HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040803ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes _ Au ust 3 2004
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................... 2
CHART HOUSE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD REVISED APPLICATION ........ 2
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL FINAL PUD ............................................................. 5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - Au~
Jasmine TYgre opened the regular City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
at 4:30 in ..the City Council Chambers. Commissioners present were Steve
Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Jasmine
Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:35. Roger Haneman was excused. Staff in
attendance: Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Chris Bendon, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland had Conflicts of interest with the
Residences at the Little Nell.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/27/04):
CHART HOUSE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD REVISED 'APPLICATION
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Chart HouSe PUD
revised application. James Lindt provided the changes from the last meeting by
the applicant and the changed resolution removing the conditions regarding the
patio size for the tree and the delivery hours, which needed to be reviewed. Lindt
stated that David Brown will introduce the changes made.
Lindt distributed a letter from Carol Farino objeCting to the parking and height.
Lindt stated that the height' and setbacks have not changed. Skip Behrhorst stated
they were asked to look at the tiring on the upper floor of the building on the south
side and left side, the teXturing on the elevation above the garage door and delivery
door on the east side. Behrhorst said that they have ended up with a better-looking
building with the changes suggested by P&Z. Behrhorst explained drawings A. 107
on the upper level with the changes made were shaded, sheet 106 gives the
dimensions; the original was at 5 feet and they now jog at 12½ feet, 7½ feet, 15½
feet, 21 feet and 8 feet. Behrhorst said this created better shadow lines and more
texture.to the building; the comer on Monarch and Dean was moved in a foot for a
shadow change on the face of the building then as it relates to elevation French
doors were added and a French balcony, again to give more texture and interest.
Behrhorst said there were no changes in the building height; the main massing was
34.6 feet, the Durant side was 46.6 and 43.6 on the Dean Street side. Next to the
Southpoint was 41 feet and Southpoint was 31 feet; about 85% massing of the
building was 37 feet. The model reflected the top floor changes and the applicant's
letter reviews the benefits.
Brandon Marion asked the depth of the balcOnies on Monarch on the second floor.
Behrhorst replied on Monarch they were 5 feet. Marion asked if the parking was 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - Au ust 3 2004
satisfied. Lindt replied that it was. Marion asked about the construction impacts
of the area. Lindt stated that they would have to go through Growth Management
again. Joyce Allgaier said that a construction plan would be filed, which discusses
operation, the placement of staging and construction materials on site or obtain off-
site approval; it also addresses dust control and cleaning truck tires prior to
entering the pavement and containment of the site.
Dylan Johns asked what was happening with the northern staircase. David Brown
answered it was essentially pushed into the floor; it was an outdoor staircase that
becomes an indoor staircase. Brown said that it was conceptual at this point.
Jack Johnson said according to the land use code what are we actually doing when
we vote on a conceptual PUD; specifically what are we obligating ourselves to
relative to the final PUD. Lindt responded that conceptual was basically giving the
applicant an idea that the height, massing, setbacks, proposed type of uses that are
appropriate for the site; it. gives a reliance to go ahead and make a final PUD
application based on what was approved at conceptual.
Tygre asked if the setbacks were a matter of rearranging the top floor without a
reduction in square footage. Behrhorst replied that was correct.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
1. Mr. VanTongeren,-public, Southpoint owner, stated the separation should be
20 feet not 15 feet and that it was what they agreed. Lindt noted that Mr.
VanTongren was referring to the letter from Carol Farino.
John Rowland stated that all of his concerns were addressed and implemented; he
requested for the next reiteration if the building increments could be more
symmetrical to create a balance. Brown replied that it was something that could
be looked at.
sheamessJ°hns saidofthethatSteps~ ~.takenhe on the upper floor help to address his concerns with the
· eve,, said that he inquired about the stairs now so it has been
th ,ht__oue,..~ about now. Johns said he would see what council says about the height.
