Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040727ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 2004 COMMENTS ................................... MINUTES ........................ 2 CHART HOUSE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD - REVISED APPLICATION ... 2 ..ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27~ 200, Jasmine Tygre opened the special Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Brandon Marion,- Roger Haneman, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Steve Skadron and Jasmine Tygre were present. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Julie Ann Woods, James Lindt, Community Development Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger inquired about the large advertisement in the paper for the luxury condominiums at the Innsbruck Inn because P&Z hasn't seen any review on that product. James Lindt responded that it was coming before P&Z on September 7th for Timeshare and PUD Review; Community Development discussed the advertisements with the applicant and the applicant felt it was appropriate and a means of doing research on the interest in the project. Kruger asked if there was a legal provision on that. David Hoefer stated that this was the first he had heard of it and it was probably more of a real estate issue than a legal issue. Lindt stated that they were aware of what they were doing. Roger Haneman announced that he was moving.to Woody Creek in approximately two months and will have to resign. Kruger asked if city board members could have priority for employee housing units. Jasmine Tygre noted that if priorities were set for special interest groups then it would no longer be a lottery. Jack Johnson requested that with projects of this magnitude the commission have at least 10 days to review the materials prior to the meeting. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from July 20, 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED 7-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: CHART HOUSE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD - REVISED APPLICATION Jasmine Tygre opened the revised application for the Chart House Lodge Conceptual PUD rev/ew. David Hoefer stated there were two affidavits of notice provided for the publication and proof of notice as required by the city code. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 2004 Hoefer noted for the record that all eight commissioners were present therefore Brandon could participate but would not vote, if it went to a vote tonight. James Lindt stated that the revised application included the construction of a twelve-unit timeshare lodge on the Chart House.property at 219 East Durant. P&Z previously recommended a 4 to 2 approval with conditions of height reduction and increased setbacks fi.om the west side adjacent to the Southpoint Condominiums. The City Council review of the proposal was felt that it was too large and too close to Southpoint. City Council requested the applicant re-design based upon city council comments and remanded it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review of this revised design to see if the P&Z concerns were met in terms of height, setbacks and other concerns. Lindt stated the revised design reduced the overall height from 63 feet to 46 feet 11 inches; increased the setback from Southpoint to a full 15 feet and proposed to move the building 5 feet to the east to provide for that 15-foot setback. The applicant proposed to reduce the number of rooms to 12 lodge room units with 3 bedrooms each and reduced the amount of affordable housing units fi.om 4 to 2 2- bedroom affordable units. The rooftop restaurant was removed and in conjunction with that they proposed to make the first floor comer lounge area a full service restaurant and caf6. Lindt said they proposed to move the Dean Street loading bay to Monarch Street adjacent to the proposed entrance to the parking garage. Council suggested the lower 30s to mid 40s for the height limits. Lindt said the livability of the southern most affordable housing unit was of concern because of the amount of light; the 2 remaining affordable housing units have light and more than mitigate in terms of employee generation. Another concern was the number of on-site parking spaces provided. The applicant reduced the number of units and employee units, reduced the size of the restaurant and provided 2 additional parking spaces. Staffnow believes there was sufficient parking given the mitigation proposal with van service, fleet of bicycles on site and overall proximity to the commercial core and gOndola plaza. Lindt stated the delivery hours in the proposed resolution were from 7am to 8pm. Parks requested the patio area on Dean and Monarch be reduced to allow for additional planting to round out the streetscape; the applicant proposed a lively area with the patio area. Lindt said if height was still a concern P&Z should propose a range to go to council. Skip Behrhorst stated they have accomplished a reduction in height and reduction of some of the massing of the building, which they feel was consistent with the neighborhood. Behrhorst utilized the model for the neighborhood layout and noted ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING~COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 2004 the changes in relation to Southpoint and dropping a floor and a half of the building reducing the height. The trees on the model portrayed the relationship to the height of the building. Behrhorst said the newly proposed employee housing units were 986 square feet each almost on grade with a wall that tapers down from 5 feet to 0, which has developed a different character of affordable housing units than the ones before; these were all street frontages along Durant. Behrhorst stated they were able to save the large cottonwoods by enlarging the distance between the two buildings and retaining the existing landscaping providing a pleasant relationship between the two buildings. Behrhorst said the height was lowered from 63 feet to 46 feet 11 inches with the main mass of the building around 37 feet. Parking was addressed by increasing the ratio. There were a total of 22 keys with the lock-off units. Behrhorst