Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.agmc.20040309ASPEN/PITK!N GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09~20~4 ' COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ....................................................... 2 CHART HOUSE LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS SCORING ...................................................................................... 2 · ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09,'2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the Special GrOwth Management Commission Meeting at the Pitkin County Library. Members present were Paul Rudnik, John Howard, Mike Augello, Marcella Larsen, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre. Staff in attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant CitY Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, DeputY City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon stated that the City Council had first reading on an Ordinance that would eliminate the Growth Management Commission and re-assign all of the tasks to the CitY P&Z or City Growth Management but would not apPly to this case. The public hearing on that Ordinance is April 12th. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to table the approval of the February 17th Growth Management Minutes to be emailed to eaCh commissioner for approval; .Jack Johnson seconded. APPROVED 10-0. DECLARATION OF CONFI,ICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): CHART HOUSE LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS SCORING Jasmine Tygre opened the growth management public hearing; proof of notice was provided at the previous hearing. James Lindt said the applicant proposed a 14- unit timeshare lodge, 4 affordable housing units and roof top restaurant at 219 East Durant. Lindt summarized staff recommended the score of 4 for the first 3 sets of criteria and for the final set a recommended score of 3. Lindt explained the procedure for initial and final scoring with 4 sets of criteria (1) Revitalizing the permanent communitY (2) Providing transportation alternatives (3) Promoting environmentallY sustainable development (4) Maintaining design quality, historic cOmpatibilitY and community character with a minimum score of 3 to pass. Stan Claus°n, planner for applicant, introduced Jim DeFrancia and David Brown. Jim DeFrancia stated with parmer Skip Behrhorst, they were the principals behind the application. Clauson said that Dean Street has become a semi-pedestrian environment because of closures that have occurred along Dean Street past the St. Regis, the hotel now under construction and the movement of people between Ruby Park and the Gondola; they discussed working with community ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ~COMMiSSi'ON MINUTES ~ M~RC ~0~9v~'~20-0'4 ~ development, parks and other developers to improve Dean Street as a pedestrian environment and understand that it may carry some traffic but improve the pedestrian quality. Clauson said additionally there were some missing pedestrian amenities 'along Durant; there was a sidewalk in front of the Southpoint Condominiums, which comes to an abrupt end. Clauson Said there were very large cottonwood trees that were in the area where any continuation of the sidewalk would be and moreover there was a considerable Change in elevation between the ground level where the cottonwood trees have their base and the curb, so there was a down slOPe making it difficult to implement a sidewalk through there but they have worked with the community development city engineer to devise a plan where the curb would be extended into the street in order to provide a continuous sidewalk that would go all the way to the comer. Clauson said they felt the continuation for the sidewalk along Dean Street was a very important public amenity of continuing that pedestrian corridor. Clauson provided maps and drawings and said they have done studies in conjunction with the city engineer on how the narrowing of Durant from curb to curb width would still allow parallel parking with 14-foot lanes and a snow storage area in the center; there would be diagonal parking in front of the Southpoint building and parallel parking in front of the Charthouse Lodge and diagonal parking along Monarch as it remains now. Clauson said they looked into removing the cottonwood trees; a consulting arborist as well as the parks department determined the cottonwood all except for one had viability for an extended period of time and recommended preserving them, which their plan does that. The parks department removed one of the trees. Clauson said the cottonwood alley in front of the building would be retained, which hides and softens any structure. Another rendering provided a lighter version of the trees to see through into the faCade of the building so you can understand how the building is articulated and steps back. There was a step back between the building and Southpoint so that after a certain height it steps back for the fourth floor. At the top of the building there is a rooftop restaurant and at the base of the building is a a public area and a lounge area and bar with sidewalk seating. These are important public amenities and are actually part of the criteria for approval under growth management. Clauson said there are four employee units; four 2 bedroom units, which are 850 to 950 square feet in size, they occupy the ground floor level of the building and are not underground but have direct frontage to the street on the front side and a light well to the rear. Clauson said there is considerable slope that occurs from Durant Avenue to Dean Street and some slope that occurs from Monarch towards Aspen Street. These are key considerations providing