Ruth Kruger sai'd it was quite striking how the few tweaks have changed the
13oi°Verallect butI°°kit°fhasthemadePr°jeCta niceand she did not feel it was P&Zs place to design the
_r~ difference. Kruger said it would be a nice addition to
that comer; she didn't mind the A-syrmnetry.
Marion said that the applicant did a great job a,~,~,'ess~n-
backs makes a dramatic change and the balconies make itthelookC°ncemSgood, andMarionthe stePsaid
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - August 3, 2004
there was concern for the overall height but it can't be moved down just a few feet
here and there and supported the project with the changes even though he would
like to see the project just a little bit smaller but he doesn't see how they can
accomplish what they need to accomplish and make it smaller.
Steve Skadron said his thoughts were parallel to Brandon's such as the question of
size and would like to see it smaller but didn't know if it could still maintain a
viable project. Skadron asked JOhns about being comfortable with the massing and
showed a picture relative to the St. Regis; things fit nicely. Johns replied that to
keep in mind and the reason he requested step-backs was the perceived height of
that building for the majority of the pedestrians and or residents and from the street
side when you look up 3 stories you will see a lot less than is actually there; when
you start getting up in elevation either in the Regis or Southpoint or on the
mountain that you start to see what's on top. Johns said the setback from
Southpoint was more important because that would open up the perceived sense of
space.
Jack Johnson stated he appreciated the efforts to address the concerns of the public
and the commission.
Tygre said that she may have misinterpreted what was going to happen at this
meeting but she thought that there was consensus about the height and the massing.
Tygre said what was done was an improvement over the previous application but
there was no more reduction; a PUD is a very site-specific review with the purpose
of having a better design than what would have been with the underlying zoning
dimensions. Tygre said that to her there needs to be a justification to exceed the
underlying dimensional requirements by such a huge amount and she didn't see the
justification for that and her finding even with the improvements this was an
inappropriate level of development (mass and height) for this particular site.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #27-04 and recommend that
City Council approve the Chart HoUse Timeshare Lodge Conceptual PUD to
construct twelve (12) timeshare lodge units and two (2) affordable housing units at
219 E. Durant Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit
an application for finaI PUD review within one year of gaining conceptual PUD approval. 2. The final
PUD application shall include detailed utility, landscaping, erosion control and drainage plans. 3. The
utility plan to be submitted with the final,PUD application shall include the snowmelt service lines and
access points. The service lines sh[~ll be planned tn a manner that will not require trenching under
existing trees or under propOsed landscaping. Existing sanitary sewer service lines serving the property
shall be abandoned at the main line and shall be excavated. The utility plan shall also indicate only one
water tap to the main water line. The existing water services line shall be abandoned at the main line and
shall be excavated. 4. The landscaping pIan to be submitted with the final PUD application shall include
a detailed tree protection plan and a right-of-way irrigation plan. The landscapingplan shall not contain
~nulti-stem plants and shrubs in the public right-of-way. The landscaping plan shall also include an 4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - MinUtes _ Au ust 3 2004
elevation drawing detailing the location of the proposed sidewalk along Durant Avenue in order to give
the Parks Department a better idea as to how the sidewalk will affect the grade around the existing
Cottonwood trees. 5. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a licensed engmeer prior
to City Council's review of the conceptual PUD request. The drainage plan shall not show any clear
water connections and the drainage system shall route site drainage to the nearby City storm drains.
Roof druins shall discharge onto landscape areas and not directly into the storm sewer. 6. The final
PUD application shall indicate that the proposed entry plaza on the corner of Durant Avenue and '
Monarch Street is completely within the confines of the property. The proposed landscape walls
delineating the edge of the patios on both Durant Avenue and Monarch Street shall also either be
removed or located completely within the confines of the property on the final PUD application. 7. A
generator will be required to operate the par]a, ng elevator and the fire pump during power outages. A
designated location for the generator shall be proposed in the final PUD appl'ication. 8. The final PUD
application shall only include at most two (2) gas log fireplaces. 9. The Applicant shall contribute to the
City's street repair fund or place a 2-inch thick overlay on Dean Street between Monarch Street and S.