said the public benefits that they were offering with the two affordable housing units, the restaurant and caf6, the public improvements to Dean Street and were open to work with the city; the plan energizes and revitalizes a,property in an important location. John Rowland asked if the structure was engineered so that the rooftop restaurant could be brought back. Behrhorst replied they had not thought about that but it certainly could'be looked at design wise. Brandon Marion asked what the square foot breakdown of the restaurant and kitchen was. Behrhorst there was about 1815 of actual lounge area with a 500 square foot kkchen area below and an outdoor area that can't be used in the winter. Marion asked what mitigation matters were taken to lessen the square footage. Stan Clauson replied that the building steps down from the main massing to a point below the mansard on the Southpoint in order to integrate the buildings. Dylan Johns asked if Parks and Engineering have communicated about the cottonwood on the comer. Lindt replied the additional cottonwood came up at a discussion at DRC and re-discussed when the revised landscape plan was submitted but Parks and Engineering probably have not had a discussion on the appropriateness of placing a tree there on the comer; sight lines would have to be preserved. Johns asked how the service bay would transition into the building effectively. David Brown responded that the sidewalk was sloped down and there would be two curb cuts, for access for parking and service. Ruth Kruger said the chart that compares the proposed, existing and underlying zone district data, the minimal oPen space says per PUD plans; she asked what that means. Lindt replied that a calculation was done based on the site coverage itself, 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27~ 2004 which was about 25% of the site not covered by structure. Kruger asked how the configuration for the 2 affordable housing units came about. Brown replied they tried to provide as much privacy as possible and provide windows and light for the living rooms and bedrooms. Steve Skadron asked which public is being served by the restaurant. Behrhorst answered that it would probably be more casual and this was very conceptual right now. Skadron asked if the loading bay might conflict with .the lobby entrance. Behrhorst replied that they did this to satisfy concerns from the Aztec and getting the pedestrian walkway along Dean Street consistent. Brown noted the primary entrance where most of the guests will enter was on the comer; the service entry was not immediately adjacent. Brown said the access to the garages; a landscaped area and the entrance to the restaurant would not be in conflict. Skadron asked in exhibit A of the staff findings if it was a commitment by the applicant to rent timeshare rooms to the public that are vacant. Lindt repiied that it was; lodge rooms and timeshare rooms were considered similar use in terms of the fact that they were both short-term accommodations and would be required to be rented out on a short term basis when the owners were not in their units. Skadron asked how it was monitored. Lindt replied there would be a condition in the ordinance and the condo declarations that would have to spell that out; there wasn't a good way to monitor. Julie Ann Woods stated there would be some sales tax from the rentals. Skadron asked what other rooftop functions would occur. Lindt replied there would be a rooftop garden. Behrhorst replied that it would not be a public space. Skadron asked about the recreation facility. Lindt replied that they don't necessarily have to have a recreation facility for the PUD but the commission could look at it as a benefit to the project if it did have a recreational facility. Stan Clauson stated in order to bring down the massing and size of the building this facility was eliminated and also not required. Jack Johnson inquired about the open space. Lindt answered that the site coverage of the building appeared to be about 25% but amenities such as a pool area at grade level would be considered open space along with the public open area of the restaurant. Johnson clarified by saying that 25% is green but does not meet the definition of open space. Johnson asked the average square footage of the proposed units. Brown replied 1,800. Johnson asked what the first iteration was. Lindt said he believed they were .about 2,200 square feet. Johnson asked if the height was about 40% more than the underlying zoning. Behrhorst responded that it depended upon how you look at that as it relates to massing; the main mass of the building was at 37 feet but it certainly does step back to the two units at 46 feet 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 2004 11 inches. Johnson asked if the parking was 30% less than what the underlying zoning required or the land use requirements. Clauson answered that the parking meets the code. Lindt said that in terms per bedroom there would be some additional spaces required for the restaurant area as well; the code requires about 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leaseable square footage and they have about 2,000 square feet, which would means 6 additional spaces. Johnson asked what were the aspects that push this project into the exceptional category. Behrhorst replied that the site itself warrants the density and they are doing the best they can with a very difficult site given the size in relationship to the urban site and fitting it into the buildings around it. Behrhorst stated that he like to be proud of things that he has dOne and he feels when he is done with this project he will feel that way. Johnson said the FAR was 2.66 with an underlying zoning of a 1:1 ratio. Lindt explained the FAR (floor area ratio), which is the size of the floor area in relation 'to the lot size but not all square footage counts towards the FAR, sub-grade space is exempt to an extent. Johnson asked if this reiteration went back through DRC. Lindt replied that it went to the different agencies but not another formal DRC meeting. Jasmine Tygre requested clarification on depth of the setback closest to Southpoint. Behrhorst replied 5 feet. Tygre asked if the'walkway