HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040106ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2004
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. f 2
MINUTES ...................................................................................................................................... 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS.~..:..... ........ 2
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD ......... i.....i.ii....i ................................ 2
289 EXhibition Lane PUD Amendmentl.... .................................................................................. 8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2004
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning in
Council Chambers Commissioners present were John Rowland, Dylan Johns,
Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Steve Skadron and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger and
Jack Johnson were excused. Eric Cohen and John Rowland recused themselves
from the Lodge hearing and returned for the Exhibition Lane hearing. Staff in
attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott
Woodford, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian Deputy City
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Eric Cohen asked who owned the parking in front of the Little Nell Hotel and what
the agreement was for the parking use; there was a sign for 5 minute drop off
period but the area was used for parking of hotel vehicles. Joyce Allgaier replied
that she would check into it.
Joyce Allgaier stated that there was an additional meeting next week at Rio Grande
Place. There was a Retail Consultants Final Plan to City Council on January 12~h.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from December 16.
2003; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 4-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
John Rowland, Eric Cohen, Ruth Kruger and Jack Johnson were conflicted on the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Ruth Kruger had a conflict on 289 Exhibition Lane
PUD Amendment.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/03):
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAI~ PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain conceptual PUD. Joyce Allgaier noted that Steve Skadron mentioned
that some email have been received by commisston members regarding this
project, which creates a situation where there could be ex pane. David Hoefer
stated that when the commissioners receive ex parte communications of that nature
they should be forwarded to Joyce or Scott, who will present at the appropriate
time. Hoefer explained because this was a public hearing process, it was
inappropriate to send emails, call or otherwise communicate with board members
except at the public hearing. Hoefer encouraged all emails or letters to be sent to
Joyce or Scott to be part of the public hearing process.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
Tygre entered the emails into the record emails or letters from Scott Stewart, Nina
Zale, John Faulkner, Joel Wugalter, Min-chun Chu, Nick and Hanna Gross, Nancy
Lu, Tom McConnell, Doug Allen, Jerry and Carol Berhorst, Christina Alvarez, Sue
Imrem, Allan LeChard, Edwin Glickman and Mark Mendel, who all opposed the
project.
Scott Woodford recapped comments from the last meeting regarding bulk and
height, underlying zoning; the meeting was continued from 12/16 for the model
presentation at this meeting. The commission and public viewed the model
Woodford said the way the buildings were proposed were the bridge was 3 stories
tall with rooms; staff recommended elimination of this portion of the building.
Other areas were to provide larger setbacks to Juan Street affordable housing; the
heights were a major concern and staffrequested the buildings be pushed back for
relief Woodford said that the Apres Ski area was a feature open to the public and
a benefit to the community at large.
Tygre asked if the applicant wanted to add anything about the dimensional aspects
of this project. Sunny Vann stated the focus tonight would be the proposed area
and bulk. Vann stated they would take all of the comments under consideration
even though there have not been any specific changes to this proposal until the
comments from Council with mutual concerns from P&Z were received.
Tygre opened the public comment portion of the public hearing.
Public Comments:
1. Doug Allen, public, attorney representing Lift One Condominium, stated
that the Lift One owners seriously objected to the size of this project. Allen stated
that less than a year ago a proposal was approved for this property; Lift One was
fine with that project but this project had too much building mass, too much square
footage (335,000 square feet), the height, it will go dark about noon, the setbacks,
lack of adequate open space, numbers of employees, employee parking, and traffic
impacts. Allen said in summation it's way too much, too tall and if it were more in
size with the Little Nell and character ~t would be hugely successful. Allen said
that this was' a transitional neighborhood with no commercial north or west; this
would be the biggest building ever built in Aspen.
2. Galen Waldron, public, stated that she was trained as an architect and land
planner and owned a Timberridge unit. Waldron voiced concern for the height,
density, lack of blending of the character of the neighborhood and general scale of
the project. Waldron said the original PUD had a height restriction of 28 feet in
front of the Timberridge building; she did not see why from an urban planning
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
standpoint that portion of the building couldn't be slightly smaller or step back
gradually so there weren't 60 foot ridge peaks to allow relief. Waldron asked what
the different options were for Timberridge and Lift One to utilize some of the
underground parking as a trade-off to deal with some of the impacts. Waldron said
that landscape could soften the impacts of the mass.
3. Don Gilbert, public, Shadow Mountain owner asked what the setback was
from Shadow Mountain and the height of the first wall. Gilbert said that quite a
few units would be staring at a wall. Woodford replied that the height of the
portion of the wall closest to Shadow Mountain was 35 to 41 feet. Vann said the
proposed side yard setback was 3 feet; the code was 5 feet.