high quality on site for affordable housing for permanent residents as an integral part of the criteria as well as ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARcH 09, 2004 providing locally serving commercial space and business. The housing board unanimously approved the housing program mitigation, which is almost twice what. is required. There was some concern about grates because they would eliminate light that would Penetrate into the housing units on Dean Street. Clauson stated the Lodge will provide a variety of transportation opportunities; a shuttle service to the airport and other important venues, bicycles, improving the pedestrian environment and the location of the lodge one block from Ruby Park Transportation Center is very well situated. Clauson said under a viable sustainable environment it includes preserving the environmental resources such as the trees. The watercolor from a photograph showed a perspective across the street with actual heights of the trees that will be preserved. The community recycling efforts with respect to construction were noted in the application that construction will reuse some of the significant material from the old Chart House Restaurant; there were a number of hand carved beams by Stuart Mace, which would be preserved and reused in the base area or the upper area as part of this project along with fireplaces. Clauson said that maintaining design quality for compatibility; some of the criteria included fenestration, materials that are compatible with the existing environment, porches and other pedestrian features. They made the site very friendly to the street. The actual lodge itself will consist of 14 three-bedroom units, which are 1750 to 2000 square feet with one bedroom in each unit as a lock-off so there would be 28 keys. There would be provision for the rental oftheseunits when not occupied by the owners structured as a fractional ownership project but there would be a front desk to receive the owners and the guests who might rent the units as well as public amenities. David Brown, architect, said they think this is a very high quality design that's compatible with the other structures and projects in the downtown area and compatible with the historic character; the modulation and spacing, the first floor being a storefront that provides a lot of visibility for passersby is an inviting environment to bring people in and to be a social space for'the entire community. Brown said an unusual component in order to enhance the pedestrian environment and help encourage the use of alternative transportation solutions and options the garage access through an elevator, will help encourage people to walk, use public transportation and the shuttle because it will be a little bit more time consuming to get their car up and out of the garage therefore it will be more inviting to walk to downtown. 4 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMIsSiON MINUTES '2 MA~CH~'~09~'2'004 ...... Brown said the employee housing first level is a variety of different categories one, two, three and four are all targeted, which is very unusual for a public or private project. Brown said the rooftop is envisioned to be an indoor and outdoor restaurant in the summertime and would be a public space. The character of the rooftop restaurant is intended to be reminiscent and maintain the historical character of the Chart House, which was originally built by Stuart Mace. Brown said there were a variety of walkout balconies on the upper units; from a urban design standpoint this is intended to fit in and be compatible with the adjacent buildings. The eave lines up with the Southpoint Condominium and it then steps back 5 or so feet from this fagade; the idea is given the slope of the hill that the eave line of the Southpoint Condominiums would be continued and steps up one floor; the stone element aligns across the street with the St. Regis eave line on the other side making a visual connection with facades. Brown said the upper levels back away from the lower faCade to read as a continuity of the buildings on either side. Brown stated the access for services were off Dean Street. The garage access was off of Monarch with a significant public patio facing Wagner Park. Brown pointed out in the summer the entire rooftop would be an outdoor dining opportunity and this would be a terrific amenity to the public much like LaFonda in Santa Fe; it's an opportunity for the public and guests of the community to come and have a venue to watch the sunset and see a 360 degree down valley view. Jasmine Tygre said according to the GMQS rules the order was different from the way that they do city P&Z meetings because usually the city P&Z commissioners would ask questions of the applicant but at this point in the GMQS hearing rules were for public comments, then P&Z gets to asked questions but this doesn't make sense to her but these were the rules and she would follow them. Public Comments: 1. Carl Levy, public, Southpoint Association Secretary, said that they had a good deal of reservations about this project, primarily because the 6 condominium owners on the east side of the building will have the property value greatly diminished by the proximity and the size of this building. Mr. Levy said all the heights were referenced from the front of the building and because the street slopes in this direction, the heights indicated are greater than the heights from the street therefore he wasn't sure if he read the plans correctly that the top of the roof of Southpoint and believed the top of the roof of Southpoint would be below the point. Levy said they were also concerned about the applicant being very green by ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES- MARCH 09' 2004 retaining the cottonwoods and wasn't sure that was the case because when you go down 3 floors in depth the roots of most of those trees would be cut and they would die anyway, which may be just as well because the people outside during cottonwood season would not want that coming in their food. Levy questioned the whole approach to the cottonwood trees. Levy said because of the proximity of the western side of their foundation to the Southpoint foundation, they were going 3 floors below grade and wondered what it would do to the stability of the Southpoint foundation. 