Aspen Street to offset accelerated deterioration of street pavement due to construction traffic generated
by the proposal. The Applicant shall route construction traffic from Dean Street to S Aspen Street and
then onto Highway 82. 10. The final-PUD' aPPlication shall include the following methods of PM-10
mitigation., a.) Provide free bus passes to all employees, b.) Provide an airport shuttle for use by guests
and estate owners, c.) Advertise transportation alternatives to potential guests/estate owners, d.)
Sidewalk improvements in the adjacent right-of-ways meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 11.
The final PUD plans shall indicate that oil and grease interceptors meeting the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District's requirements will be installed in the possible food preparation areas. The final PUD
plans shall also indicate that oil and sand separators meeting the Aspen Consolidated SanitatiOn
District's requirements will be installed in the parking garage. A detailed plan for interceptors,
separators, and glycol containment shall be submitted with the building nermit a licatw . .
PUD application shall contain a d aibd land ........ r _ 'Pp ' n 12 The final
eta ........ ,occtpe ana zmprovements plan Jbr the Dean Avenue Right-
of-way abutting the Chart House property that is consistent with the Dean Street pedestrian
improvements plan that Staff has initiated 13. Snowmelt shall be allowed in the public right-of-way as
proposed by the Applicant ifa maintenance agreement is executed requiring that the Applicant or the
pphcant s heirs and assigns maintain said snowmelt system in perpetuity. 14. All exterior lighting shall
meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements pursuant Land Use Code Section 26. 575.150,
Outdoor Lighting. 15. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment license from the City Engineering
Department to allow for the rollout awnings to extend into the Monarch Street Right-of-Way, Seconded
by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Marion, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Skadron,
yes; Johnson, no; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 5-2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RESIDENCES A.T LITTLE NELL FINAL PUD.
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Residences at-Little Nell Final
PUD. Public notice was provided. Chris Bendon explained the intent was to go
through the presentation in several steps to understand the application. Bendon
noted that Scott Woodford was the original planner on this project but has moved
back to Steamboat Springs. Bendon said the final application for the final PUD
included subdivision, timeshare, specially planned area (SPA), growth
management exemption, lodge re-development credits, multi-family replacement
credits, re-construction of commercial space and affordable housing.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - August 3, 2004
Bendon said the subdivision would be re-platted as one lot, the multi-family units
within the project that require subdivision approval, the condominiumization,
timeshare approval (1/8 interests), special review for parking, rezoning intemal to
the project, a SPA amendment to the Little Nell SPA and 8040 Greenline review.
The site was south of Dean Street and east of South Mill Street. The proposal
includes demolition of the Tipple Inn Condos, Tipple Inn Lodge and Tippler
Nightclub and everything at the base of the gondola plaza to the west. The
proposal includes the reconstruction of a 108,000 square feet (FAR) multi-story
structure, which doesn't count the below grade parking; 24 fractional ownership
units with 16 lock-off capabilities (40 keys, 19 are 3-bedroom and 5 4-bedroom
units); 8 hotel rooms; 2 free-market condominium units, which can be rented short-
term in the lodge zone; 8,900 square feet of commercial space to include a
restaurant, 3 retail spaces and ski lockers; 70 underground parking spaces; 8 on-site
affordable housing units and 15 affordable housing units to be bought down at the
Obermeyer project from RO to Category 2 & 3; 8 affordable housing units outside
the city limits. There were proposed improvements to Dean Street, the hump on
Dean Street will be re-graded to allow the ability for the North of Nell retail space
to opened up and for the city's desire to open up Dean Street as a pedestrian
corridor between the gondola plaza and the Lodge at Aspen. There was a re-
routing of the Little Nell Ski Lift to accommodate a little more space and an
outdoor patio and bar that face the gondola plaza.