4. Sarah Broughton, public, resident of Timberridge Condominiums, stated
concern for the scale of the project along with the height, setbacks and open space.
Broughton noted this was an already dark side of town loosing the sun about 2pm
i.n the winter. Broughton asked the height of the wall facing the Juan Street
housing. Woodford replied that it was 52 feet. Broughton stated that parking was
a major issue in this part of town as it was everywhere in town.
5 Mary Upton, public, stated that she was a concerned citizen and thought the
whole project was not a benefit to the community; there were enough big hotels
now and this would destroy the neighborhood.
6. Wilton Zale, public, president of Lift One Homeowners mentioned the
letters from the Lift One residents and others concerning the problem of run-off
~vith a roof that slanted where the water would go. Zale said that the light would
be totally gone with a project of this size and would impact the property valuation.
Zale said there must be a way to re-design this project on that big space so it has
less impact on the surrounding properties; there must be a better way to do it.
7. Alec Beil, public, stated concern about the height; the model shows the mass
far larger than he thought that it would be. Beil said it will be the largest building
in town impacting views of the mountain from afar; it was an unnecessary
extravagance.
8. Mac Bolands, public, stated the model clearly shows that this project was
out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood; for the people who played by the
rules to be penalized just to make money was not right.
9. Richard Spaulding, public, Southpoint owner said there were some serious
engineering problems that need to be. studied thoroughly. Spaulding asked if the
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
rapid mn-off could be handled by the storm sewers and said there were huge traffic
impacts.
10. Nina Zale, public, said it was obvious seeing the model that the building was
totally inappropriate in size, height and proximity to Lift One.
Sunny Vann said the real issues were P&Z and public concerns in the area and
bulk; the traffic issues need to be addressed (a traffic analysis was provided); the
discharge of water to the storm sewer has been reviewed by the engineering
department with details provided at the next level of review. Vann said the
primary concerns were with the impacts on a couple of properties most directly
affected by this project; this area was designed and designated as a lodging district
(in Scott's memo). Vann said that no one would come to build a 25 foot high, 1 to
1 FAR, 100 unit hotel with guest amenities on real estate in this location; he said in
order for this to work it has to have a certain size and amenity package. Vann said
if the community decides that it doesn't Want this then so be it, they have a
residential project that has been approved on this property but they believe there
was a preference for a hotel on this property. Vann said that they had been led to
believe there was a preference for a hotel on this property; this was a conceptual
application, a long way from final, and staff pointed out some of the concerns in
the memorandum. Vann said the basic site design, points of access, functions and
layout were a workable solution for a major hotel. Vann said as far as this project
was concerned it complied with parking and the project would make-up for the loss
of beds and satisfy the need for additional lodging in this community. Vann said
they would take into consideration tweaks in the building, changes in roof layout,
increases in setbacks in some locations. Vann said for each view stated city
council still would have their views in this conceptual process and they wanted to
get everyones comments and see what changes could be accommodated.
Tygre noted that there were certain aspects of this project that were decided by city
council regarding the size of the hotel, timeshare and evaluate the financial impacts
for the city. Tygre stated that this was zoned LTR and according to the code
lodging facilities were a permitted and encouraged use. Tygre said the P&Z
reviewed the dimensional requirements and how it relates to the PUD; how this
project does or does not fit the criteria by which P&Z evaluates the application.
Steve Skadron said at the last meeting that Klm Well spoke about critical mass as
a financial justification for the size of the project; does the project need to be this
size in order to be viable. Kim Weil responded that it depended UPon the operator
because there was a critical mass that each operator wanted to see (so many rooms,
or beds) and it was not a hard and fast number from operator to operator. Weil
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
said as Sunny put it a 1 to 1 ratio with a 100 rooms would be a non-starter. Vann
reiterated for this project to work they were looking at a 5 star facility and the
operations vary; if this project gains approval then they will pursue an operator.
Vann said that they couldn't use a 200 square foot room anymore; it was not what
the market dictated. Vann said the other large hotels did not meet the ratio of the
underlying zoning; portions of the Aspen Street faCade were on the property line
but there were other areas that were more than the required setbacks. Skadron
stated concern for another 5 star hotel in this area either'enhancing or impeding the
social interaction of the area. Skadron voiced concern about the height along
South Aspen Street, the set back and height as it affects Lift One and the
Timberridge and the proximity to the Juan Street Affordable Units.