outside of the vegetation extended into the Durant Street right-of-way. Lindt replied yes. Tygre asked what was the height of the closest part of Southpoint and Aztec parapet. Behrhorst answered 31 feet for Southpoint and 31 feet for Aztec. Tygre asked the underlying zoning for the dimensional requirements. Kruger quoted the proposed FAR from the Council work session, although it has not been passed, changing the LTR to L (lodge district); timeshare would be 2:1, traditional 2.5:1 and CL (commercial lodge) 3.5:1. Tygre asked the current height limit. Lindt replied it was 28 feet. Johns asked if the restaurant satisfied the public amenity requirement. Lindt answered that it would be a public amenity since it was open to the public. Johns inquired about other programs or services on the rooftop like hot tubs. Behrhorst replied they wouldn't do it. Johnson said that he came up with the underlying zone district requiring 38 parking spaces; 25 for the lodge at .7 per bedroom, 4 for affordable housing and 9 for the net leasable commercial. Lindt said that 8 would be the appropriate number for the commercial, which makes 37 spaces. The applicant proposed 27 spaces. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 200A PUBLIC COMMENTS James Lindt distributed letters from Marilyn Silverman, Helen Levy, Margery Smith, Mark Fryrick and Mark Silverman who were all against the project with concerns for the height, setback and traffic congestion on Dean Street. Lidia VanTongeren, public, Southpoint owner, thanked everyone and asked for consideration of the wall heights and setbacks. Brown utilized the model to illustrate the various heights on the west side. Carol Farino, public, Southpoint owner, voiced concerns for the height and parking; the wall will go up 5 ½ feet taller than the top of Southpoint and she suggested eliminating the top floor with two units. Farino said there could not be too much parking. Lindt said there were additional parking requirements in the fractional ownership portion of the land use code, which actually provides for different requirements than the underlying LTR zone district. That ordinance says that parking shall be based on the maximum number of proposed lockout rooms, which translates to .7 spaces per number of keys; that equals 22 spaces plus the underlying housing requirement would actually be 30 spaces. Stan Clauson stated the underlying zone district basic was .7 per lodging unit but then can be mitigated to .5 per lodging unit with caSh-in-lieu, so 27.4 could be mitigated down to 23 and they were providing 27. Skadron asked if this alleviated staff concern for parking. Lindt replied that it did with the reduction of lodge rooms, restaurant space and affordable units. Tygre said procedurally the commission had to consider the PUD itself and whether the proposed PUD conforms to the standards in the code for PUD development, site specific review. In addition council wanted specific comments regarding the height, the setbacks, delivery hours and relocation of the loading dock area to Monarch. Lindt added the reduction of patio size and to provide the additional tree requested by Parks. The height as proposed was okay with Rowland, Kruger and Johns; Johns and said if the heights were pulled back more than 5 feet that would be much better for the setback changes. Haneman had problems with the height and said it was still a few feet too high but if an additional layer of tiring was added it would not seem as massive of a wall. Marion said the building was too tall. Skadron agreed the building was too high. Kruger said the developer was responsive to neighbors, which was admirable; Johnson agreed with Kruger that the applicant was responsive to the Southpoint Condos but he needs a section height from east to west for his decision making process. Tygre said that Johnson brought up a great 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27, 2004 concem on the PUD standards and respect for the underlying zoning, as was her concern. Kruger stated this was an appropriate place for hotel and will bring economy back. Johnson said the architectural character has diminished from the first proposal and was troubled that it was not conveyed to council that P&Z was very concerned about height; Johnson said that exceptional projects can deviate from the PUD process but the public amenities from this project are gone at this time. Tygre noted there was only one set of dimensional standards in the code at this time, which were -the same for a lodge or residence; on a 12,000 square foot site there was a lot of stuff'being placed and even though the building was attractive it was too much for this site, an over all reduction in height and FAR to be closer to the underlying Zoning dimensions was appropriate because this project was not so exceptional as a benefit to the community to allow it to be so much higher than what was currently allowed in the zone ~istrict. Tygre said it Was her responsibility to uphold the code for the benefit of the community and must follow the rules unless there was a convincing case to exceed those requirements by such a tremendous amount; she could not justify this building. Setbacks were adequate or appropriate for Rowland, Marion and Johns. Tygre requested deeper setbacks on the Southpoint side, the foot ridge was not a significant setback and agrees with Johns that it will negatively affect the light and Tygre said the Aztec side should also be stepped back. Haneman requested more tiring. The delivery times at 7am were okay in those areas for Rowland. Marion said the hours of delivery operation should be limited. Johns and Kroger requested the hours fit in with Dean Street improvement plan and that it was unfair to have certain hours for one operation and not for' another. Haneman agreed with Stan Clauson on the hours; Skadron agreed with Haneman and Stan on delivery times. Johnson said there should only be one delivery time restriction in the whole town. Tygre. agreed on the deliver hours. The commission agreed with no extra tree on patio with the exception of Johnson having no opinion. Rowland noted a serious problem in replanting cottonwoods; he said keeping the patio more friendly and not reducing the size