Bendon said the parcel arrangement was a little different in this proposal; the P&Z
recommended city council approve with conditions to reducing height and mass.
At conceptual the building was reduced in massing pulling it down the hill.
Bendon stated the lodging use with a high mm over of hotbeds was a positive for
the base of the ski mountain; there was a back-up plan for 6 town homes on this
site, which was not as attractive for the base of Aspen Mountain. The timeshare
units insure a regulatory mechanism to be on a short-term market; the restaurant
and retail uses provide more vitality for Aspen Mountain with a semi-public Space
including the patio providing .an interface between the mountain and town. The
phYsical design was an urban edge quality that enhances Dean and South Mill
Street and still has an openness on the mountain with a mix of buildings articulated
in contemporary architectural forms. Bendon said that during the conceptual
design the quick architectural iterations that were happening to satisfy the
condensing of the project while it was going through its review with city council;
the condensing was creating a boxier and boxier architecture; the architects have
made a good recovery with a form with more relation to it. Bendon said that
Sunny Vann had a good explanation for the masses that were happening; in terms
· of the height that was no bigger than a residence or duplex that could be built there,
it has no greater impact. 6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - Au ust 3 2004
Bendon stated that the project had plenty of parking; the lodge standards for
parking seems to over-park projects and the lodge ends up leasing the spaces out.
Bendon said there were 8 affordable housing units on site for the immediate needs
of the project and meets the letter of the law; there was a partnership with
Obermeyer to buy down 15 RO units to affordable and the remainder of units at the
AABC. The Aspen Pitkin Housing Auth~)rity prOvided a positive review of the
employee mitigation and affordable units. The underlying property has lodge
development rights through reconstruction credits and residential lodging and the
commercial property is able to retain those rights and redevelop through
exemptions from growth management; those exemptions require the same levels of
mitigation as a full scoring and the difference is in terms of process. Bendon said
the estimates for employee generation were from the Little Nell and would be the
same operator of this project. The rates from the 2002 employee generation study
were used for the commercial space. Bendon stated the resolution Wouldneed to
be fine tuned with the applicant. Bendon asked for clarification of the smaller
model to check the scale for the next meeting.
Bendon disclosed that his wife is the chair of the housing board but did not see this
as any conflict of interest and the city attorney agreed.
Jasmine Tygre said that the conceptual approvals that have been granted were
summarized on page 5of the staff report. Tygre asked if the conceptual granted by
council was the applicant's reliance factor. Bendon replied there was no reliance
that's given on conceptual and legally it gives the right to apply for final; there was
no legal binding quality. Tygre said that she was confused because the conceptual
could not be taken back at final because there was a reliance situation. Bendon
responded that the final application should be roughly what was approved at
conceptual but the granting of a conceptual approval legally grants the applicant
the ability to apply for final.
Sunny Vann stated that they spent an inordinate amount of time with council on
the issues of use, zoning, overall FAR, overall bulk and development program have
been resolved and they prepared a final application that was substantially in
compliance with what was received at conceptual approval. Vann said there was a
lot to cover and the application changed from the conceptual; the adoption of the
timeshare regulations that allowed this project to become feasible. Vann said they
were acquiring 27 separate interests in the property form 16 separate owners; the
key component was the operation of this project by the Little Nell Hotel with a
product that addressed the need in the operational plan and designed to compliment
the Little Nell Hotel and facilitate the operation of this facility. Vann stated this
was also an opportunity to take a large chunk of land at the base of the mountain
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - August 3, 2004.
and revitalize it; the prior owner of the Tippler gained approval of redevelopment
of the Tippler Nightclub as a 4-unit project. Vann said they did not prefer to build
6 units on this assemblage of land given the cost of putting the parcels together.