Roger Haneman agreed with staff; the setback variations on South Aspen were
acceptable but not in other places. Haneman said the heights were more easily
accepted when there was only a one-story increase from one property to another
and the other stories needed to be out of sight and not create any shadows across
the property line. Haneman asked what the plate heights were. Weil replied that
they were 11 feet.
Dylan Johns said the northern portion of the site was presenting itself too strongly
to the downhill side; he suggested going closer to the underlying zoning perhaps
with the one-story variation as Roger said until the project steps back not to cast
any adverse shadow or mass on the downhill properties. Johns said he did not
know how the Juan Street Housing could be protected other than a larger setback
and to step back this project. Johns said he did not like the lower parking garage
entrance so close to Lift One because it would create a noisy corridor.
Tygre stated concern for the variation from the underlying zone district
dimensional requirements because the PUD shall refer to the underlying zoning.
#4B Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: the dimensional requirements of
the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate
dimensions for the PUD. Tygre said the PUD would allow for a better design by
massing and leaving open space; in her opinion the design was not better but
bigger. Tygre thought the architecture was attractive but the sheer size of the
project is exacerbated as shown by the model. Tygre said she would like to see the
entire project reduced in size but the financial feasibility was outside the bailiwick
of P&Z; there were luxury hotels throughout the country with 100 rooms or less
and if your builder or operator can't build them, it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Tygre said strictly from a design and dimensional standpoint she could not justify a
· building of this size; the bridge in particular was offensive. Tygre said the way the
project approaches the neighbors who were preexisting whether in conformance or
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2004
not, needs to be addressed much more seriously and the stepping back suggestion
would be an absolute minimum as far as obtaining her support for the proposal.
Varm said he heard the concerns about the project regarding the floor area; impacts
of the project on the neighbors and recommendations that would help alleviate
those problems. Vann said he heard some positive things. Vann said that there
were some changes to the building that could accommodate some issues but may
not be able to address everyone.
Woodford said the next issue were the Open Space Requirements and this proposal
included about 24,000 square feet of open space, which was 16% of the required
25%; they exceeded the requirement in just the definition of open space (it has to
be visible from public streets, can't be more than 4 feet above grade or 2 feet
below grade or open to the sky). Woodford noted areas that could not be counted
as open space because they were too far above the street. Weil commented that the
way Garmish slopes down, they only get to count half of the pool open space.
Vann said that because of the uniqueness of the site the open space will be what it
will be; the only way to achieve the magic number for the open space requirement
would be to set the building back from South Aspen Street and they feel that would
be an inappropriate site plan. Vann said the entry port has been set back but all of
it doesn't count because it can't be seen from the street.
Woodford stated that there were set back encroachments on all sides but there was
a 2-foot setback on the north property line, which had lots of variations where
some areas actually exceed the requirement. Woodford said the South Aspen
Street setback encroachments were all right because it was the urban style of
development, which this proposal continues and doesn't impact any property on
that side. Woodford recommended the Juan Street, Lift One, Shadow Mountain
setbacks be increased to buffer those properties.
Joyce Allgaier utilized a rendering of the open space from the Lift One
Condominiums and the South Aspen Street side to show the proposed setbacks.
Haneman said the spirit of open space regulation has been met. Johns said the
open space was resolved but the other setback issues he has already expressed the
additional setbacks should be gained. Tygre said that the open space issue would
probably be resolved satisfactorily: Tygre said the issues were the setbacks and
how they relate to the height of the buildings. Tygre said for example if the height
of the wall is lower then the setback was not as important; there was a lot of
proportionality involved with the approach to setbacks and hoped the applicant
could come up with a combination of setbacks and height reduction that would
make the project more sensitive to the environment.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
Woodford said that the neighbors have cited parking as an issue. Woodford said
that parking has been provided to meet the letter of the code in almost all areas
(page 13 of the staffreport) except for the other uses, which would be the spa,
restaurant, ballroom, shops and other amenities primarily for use to the guests but
some are open to the general public. The code requires 4 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of net leaseable area. The apPlicant proposed that probably the general public
would use 40% and ran the calculations for the anticipated users at 60% of the
hotel guests and also draws from other hotel parking experiences. Vann said the
hotel was designed that if every guest drove a car to the hotel it would meet the
code-parking requirement; the confusion arises with the code being less than clear
on how you deal with the spa and restaurant facilities that are in the hotel itself.
Vann said their traffic study came up with a total parking requirement less than
what has been proposed.
Haneman asked if SkiCo used their parking overnight. Vann replied that he did
not think they did; there was a permit structure.