2. Adam Goldsmith, public, Aztec owner, turned to the audience and asked for anyone in support of the project to raise their hands and no one did. Goldsmith said there were more people against this project than' were for it. Goldsmith questioned if the rooftop restaurant would spin. Goldsmith said there were great numbers of problems with this project and it comes down to common sense in his mind; as a developer and building owner who gets into fiscal sense and dollars and cents. Goldsmith said in order to make this project work at the prices they need, this is what they came up with; he said that to replace that one story building in this neighborhood was ludicrous in his mind as far as common sense goes. Goldsmith said they said it was the same height as the St. Regis; he said if the St. Regis were to go for approval today he hOped that they wouldn't get those heights. Goldsmith said the St. Regis towers over the street and this on the other side will look like a downtown large city block, not like Aspen. Goldsmith said that because of thc way things work here they ask for twice as much as they need so when they are cut back it's still where they originally wanted to be and he hoped the commission kept this in mind; this was way too much density for this location based on the fact that Southpoint will be terribly affected, Aztec will be affected, the Park and the neighborhood in general will suffer. Goldsmith said a restaurant was nice but there were a lot of restaurants in Aspen; more timeshare units had no shortage. 3. Nathaniel Bates, public, Southpoint unit owner, said that Aspen had a height standard ~and did not see why they couldn't stay with that; he said that it was nice to sit in Wagner Park and see Red Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Aspen Mountain. Bates said that this was tampering with people's financial values because anyone in front of this has no value; they were casting shadows on the streets and then the snow doesn't melt; it changed the complexion of the town and he hated to see this town become a Vail without being able to see. Bates said everyone was depending on the commission to make the right decision; the business of compromising was out of control. Bates said that having a restaurant 5 feet away from the neighbors residence was awful with beer drinking, clanking of glasses next door would be awful. 6 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COM-MiSSION MINUTES , MARCH 09, 2004 4. Pat Smith, public, Aztec owner, said that some good points were made; he voiced concern over the mass and the approach to Dean Street, which came up when Roberts first approached with plans for what is now the St. Regis with an extra hundred rooms. Smith said his apartment primary view was Dean Street and they were treating Dean Street as an alley; Dean is a narrow street and the Chart House wasn't always a good neighbor with the noisy garbage trucks. Smith would rather see a hotel like the Lenado instead. Smith asked for consideration in moving the disposal of garbage onto Monarch, which was three times as wide as Dean with regular commercial access. Smith said if Lift lA improvements goes, it will be a major pedestrian walkway and would like to see Dean Street treated in a more kindly manner. Smith hoped thai the architects and this committee worked together to make it a viable project not only for the developer but also for the neighborhood. 5. Margie Smith, public, Aztec owner commented on the restaurant and asked if anyone remembered when Ruthie's Restaurant was proposed for evening dining, all the residents in Aspen said 'that they did not want to look up and see lights on the mountain, this will have the same effect with a restaurant on the roof of the building, it was inviting the same kind of activity that the residents objeCted to before. James Lindt said the following letters of objection to this project were received from Pat and Marjorie Smith, Aztec; Carl Levy, Southpoint; Eleanor Thompson, Southpoint; Susan O'Neal;; Lydia & Harold VonTangeron; Tatjana Woodson; and Mark Freirich. Ruth Kruger asked about the commissioner questions and comments section. Jasmine Tygre replied that they would do an initial scoring and then do comments. Paul Rudnick asked if there were further considerations by the City P&Z and City Council to determine whether the project should go forward as is or should be modified. James Lindt responded the applicant requested that the Growth Management Scoring Process be first prior to the P&Z process and go through the conceptual and final after the GMQS. Lindt said that'staffproposed conditions in the resolution that would require the allocation of growth management allotments be contingent upon the final PUD approval. Rudnick asked if there was implicit approval. David Hoefer answered there was no implicit approval; it would still have to go through the review process. Johnson said that if findings were made and scored with the amenities the applicant proposed what assurances can be made to stay within the proposal when it comes 7 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09, 2004 before P&Z for conceptual and final or can things be taken in or