because it was an important comer. Marion asked for more :clarity on the restaurant. Johns requested a smaller scale planting on that comer. Kruger said the size of the restaurant with a galley kitchen and prep in the basement will limit the kind of restaurant and agreed no more trees because the openness was essential to the liveliness of the patio restaurant. Haneman said no extra tree on the patio. Skadron agreed with Rowland about the cottonwood trees. Tygre agrees on the 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27~ 200~ patio without the tree unless there can be a way to accommodate the tree successfully. Skadron and Kruger requested an audit on the timeshare units that were open to the public and neither had comments on the patio. The commission suggested a reduction in height to 42 feet by Haneman; under 50 feet by Rowland; Skadron and Marion could not place a number at this time but it would have to be lower than proposed; Johns suggested more step-backs; Johnson refused to place a number for a height restriction with the current project without amenities; Kruger did not have a problem with the proposed height; Tygre agreed with a reduction in the height. Clauson stated the step-backs could be increased 2 more feet, which would increase from 5 to 7. feet. Julie Ann Woods stated that there was no place in the PUD that uses the term exceptional but "rather a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality desired site-planning, a greater variety in the type of character development and a greater compatibility with the existing or surrounding land uses that would be possible restrict applications underlying zone districts". Johnson stated from an architects standpoint without drawings reflecting this or a section cut-through they were making a huge mistake. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to request the applicant come back on August 3ra with illustrative drawings from the proposal as modified from this P&Z meeting and to City Council as final conceptual; Steve Skadron seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, no; Johns, yes;' Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-2. Behrhorst stated that he was confused about what the commission wanted them to come back with; he felt that they have done a lot of adjusting. Haneman replied the north fagade was relatively successful with balconies and tiring and requested to see that in more places not simply just tiring but a good balcony; adding a few more around the building. Rowland stated that more specifically on the east side right above the entry to the garage and loading dock was a rather lonely spot. Kruger added that a balcony might be more appropriate to beak up the faCade. Johnson stated that he felt it completely inappropriate to redesign the property and the applicant was capable of redesigning and his concerns would not be addressed by any of these changes. Marion said there was enough concern about height and massing to warrant further review. Marion asked the applicant if they have heard enough and had enough information. Clauson replied from what he heard from 2 members that they didn't like the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION' :"Minutes JULY 27~ 2004 project but the rest of the commission said the height would be acceptable if the step-backs were altered somewhat and they understand that. Clauson said there was an alteration of variegation on the one side. Behrhorst said they could lo°k at some texturing and some additional things to help but they have to look at the economics and can't just be lobbing offparts. Behrhorst said they would look at the subtle things in the architecture. Johns said that he was reluctant to give specifics because of what happened on the Dancing Bear and after that process it was still met up with a negative so he couldn't give any degree of certainty or assurance because he couldn't guarantee that it was going to work for everybody. Tygre excused herself at 7:05. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to extend the meeting another five minutes; seconded by Ruth Kruger. ALL IN FA VOR, MOTION CARRIED. Skadron stated that Jack raised the issue of public amenity; he asked Jack for details. Johnson replied that in "A6" there were beneficial community goals and how increased density can be appropriate in particular where there is community benefit to that; he said he did nOt see that in this prOpOsal. Woods stated that staff sees it in a different perspective; the restaurant on the main floor would bring life to the street was a public amenity for the community. Woods said there would be activity on the ground floor and more so now that there was no restaurant on the top floor. Woods suggested continuing to August 3rd but would probably not have the drawings for the packet on Thursday. Johnson stated that he could get behind this project at the proposed height and with the existing setbacks if he saw an overriding community goal that would allow him to find in its favor, but he doesn't see that. Clauson responded that they tried to articulate how they satisfy the g0al as stated that additional lodging units would be desirable and activating and providing a lively space on a certain area of the street. Clauson said at the same time they have talked about improving the infrastructure by bringing that sidewalk to the front of the existing cottonwood trees and they are constrained by the cottonwood trees so this was a significant undertaking to cut into the street and bring that sidewalk to the front to continue the pedestrian amenities. Clauson noted those pedestrian amenities were not only on the Durant Street side but also on the Dean Street where they have worked with staff to implement a share or portion of the Dean Street amenities when thev come to final design. Kruger lamented the loss of the community benefit of the rooftop restaurant because as an idea it looks beautiful but would be a nightmare as the building ages. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 27~ 2004 MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to adjourn; seconded by Brandon Marion. ~4££ IN F~4 VOR, MOTION C/IRRIED. ]ranscribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11