Hoefer stated that the public will have an opportunity to address open space,
parking and the additional issues at the continued public heating.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge
at Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD to January 20, 2004; seconded by Dylan
dohns seconded. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
289 Exhibition Lane PUD Amendment
Eric Cohen, vice-chair, opened the public hearing for 289 Exhibition Lane PUD
Amendment. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided and the
commission had jurisdiction to proceed.
James Lindt said the applicant, Maroon Creek LLC, represented by David Johnston
requested an amendment to the building envelope to allow for a roof overhang that
was built outside of the designated building envelope. Lindt said additionally they
were requesting approval in the activity envelope adjustment to maintain several
patios that were built outside the designated building envelope (about 975 square
feet). Lindt said they proposed to vacate 975 square feet of activity envelope on
the north side of the property and re-vegetate to the natural state. The PUD
required that all building and structures be accommodated in the building
envelope; all other disturbance was required to be in the activity envelope. There
was a natural meadow area on the site which was to believed to be preserved and
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06~ 2004
the encroachment of the patios contradicts the original approvals for the Highlands
PUD as it relates to this lot; staff recommends denial of the proposed request.
Lindt said if the commission approves this request there were conditions set forth
in the resolution.
Lindt read into the record a letter from George Chopivsky with no objection to this
request for the Amendment.
David Johnston stated that he was not the architect of record on the house nor
when the improvements had taken place; he represents the owner at this state, as it
exists. Johnston said for the record he was also on the Aspen Highlands Design
Review Committee. Johnston said that the property was located at the end of the
first cul-de-sac on Exhibition Lane.
Johnston said the activity envelope was generally used for re-grading, landscaping
for driveways, exterior spaces and any ski access associated with these properties.
Johnston said these were tight lots with 5,000 square foot FAR with basements.
The activity envelope created for this lot was somewhat unusable. The patios were
flagstone without snowmelt so they were under the snow and did not impact in the
winter; there were no structures or hot tubs or open fire pits. There were some
boulder retention walls with the flagstone patio in between.
Steve Skadron stated that he knew Dave Johnston but could act unbiased.
Roger Haneman said that this was another inherited county problem. Haneman
asked how the envelopes determined, why did this happen. Lindt answered that
essentially they were determined off of aerial photos, which was similar to most
PUDs annexed from the county. Lindt stated that staffbelieved that area was
supposed to be preserved. Joyce Allgaier said that these were grossly done from
aerial photographs without analysis of the slopes.
Eric Cohen asked how this was discovered. Johnston replied through final zoning
inspection prior to certificate of occupancy. Cohen asked the difference between
the activity envelope and the building envelope. Lindt explained the building
envelope (in the County) was where all structure were to take place; the activity
envelope was for landscaping, allows for re-grading and driveways and retaining
walls up to 6 feet in height, a disturbance allowed accessory to the house. Cohen
said that the patio was not in any envelope at this time but they were asking for the
activity envelope to include this patio. Lindt replied yes and otherwise they would.
have to take it out. Cohen said the overhang was in the activity envelope, just
outside the building envelope and the area to be re-vegetated was currently part of
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2004
the activity envelope. Lindt said there was some landscaping in that area and they
proposed to return itto the natural state. Cohen asked if this were approved was
there something that precluded the owner from snow melting that area. Lindt
answered they would haVe to pay REMP fees (energy conservation) because only a
certain amount of snowmelt was allowed.
Dylan Johns said that when it was going through the building approval process
how did this overhang get passed. Lindt replied there was attachment that showed
the original site plan had a note on the overhang that it was outside the building
envelope. Cohen said that the architect or builder basically ignored the note for the
roof overhang; he asked the number of square feet for the roof overhang outside
the building envelope. Lindt responded that he overhang was about 21/: square
feet.
No public comments.
Cohen said this was a blatant disregard of what was supposed to be done with the
overhang and patio. Cohen said that he was comfortable with the roof overhang
and not with the patio; was there a way to address that. Lindt suggested making
the first motion as suggested and then go with a second motion to approve just the
overhang. Jasmine Tygre agreed with Eric.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution #1, 2004, approving with
conditions a PUD amendment to alloW for an amendment to the designated activity
and building envelopes at 289 Exhibition Lane for the two (2) patio areas to be
maintained as constructed and to allow for the existing roof overhang to be
maintained. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call: Johns, no; Haneman, yes;
Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Tygre, no; Cohen, no. DENIED 4-2.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the Resolution with only condition
#3, which will be condition #1 on the revised Resolution to read "The Applicant
shall record a plat identifying the amended building envelope within 180 days of
approval and approve the building envelope to include the overhang. Seconded
by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 6-0.
Adjourned at 7:00 pm.
~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10