out and doesn't that change the nature of the project. Clauson replied that. anything said is part of.: the public record and stipulation that will carry forward. Hoefer stated there was' no guarantee that the amenities would be there or taken out. Lindt stated there was a recommended condition of approval that said if they were to reduce the scale of the project that they would not require re-scoring but if the number of allotments were increased or the scale increased then they would have to go back to Growth Management for re-scoring. Lindt said the commission was reviewing the amenities provided by the application; if there was a passing score condition #2 would be amended. Chris Bendon said if there was a particular element of design that was important, it could be stated in the conditions that if the element went away the project would have to be re-scored. Lindt noted the existing, condition speaks to the ratio of employee housing that is currently on site and if the dimensional requirements were dropped they would still have to comply with a similar ratio of employee housing as provided in this initial application. Tygre said that staff suggested re-considering condition 2. Lindt replied yes. Tygre said don't you think that its appropriate for the commission to know what they are voting on. Bendon answered that may be found out during the discussion; parts of the project that the commission wants to evolve and keep as a condition. Marcella Larsen asked if the timeshare units were defined as lodge units. Bendon replied that they were. Paul Rudnick inquired as to the height of the lower section of the St. Regis that fronts Durant and asked if it would be the same height as the 2nd or 3rd floor of this faCade of the building. Clauson utilized drawings to illustrate the heights of the ChartHouse being a story and a half lower than the St. Regis on Durant. David Brown answered it was 3 stories; the front lined up with that of the St. Regis. Rudnick clarified that he was asking about the condominium to the west of this project; where are you Suggesting that lines up with this portion on Durant. Clauson replied it lined up with the second and a half floor above grade. Brown said it was also a 3-story element. Rudnick asked if the first level is partially below grade. Clauson said the first level is slightly below grade (using a drawing for illustrative purposes), the Southpoint Condominiums is three stories at this point and lines up with the cornice. Rudnick said that he believed Southpoint had a flat roof. Clauson said that the Southpoint floor-to-floor heights were less than this project. Rudnick said the setback is four feet to the condominium complex to the west. Clauson said that was correct at the ground and then the building had further setbacks. Rudnick asked the distance between the 2 buildings. Brown replied about 10 feet. 8 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09, 2004 Tygre asked about the comer and how it lined up with the St. Regis; she asked how tall that element was and the element that was shown as darker sandstone. Brown answered 38 feet 6 inches and 50 to 51 feet. Tygre asked the underlying zoning and the height limits. Brown replied the underlying zoning was Lodge (LTR) with 28-foot height. Clauson said he thought it was understood underlying zoning is insufficient for the kind of development that the Aspen Area Community Plan wants to see but there were considerable changes recommended through the infill by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tygre noted that infill was not passed. Jack Johnson asked how noisy the garage was going to be and asked if there were any materials on it. Brown replied no noisier that the elevator in the library, not noisy at all. Dylan Johns said that in section 3 (the environmental) there were some solar panels installed to help with snowmelt but on the actual building checklist solar was not checked off. Brown replied the original submission had a significant amount of glass on the south facing staircase to create a passive solar space and staff requested and the applicant agreed to eliminate a significant amount of that glass; so it was at the city's request they have capitulated in that regard but still have the opportunity to put solar collectors on the roof of the restaurant. Johns asked if there was a net gain or loss of parking with the proposal. Brown responded the restaurant has no parking on this site; there were one or two very marginal spaces next to the dumpsters on Dean Street. Brown said by providing the 25 spaces on the site would significantly increase the shortage of parking and by putting the trash compactors in enclosed areas screened from adjacent residences would reduce traffic noise from any compactors or garbage collection. Johns asked about the street parking on Durant. Clauson replied there were currently diagonal spaces on Monarch Street (illustrated in drawings) but there would not be a reduction; there currently was parallel parking spaces permitted along Durant, there was an actual net of 2 or 3 spaces. Johns inquired if those 2 spaces on Dean Street were actual spaces because it seemed to be the loading dock. Brown responded that one is a short-term parking space for check-in and one is a loading dock space. Johns asked the ground floor elevation of Aztec in relation to the 100 of this building. Brown answered it was about 108 or 106, it's the Dean Street elevation, which is equal to the loading docks at 106. Mike Augello asked about the 2.4 drawing and if it showed a window well and if the wall that came out of the property line was just north of the elevator. Brown answered that it was a planter and wall, which would be eliminated. 