Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20031216ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16~ 2003 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................... 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................ . ............. 2 LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD ...................................... 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16, 2003 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in Council Chambers. Members John Rowland, Ruth Kruger, Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre were present Roger Haneman arrived at 4:40 and Jack Johnson was excused. COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Cohen armounced that he would be resigning effective February lS; with regret because he will no longer be living in the city. The comrmssion and staff will miss Eric, his participation and leadership skills. Ruth Kruger thanked staff for getting the stop sign switched. Joyce Allgaier asked on behalf of Chris Bendon for a special meeting on February 10th for the Civic Master .Plan work session; 5 members of the commission could attend. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from the December 2nd and November 4th meetings; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 7-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERE ST John Rowland, Eric Cohen. Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger had conflicts. Ruth Kruger voiced her protest in not being able to stay in the room as an audience member. David Hoefer stated the city's policy was adopted for the fmr review of public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD. David Hoefer explained that since there were only four voting members an approval took 3 affirmative votes. Hoefer stated that the notice was provided with the posting and mailing. Tygre stated that since this was such a large application with many parts it would be broken down into segments; tonight would be the PUD and dimensional requirements. Scott Woodford presented an additional letter from Alexander L. Beil. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16, 2003 Woodford outlined the two-step process, which would go through P&Z and City Council for conceptual review and final review must be submitted within one year of the council approved conceptual review. Any neighbors would be noticed. Tonight the issues relating to the building mass, height, setbacks, open space, site planning would be discussed. Future meeting discussions include the affordable housing, timeshare, parking, off-site improvements and any remaining issues not covered. Sunny Varm, planning consultant, stated the memo Scott prepared was detailed and thorough. Vann said the applicant was Aspen Land Fund II, a subset of the group from the Residences at Little Nell; the managing group was Aspen Newport Holdings comprised of SMB properties and parmers Brooke Peterson and Mike Smith. Vann stated the project was 2 separate parcels, which previously was 3 separate parcels but in connection with the approval of that application City Council approved the vacation of the alley and now it is 2 parcels separated by Juan Street. The parcels contain approximately 104,000 square feet; parcel #1 is located north of Juan Street is 42,500 square feet and the other parcel is about 62,000 square feet. The entire property was rezoned LTR. Currently there was a single-family residence, the Mine Dump Apartments and a parking lot, which was under a long-term lease with the SkiCo in the winter and a raft company in the summer. Vann noted use restrictions on Parcel #1 in the vicinity of the where the single family residence was currently located with a 16 foot height limitation on the northern most portion of that property measured from Juan Street and on the southern portion there was a prohibition against above grade structures. Those prohibitions were deed-restrictions for the benefit of Mary Barbee as long as she owns the property; if she sells her house those deed-restrictions go away. In the prior project that was the area earmarked for affordable housing and an open space area without structures. Vann said the trees on Parcel #2 will be preserved and will be subject to the city's re-vegetation requirements; utilities were available ar/d adequate to the site with some upgrades and minor relocations. Varm said the prior project was 14 free- market residential units spread out on all three parcels and 17 on site affordable housing units; final PUD was approved but the final plat was not recorded and they requested an extension of the 180-day deadline while processing this alternative application. Vann stated the proposed development consisted of 121 unit mixed use hotel fractional project; 76 hotel units, 29 fractional ownership units, 4 free-market ASPEN PLANNING & zONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16~ 2003 condominium units and 12 on-site affordable housing units. The project includes extension guest amenities; a fitness center and spa, an outdoor pool, restaurant, bar, apres ski dining terrace, a ballroom, a meeting room, a business center, some children's and adult's recreation areas and 2 shops. The combined project was considered by the city to be a timeshare/hotel. The project was designed as a five star facility with an operator to be determined after council set the parameters. Several of the hotel rooms include lockout making the total key count 80 keys; the 29 fractional ownershiP units do not include any lockouts at this point. Vann said the fractional ownership plan was essentially identical at the conceptual level as the plan that was proposed for the Residences at Little Nell; a 1/8th interest, which guaranteed 4 weeks, two in the winter and twoin the summer and available to the public when not occupied by the owners. The 4 free-market units would generate some immediate income to defray the cost of the project itself. Vann noted the FAR on the project was approximately 200,000 square feet, which equate to slightly more than 2 to 1. Vann explained the lodge/residential credits conversion, which was exempt from growth management. The affordable housing component has not been completely finalized. There were approximately 156 parking spaces in 2 separate garages; 78 spaces below parcel #1 and 78 below parcel #2. The parking complies with the all of the requirements for the land use code; for hotels, residential units, and 30 spaces for the SkiCo and space to accommodate the public hotel amenities. Vain said the parking consultant came up with 134 spaces needed to meet the parking requirements in the code. Vann stated that they have committed to house 60% of the employee generated (150-200 employees) and 60% of that number would be housed within the city limits; the remaining 40% would be housed within the urban growth boundary. The employee mitigation would be a combination of units constructed by the applicant, perhaps buy-downs, possible cash-in lieu, possibly some development at the Airport Business Center. The formula was reviewed by APCHA and voted in favor. Vann said the basic layout of the design was to break the structure up into multiple structures connected by a bridge. The bridge was a connection between various elements given the rise in the site. The 12 affordable housing units were located beneath the level in which the pool is located but not beneath the pool itself because the site rises and it goes up as well as across the site; the affordable units were at grade facing the Timberridge apartments and Dean Street right-of-way. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16, 2003 Varm said the parking area on parcel 1 serves the fractional ownership units on the lower portion of the property and the second serves the primary hotel component on parcel 2. Bill Poss and Kim Weil from Poss Architecture and Planning were present. Bill Poss said they have been working in conjunction with Phil Glaiser out of California who were principally in the hotel/hOspitality architectural industry. Poss utilized vicinity maps to illustrate how they were going to develop a project this complex and how it fits in with Shadow Mountain with a portal to the gt3ndola and Lift lA. They would create a pedestrian walkway that connects all the hotels at the base of the mountain. Poss noted this was the appropriate place for this type of development. There was approximatelybetween 66 to 70 feet in elevation change from Dean Street up to the Lift facilities. Poss said this was a revitalization of this portal since the gondola was built. The complex was broken into 3 separate building connected along a spine with a bridge between the factional units at the north end of the property, very similar to the condominiums located along Durant and Dean; the hotel and lodge units were placed at the ski area for vitality at the base area with a bar and restaurant with access to the lift. Poss said they have tried to be respectful of the neighbors by sloping the building down towards the Lift One Condominiums and tucked back th~ open space plaza out of the view of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums with the exception of one unit. The automobile accesses were pulled off the street and setback with landscaped courtyards to keep the residential nature along South Aspen. Poss said they went through a quasi- master planning process with the neighbors that might be involved in a future development of the lift facilities and came up with this plan. Poss utilized additional drawings to show the access to the lodge units and the 4 free-market units in the roof entering off of South Aspen Street with a porte- cochere and retaining the large spruce trees. The fractional entrance was the same with plenty of room to stage for loading and unloading luggage and direct access the parking facility. There was plenty of deck area at the swimming pool terraced down offofGarmish and Juan with privacy landscaping. Poss said on the upper portions of the site below the parking area that was retained off of Shadow Mountain Condominiums there was an Aprbs Ski deck, bar and restaurant that opens onto the deck area. There were 3 compatible but different styles of architecture; color and materials would be used to differentiate the different buildings. Sunny Vann said that this project involves several off-site improvements with improvements to Juan Street widening it to 27 feet, adding curb and gutters and sidewalks and agreed with the SkiCo to replace the Lift lA ski lift alignment. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minntes December 16, 2003 Roger Haneman asked why the bridge over Juan Street was so wide. Poss answered that several of the hotel rooms would be placed to keep the standard 4- story look. Jasmine Tygre asked why the dimensional requirements were so much larger than the underlying zoning in order to produce this design; one of the criteria for P&Z review was if the PUD dimensions have resulted in a better design on a particular site. Poss replied that in laying out hospitality units double loaded corridors were utilized for visibility to daylight for the rooms. Poss said many of the stones were built into the roof for more interest to the building. Kim Well said the underlying zone district was a 1 to 1 and projects bigger than 1 to 1 were required to go through a PUD process. Well said it's a function of program with a critical mass for a hotel to be successful; there must be a certain amount of units, spa, conference and commercial space to make the project feasible. Joyce AIlgaier asked for a description of the elevations and heights of the separate buildings. Poss replied that the height average was 55 to 60 feet based on the steeper roofs along South Aspen Street; there will be a model prepared for the next meeting with the surrounding hotels for a relationship to the city. There was a tower built into the middle of the site to be seen as marker skiing down the hill. Varm explained the dimensional requirements were established in the PUD with the tower being the highest point and the setbacks vary through out the project with most of the setbacks meeting the underlying zoning setback requirements. Vann said there was a request to establish a 4 foot 7 inch setback from the Lift One property line. Dylan Johns asked about the 16-foot height limit on Juan Street: Vann used a drawing with cross-hatchings to describe the deed-restriction that runs to Mary Barbee; the portion by the pool deck had no overhead structures. Johns asked if other locations were studied for the vehicular access to the timeshare portion off of Juan Street or Spring Street higher up or some other point. Poss responded that several access points and different places were looked at from Juan Street to along South Aspen Street; the parking was sub-terrain, if the entrance were higher they would not be able to access the parkingl Well noted the upper was strictly valet parking and the fractional and affordable unit owners were self park in the lower garage. Vann said'that fractional owners were prohibited from leaving their vehicles permanently. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes December 16, 2003 Public Comments: 1. Doug Allen, attorney for Lift One Condominium Association, asked how far the north side of the proposed building was from Lift One. Poss replied that the roof overhang was 4½ feet. Allen said that no one at Lift One was notified of any master planning sessions and they were the closest neighbors. Allen said that they were asking for 121 units on this property; the LTR zone allows 93,000 square feet and this proposal was for 204.000 square feet. Allen said concerning mass the Lift One according to their calculations was 23,000 square feet, the Timberridg9 building was 19,000 square feet and South Point was a little larger but all three surrounding buildings were about 40% of the proposal. Allen said the height limit in the LTR zone was 28 feet they were asking for 73 feet with an average of 53 feet; the proposal was huge. Allen noted that they already had a project approved for this property so they were allowed a financial use for this property at this time. Allen said the parking was not adequate, the traffic circulation was all on one street and they haven't met the open space requirement. Allen said the presentation was great but the project was too big for this site. 2. Mary Upton, public, stated that the design may be pleasing but it was huge and was not necessary; she said it was not our responsibility to make it economically feasible to be financially right. Upton said they should have to stick to the guidelines like everyone else has to. 3. Alec Bell, public, said he lived at 809 South Aspen and this project will ruin their view and out of proportion for the area. Bell said that Doug Allen put it well that a lot of regulations would have to be stretched to do this project. 4. Ed Glickman, public and owner of Lift One, said this new building was too large and there were exceptions given to the owners for the original project and to do this now was overkill and definitely curtails the views and use of their property. 5. Nina Zale, public and Lift One owner, reiterated what Doug Allen ~aid and they will be overshadowed by this huge project that was totally unnecessary. 6. Mack Olins, public, said that the scale and height was too large and all the neighbors build to the code and he doesn't see why these developers can't do the same. 7. Yasmine Depagter, public, said each separate parking circle accesses each garage; how many cars were in eack garage. Poss replied one courtyard accessed 29 residential units and the other accessed the 79 lodge units and 4 free-market units. Vann said the upper garage was valet parking. Depagter voiced concern for 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minates December 16~ 2003 the steep hill that could be a challenge. Poss answered there was a bench and a staging area. 8. Mickey Spaulding, public and manager of Shadow Mountain Condominiums, expressed concern for the owners loosing their views because of the height of the building at the upper end. Roger Haneman asked what the height of the tower was from the top of the property, standing on the south end terrace. Vann replied that the height definition was existing grade or finished grade, whichever is lower. Haneman said there was a semi-canyon in the lower parking lot; were any noise studies being done regarding the turn around from cars or any noise in that space would come back to Lift One and Timberridge. Poss replied there was no study at this point. Dylan Johns asked if South Garmish Street was studied at all for that lower access entry and if so why was that abandoned. Well replied that the city had a major development along South Aspen Street to access this part of town and Garmish Street was in no way of handling the amount of traffic because it wasn't very wide. Vann stated the pillars that support the porte-cochere were 4.7 feet from the property line and if the porte-cochere were taken off the building would be back 18 feet; the porte-cochere shielded the cars from the adjacent building. Johns said the architecture looked great; the architect did a good job breaking up a really big building so it doesn't look like the massive building that it is. Johns said he would have fewer problems with the project if it were just built from Juan Street south because of the buildings orientation would have less of an impact on the Shadow Mountain and other buildings down the hill. The adjacent buildings will loose views and light even if the building was only two stories. Johns voiced concern with the northern end of this lot and the overall mass of the north end was too great for that portion of the site. Johns said he did not like the access to the porte-cochere and the central collector at that point. Johns said running cars so close between the two buildings would affect the people at Lift One. Johns said the height and mass should be reduced at the northern portion, take a story off of the bridge as a connector, there was no need for the south end of the project to keep that 4 story look going all the way down the hill; he could envision a 50% reduction of FAR and 1/3 in the bridge. Haneman agreed with Dylan Johns aSout Juan Street, the bridge was of concern because it creates a solid wall. Haneman said concerns were light, sight and sound. The terrace area had a lot of glass and he wondered if there would be a lot of light pollution from it. Haneman stated that he liked the mixed use in this area. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minntes December 16, 2003 Tygre stated that philosophically it was appropriate to have this kind of development in this location but had a real concern for the use of the PUD to double what was allowed under the underlying zone district. Tygre said the building looked attractive but it still looks like one big building. Tygre was concerned about the height, the FAR and the overall density of this parcel w/th many impacts on the neighborhood, which must be taken into consideration. Tygre said that she liked the accesses and the fact that they were pulled off'the street and the cover over the parking at the north end of the structure was a benefit but it probably would read as a wall to the neighbors and felt the project Was out of scale with the neighborhood. Johns asked the FAR of the Regis. Woodford said the Regis was 1.47, the Nell was 1.93, the Residences was 2.2 and the Hyatt 1.3 to 1. Allgaier said that staff did not present tonight but the staff concerns and ~ssues were in the report dated 12/16/03. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to January 6, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0 Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. ~sqckie Lothian, Depu!y City Clerk 9