier stated that there would be a PUD agreement for enforcement and the condominium declarations and covenants. David Hoefer said that the practicai matter Was that enforCement Was extremely difficult; if it 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04, 2003 concerned the city it would be addressed but the individual landowner covenants were not enforceable by the city. Tygre asked if the PUD agreement would contain the operations plan. Lindt replied that it would. Kruger asked if there was a GMQS exemption. Lindt responded that there was a growth management exemption for lodge preservation originally for the expansion. Kruger asked if the affordable housing requirements were any different in this process than the previous one Lindt answered the existing lodge gained growth management exemption during the first PUD; at that time growth management treated a lodge the same as a timeshare. Lindt said that they were not expanding therefore ~there would be no increase in employee generation; there was an increase in square footage but a decrease in bedrooms. Lindt said that there was a stipulation in the final council ordinance that was approved that would require an addition to the lodge become a deed-restricted unit if the lodge reverted back to a single-family house through a change in use process. Kruger asked how big the project was. Lindt said that there were about 6000 square feet above grade. Public Comments: Heddy Longworth stated that she was a realtor with Mason and Morse. Longworth said that people were making plans with less lead-time from current research with just a month or two ~n advance. Ruth Kruger said that she was conflicted with the issue but the previous time shares that the commission reviewed were larger time-share lodge with many more hotbeds and systems for the marketing and management. Kruger said she knew the lead-time was less in this market but voiced concern for this to be successful in the neighborhood and community. Steve Skadron stated that this made sense for the lodge and the community; there Were issues of accessibility, diversity and community balance that come into play here. Skadron sees it as an important point of entry with the price point for the units for ownership, which was a portion of the buying public previously excluded. Skadron said this was a full step on local owners to address a significant need and complimented the applicant. Eric Cohen said that part of the original PUD granted additional floor area based on the needs of a lodge, now the property is being condominiumized and selling off the additional FAR that was granted for lodge use. Cohen voiced concern over the additional FAR being sold off, the loss of another room [now 12 rooms from the original 22), which was an ongoing problem. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes November 04, 2003 Roger Haneman said that the arguments that Eric just made seem to be the same arguments Roger used against the St. Regis Time Share. Haneman stated that he was in favor of this project; he suggested a one bedroom have a one-month lead- time, the two-bedroom a two-month lead-time. Haneman said this applicant was the closest to what P&Z proposed for the time-share ordinance guidelines. Jack Johnson said that he was concerned about o~her lodges in town coming forward with time-share proposals but would not answer to the arbitrarily or artificially high rates therefore leading to lower occupancy rates. Johnson noted that was not the criteria by which he was to judge this project therefore he did not have an issue with the specific proposal. Jasmine Tygre stated that the commissioners made good comments because the commission was unsure what time shares would do for the community down the road; assumptions were made on time share applications and fractional ownerships based upon the occupancy rate given by the developers or owners. Tygre said it was not just this application but all of the fractional/time share applications out there were unknown as to what it will do to the hotbed base. Tygre noted the criteria that the commission had to judge the project were fulfilled. John Rowland asked if this had to always remain a lOdge. Lind/replied that they coUld apPly for a ~change in use application for a single'family dWelling and it is on the historic inventory. Rowland said that he was in favor of it and felt it Was a step in the right direction. ~ MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #26, series 2003, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, subdivision and timeshare lodge development request to allow for the Little Red Ski Haus, 118 East Cooper to convert to a timeshare lodge with the conditions set forth. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Cohen, yes; Haneman, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Mike Franzmann thanked the commission for their thoughtful questions, professionalism, fairness and consideration. MOTION: the Residential Design Review Standards because many of standards were inappropriate for many of the reviews that come before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED 7-0. Meetin~ adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ~ ~kie Lothi~-n, [Se~ty ~i~y'~f~rk Ruth Kruger moved to request City Council direct staff to re-evaluate 9