9 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09, 2004 Ruth Kruger inquired about the restaurants. Brown utilized drawings to illustrate the rooftop restaurant with public dining and mechanical area. Brown noted this was extremely conceptual at the restaurant level; the restaurant interior would evolve as restaurant management was identified probably with a separate architect hired to do the restaurant interior itself. Kruger asked what the estimated time it took for the elevator to go up and down with the whole process. Brown replied it was the 20 to 30 second range. Johns asked if that was valet. Brown answered very likely but management was considering the valet operation, which would allow for double stacking at the parking level creating a net gain of 7 or 8 additional spaces if necessary at Christmas but having said that their experience with other LTR properties, such as the Aspen Club Lodge, the parking was underutili'7,ed during the entire year because most people come by air and don't bring cars. Brown said that 5 or 6 years ago short term rentals were allowed in the LTR zone because the garages were not being used and provided an opportunity for additional public parking. Johns asked if there had been a soil or geo technical study regarding an excavation of 30 feet within such close proximity. Brown responded this was not dissimilar to the highway construction in Snowmass Canyon and they did similar operations with the Timbers in Snowmass Village with soil nailing, it's stabilization of the cut that starts at the top goes down 3-4 feet and put nails into the down slope with a pin and wall, which creates a very stable surface. Clauson said the best example of that which was done recently was the ISIS, a very deep excavation adjacent to other properties. Brown said it was also feasible that an injection of stabilization materials would further be used and or mechanically stabilized dirt, which was a system of what he called giant burritos out of compacted dirt with fabric wrapped around, which was a series of mechanisms and techniques that could be used. Johns asked how much detail was appropriate for something like that to be considered at this GMQS. Tygre answered that it depended on the criteria on what the commission was supposed to score and if that level of detail was important to you in order for you to make a finding as to whether or not this application fulfills a particular standard, that was up to each commissioner. Brown reiterated that they will be coming before P&Z and City Council twice with conceptual and final, so those boards will have two rounds of review of this project. Tygre stated that with the criteria that was used for this application and this particular growth management hearing were somewhat different than the criteria that P&Z would be using for conceptual, however if commissioners were having a basic problem about this site for development because of whatever the concerns were, the commissioner had the right to make that finding or ask for information that would help to make the finding. John said he had specific concerns regarding soil nailing 10 MINUTES: MARCH 09~ 200~4 ........ and going into adjacent property with those because they would be long enough to do that. Brown replied that it was very possible that on one side soil nailing would not be used; there has only been a preliminary analysis in this regard. Roger Haneman asked if that was what the Grand Aspen used. Lindt replied the Grand Aspen used soil nails and also soil hardening techniques; they used a very broad mitigation program. Johns asked if the city engineer was comfortable with this after review of the proposed construction. Lindt replied that he will certainly want more detail as the plan comes through the process as to the actual techniques used and the city engineer expressed that he was okay with the cut going down 3 floors as long as they use certain techniques to keep the soil from eroding. John Rowland asked if employee unit #4 would be looking at a 1 O-foot wall; he asked how high that was. Brown replied no, that it was about 7 feet with a 3-foot windowsill, which would take that to about 100. Rudnick inquired about staff's comment in the memo regarding criteria #4 that the GMC shouM refrain conducting detailed discussion of the neighborhood compatibility of the dimensional requirements.., the Conceptual PUD review would be a more appropriate realm in which to discuss the compatibility of the dimensional requirements because the dimensional requirements are a stand-alone criterion in the PUD review section of the City Land Use Code. Lindt expanded that the PUD section is the review in which the proposal will establish the dimensional requirements such as height and FAR with a set of criteria that speaks to the neighborhood compatibility but wasn't weighted and staff was concerned about the height in this project and believed the PUD process or appropriate review process will contain a detailed discussion about the height. Rudnick said this did not seem like a useful exercise. Tygre stated that-County P&Z had a responsibility through GMQS; this situation rested on the County P&Z to vote on an application and most of the details were then turned over to the city; how the city would deal with those would affect the way that county feels about this project or any other application. Tygre said this wasn't an idle question; if City P&Z were in this same situation they would feel the same way. Tygre noted the bold face language was a suggestion from staff but not necessarily an order. Staff acknowledges there is a link between the fourth set of criteria and the height and massing, and that being the case, it is on the table for review as part of the Growth Management Scoring. Augello asked if the appearance of the buildings was mitigated by the existing trees and if that was part of our criteria for scoring, when the building was excavated what if we loose all the trees; would it be appropriate to include some 11 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES ' M~RCH 09, 2004 mitigation language in the recommended approval. Lindt answered the Parks Department would require mitigation and was written in the everyday code language that they used and the mitigation would be up to their ,discretion. Lindt said if you feel strongly about it then include it in the approval. Clauson responded that they thought of that issue and there was an existing foundation wall going along the Charthouse building and a similar foundation that goes along the other side so the roots of the trees are actually channeled and delimited by this foundation wall so the excavation if done with reasonable care would not impose any cutting of the roots because the roots were somewhat constrained or fully constrained by those foundation walls. Clauson. stated ,moving the sidewalk out and away from the zone of the trees would support their longevity; they would be working closely with the Parks Department. Lindt said the Parks Department through the PUD process and initial reviews have suggested conditions such as placing construction fencing around the trees roots using hand excavation; Parks is fairly comfortable being able to save those trees. Kruger inquired if the applicant was asking for growth management allotments and how many allotments were in the pool. Clauson replied that they were asking for 14 allotments from the pool of 99 presently; this was indicative of the fact there was a huge number of unused allotments and from a planning standpoint there was an substantial amount of concern that we have new development in the lodging area. Clauson said the LTR zone was specifically designated as a good place to receive that additional development. Kruger asked how many allotments there were a year. Bendon replied 11; L'Auberge was the last one that went through. Discussion of scoring: Roger Haneman stated that the growth management review criteria does not speak to the quantity of growth being discussed; how much growth is being managed is talked about but not the quantity. Lindt explained that there was no competition in this situation because there w-ere no other applications. Haneman asked what detracted from the design quality, historic compatibility, community character and the density. Haneman said the density of the project leads to the dimensions of the project. Tygre noted there were 14 units. Haneman asked what was what generated the low score for "D". Tygre said that it wasn't the density for her. Rudnick said it was the height, the mass and scale of the project in that location but not the number of units; if the project could be reduced in size and maintain the same number of units he would look more favorably at the project: 12 ASPEN/PITKIN' GROWTH M~NAGEMENT ~~~iS'Si~ON MINUTES - MARCH 09(200'~ Mike Augello said that this is the density in the dOwntown area that is wanted; he did not have a problem with the number of units but did have a problem with the scale and mass of whole project and the relationship to the neighbors. Augello said the project was pushing the limits; the stepping back of the building to reduce the impact of big city urban faCade going straight up was effective but still was over the edge and what he was comfortable with in terms of scale and mass. Augello said category "C" the construction part does pretty well on pedestrian but the scoring on the efficient building was pretty weak. John Howard said that he scored probably a little on the high side on category "D" because it speaks to this as an appropriate place for density. HoWard said the applicant put the cart before the horse with GMQS first before other details were presented. Howard stated from a growth management standpoint he was comfortable recognizing that City P&Z and City Council would have a lot more reviews of this prior to final approval. Howard addressed the public to say that if this growth management commission approves this there would be a lot more changes ahead because of the dimensional issues. Johnson said that he had serious reservations about the size of this project but he better appreciated a project of this sort in this location, which locates lodging at the base of the mountain and will contribute to the Dean Street corridor. Johnson liked the rooftop public space; he said that he felt this project should go forward with the PUD process and would increase his scores. Kruger agreed with Jack that this project was appropriate for this location and density in town was a necessity for the'continued vitality and growth. Kruger said she would also be increasing her score and said that it needs to go forward; she said it was an essential project for this location and corridor at the base of the mountain. Johns said he was tom on the 4th criteria but felt the project is appropriate and necessary for town and everything along those lines for this type of building but the tough thing was the scale and having to make a decision what was being represented. Johns said that there would be comments make along the way about the height, proximity and size. Johns did not have an issue with the number of rooms but rather how they fit on the site; he felt it should go forward into the process and then iron out those issues. Kruger said that this was about the growth management allotments; the density and height will be discussed with P&Z and Council. Rudnick asked then whv are they here now. Tygre said that having the GMQS before any conceptual approval is not 13 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09~ 2004 really doing a service to anyone in this room, the public, the applicants, and the commissioners. Tygre noted that if there had been a preliminary opportunity to meet with P&Z there could have been a consensus on some of the problems, which are shared by most of the members of this commission concerning the physical dimensions of this project. Tygre stated that standard 4 had to do with design quality therefore it wasn't just a matter of density because we were told in the criteria what the commission was supposed to look at; if the people who are voting do not like the dimensional requirements of this building regardless of how many units there are, that was a perfectly valid concern. Bendon commented that they had discussed that with the applicant on how the process should unfold and the challenges of how the process works; it allows the applicant to choose which process to go through first. Kruger asked if this should fail does the applicant have the option to come back through GMQS. Hoefer replied there were two options one was to appeal the decision and second was to reapply, which could be under the new code. Lindt said that they would have to reapply under the growth management application deadline. Johnson asked if the community development director could say things have been sufficiently changed that in essence it's a new project and come back within a collapsed time frame. Bendon responded that would be the case with a standard application but there was a one-time application submission date and everyone comes in on that date. Johnson said that there was no reason that they couldn't go forward with the PUD review process. Kruger asked if this project was scheduled for P&Z. Lindt replied it was not scheduled yet and the applicant wanted to go to Council first to see if they could obtain the allotment prior to going through P&Z. Clauson said he fully understands Paul Rudnick's frustration and concern for the process; this whole process was predicated on an idea in the 1970's that there would be huge pressures in all areas (commercial develoPment, residential development, lodging development) and in any given year you might be seeing 5 projects such as theirs competing for a total number of rooms in excess of what the available allocation was. Clauson noted the GMC would have an opportunity to' say this one was better than that; the process never really occurred in growth management, as it was initially intended. Clauson said in some ways this was a pro forma activity that doesn't have the meaning that it was originally viewed with beCause the fact was if this moves forward there will be significant review before P&Z and Council at two stages (conceptual and final). Clauson said what was being asked here was this appropriate to allocate from our precious~allocation of lodging units a certain number of units to this project so then it can go forward into the process; he hoped that the answer was yes, that it is. Clauson said he was 14 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMiSSiON MINUTES , MARCH09; 20'04 pretty certain that the project may be modified in the ensuing conceptual review and final review; it's clear that this is a zone district in which the proposed use and density was appropriate. Clauson hoped that the commission would validate the work that has been done to date and also the other activities that they have taken to score well in this area including the site's usability for social activities, which is a criteria equal to any other and ensuring pedestrian friendly features because they have tried to incorporate public spaces that are useful and meet this criteria that should be considered and not solely the height. Clauson understands that the height is an issue and people from 2 buildings that have objected because of the proximity to them and understands that's a working out that's going to have to take place and hopes that wouldn't cause the commission to score in this area so low that they can't go forward to continue the dialogue and discussion. Jim DeFrancia reinforced a point made earlier for the public record the applicant does not accept in any fashion that there is any kind of implied approval from the project as presented here. DeFrancia said as Ruth asked earlier if we were seeking allocation and we were fundamentally seeking the growth allocation of 14 units and mindful that height is a sensitive issue and mass is a senhfive issue and is fully prepared to deal with that and to work collaboratively with city staff and the neighbors to go through the balance of the process: DeFrancia said all they were seeking here was an allocation of 14 units as being appropriate development in this sector of the city and understands that all these other issues have to be dealt with in the future so you'll never see me coming back with any kind of implied height approval. _ ...... . , - Tygre commented that over her years on P&Z she had participated in more than one competing project without enough allocations so the projects had to be ranked with a somewhat different scoring criteria. Tygre said as far as the representations of the applicant, this is not simply a matter of allocations; if that was the case then you would just simply say you were in the LTR zone and we want to put up a hotel that asks for 14 allocation. Tygre continued that the applicant came in with a physical plan, so it was naive to say that we were just voting on allocations because then we wouldn't be seeing these drawings. Rudnick said if you got the allocation and the project was reduced in size, in subsequent proceedings, and the number of units was reduced he asked if the other unused units go back into the pool. Rudnick said that he was at a loss as what to do; he said this was a good project and good design but way too large for the site but it was a good place for lodge units. Rudnick said his only objection is the mass of the project and the impact on neighboring buildings and site lines; he said that he didn't know if he were voting on this being an appropriate location for 14 lodge 15 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 09, 2004 units albeit maybe 1,000 square feet instead of 2,000 square feet a piece then his vote would be favorable but voting actually or implicitly on the mass and scale of this project then he would vote no. Johnson asked for clarification on what the purpose of the growth management is. Hoefer responded that part of the criteria is to look at the massing so you have to make a decision on that particular criteria. Bendon stated that it wasn't black or white or just a matter of just giving out 14 allocations and it might have ended up a little different had it gone through P&Z and City Council; obviously height is of concern and would likely change during the process. Augello said the fact there isn't any direct competition doesn't mean we should not look for GMQS to increase the quality based on the criteria that are in the score, that's what is supposed to happen so those criteria need to be considered whether there is competition or not. Augello said that scale and massing is 1 of 6 criteria that are applicable; a couple are not applicable; it was still pretty weak on "C". Larsen said the list of six criteria "examples are including but not limited to" .and she wasn't sure it was fair to say one out of six but it could be one out of twenty, which brings this whole thing to a problem. Larsen said she could read it as a pure design issue (scale and mass being the main consideration) in this context and how that relates to the adjacent properties. Larsen also looked at community character as a separate entity and in terms of use; she considered the rooftop restaurant. Larsen noted there was a feeling that this was actually limited and targeted at design, which one sentence says "the goal of this subsection is to ensure the maintenance of community character through design quality", then maybe it wasn't appropriate to consider uses. Tygre stated that this was why the commission gets to make findings. Larsen said that the reason she could read this in a way that wouldn't allow her to think that way. Tygre stated this was the difficulty that the standards were not necessarily that clear-cut but the commission was supposed to use their best judgment based on the standards and everyone will interpret them. differently. Brown discussed the reviews from the Dancing Bear reducing the unit sizes and keeping the number of keys for rooms. Brown said at this point 14 allotments are provided and there is a chance that .14 allotments will be used although there is a chance that it may be a smaller scale. Brown stated that the project was fractional rather than timeshare; they were both allowed uses in the code but the fractional ordinance was approved to encourage short-term use by transient guests of the community; essentially the product is a condominium shared bY 8 owners. Brown said the 8 owners don't necessarily use it every night and on those unused nights, 16 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMiSSiON MINUTES - MARCH 09, 2004 which will average in the range of 15% to 20% of the time, it's run like a hotel so it's essentially a condominium-hotel very similar to the Aspen Square and creates an opportunity for short-term transient accommodation with higher occupancy hotel use. Brown said it one of the key criteria was a vital component to the community's economic well-being. Fractional use brings in short term transient short term accommodations to help support the restaurants, the shops and recreational amenities as well as the tax base that we all enjoy as well has the social and pedestrian amenities of the site. Kruger said to continue on with the level of comfort regarding timeshare and fractional ownerships; a number of timeshare projects have been approved but because town has lost 25% of the bed base, the timeshare fractional rules and discussion include that timeshare and fractional units must "smell like, taste like and act like" a hotel with a check-in, front desk, reservations and used as a hotel when vacant. Kruger said that if the owners don't sign up for usage of their unit within a certain timeframe then the unit is released into a rental pool. Kruger asked the average square foot size of the units. Brown replied the range was from 1750 to approximately 2000 square feet; the average was approximately 1825 square feet and they were all 3 bedrooms with a one-bedroom lock-off unit (500 square foot) plus 1300 square foot two-bedroom units. Rudnick asked if the one-bedroom had a kitchen. Brown replied the 1-bedroom was just a hotel room. Tygre, Chair 0 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 Haneman 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 Johnson 2 4 3 2 3 4 3 4 Krueger 5 ~4 4 3 5 4 4 5 Rowland 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 Johns 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 Larsen 2 5 3 2 2 5 3 3 Augello 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 Howard 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 Rudnick 4 3 4 1 4 3 4 2 Average Score 3.00 3.50 3.10 2.00 3.10, 3.50 3.10 2.90 Threshold 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Pass/Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Lindt noted the final average score was 2.90 on the 4th criteria; the scoring request failed so the applicant has the option to appeal. 17 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH'09, 2004 dj ou~m~ed at ~/~ckie Lothian,°Deputy City Clerk 18