Vann said parcel A was the Tipple Inn Condominiums; parcel B the Tippler
Nightclub and parking lot, which was approved as the Tippler Townhomes
Subdivision (the 6 townhomes); parcel C was 10 units at the Tipple Lodge; parcel
D was the Hen residence, a single family residence on the hill with the ship's
prowl; parcel E was the Andeman residence, which an 8040 Greenline was just
approved for reconstruction of a single-family residence; parcel F was the Jacobi
house; parcel G was owned by one of the project parmers; parcel H was the SkiCo
property that they were under contract to buy. Vann explained the original
proposal included all of the parcel although the 2 single families would be
reconfigured for access and property boundaries; the original proposal that P&Z
saw contained parcels A, B, C, D and E. Vann utilized the model and drawings to
illustrate the flat area and the toe of the slope with the original proposal at 72,000
square feet with 30 timeshare lodge units with 60 timeshare keys, 1 free market
unit but in order to buy out one of the Condominium owners on the property the
applicant had to provide them with a new unit within the complex so now there
were 2 free-market units. The original proposal also included FAR for the entire
site at 2:1 after slope reduction and now Was 2.88:1. The elevator that services the
single-family residences causes the FAR increase.
Vann said they exceeded the 25% open space requirement for the CL zone district.
The model would be changed to reflect the correct heights of the single-family
residences. Vann stated P&Z wanted the mass reduced at the south end of the site
on the hillside and increase the setback to mOve the building to the east and reduce
the bulk and be more ~creative with the height instead of a uniform height and P&Z
said they would prefer studios to one-bedroom units for the on-site affordable
housing units and were amenable to off-site affordable housing. Vann said the
Commission also requested limiting the CL zoning to parcels A, B and C and they
agreed to take some of that bulk and move it down hill. Parcels D, E and G were
eliminated from the site and the site only came. to the lower portion of the Tipple
Lodge. The number of timeshare lodge units was reduced from, 30 to 24; the
affordable housing was now 8 studios as opposed to 4 one-bedrooms and the floor
area was reduced from 109,500 square feet to 108,000 square feet. The roof design
of the restaurant was changed from a peaked roofline to a barrel roll that was 10
feet lower. The counter-clockwise circulation'was changed per the P&Z and
Council requests but the garage doors coUld not be changed. There were some
changes on the upper roof level per City Council' s request to help with North of
Nell concerns.
ASPEN
PLANNING
&
ZONING COMMiSSiON
- Minutes - Au ust 3 2004
Vann stated the affordable housing mitigation would be 60% in the city and 40%
within the urban growth boundary and a strong encouragement to talk to
Obermeyer. Vann said the rezoning was changed from the P&Z approval for
parcels A, B, C and H to CL and keep the LTR for the bulk of the building but City
Council was concerned about the rezoning of the SkiCo upper parcel to CL; it
would remain as open space and not be developed. Council decided the upper
portion remain C Conservation even though the FAR of the allowed building
would go up in ratio to the site so parcels A, B, C and lower half of parcel H would
be rezoned to CL; the upper portion of parcel H was to remain C Conservation.
There was an amendment to include the SPA designation.
Vann said the final PUD complies almost entirely with the cond/.tions of the
conceptual approval; the FAR went from 2.86 to 2.88 because of the 2 free-market
Units with the elevator shafts plus the purchase of the Hen, Jacobi and Andeman
residences with a new house being built on the Andeman site. They were looking
for a variation from the height requirement to accommodate this project.
Vann said the heights vary in the final PUD and the application contains a drawing
which establishes the height across the entire building at various points that will be
recorded with the PUD documents; the middle of the building has an elevator
tower at $8 feet with an average of 37 feet around the perimeter of the building.
Johns noted there were specifics from the prior P&Z approval that needed to be
addressed. Bendon replied that they were included in the very large appendix
book, which one was located in the clerk's office and the in community
development office.
Skadron asked what buv down means. Bendon explained the traditional use of buy
down was when an applicant instead.of building new employee units or giving
cash-in-lieu buys a free-market unit and deed-restrict it to a category level and sells
it to the housing authority. Vann stated the Obermeyer units could be bought down
by the developer and then be sold at category 2 or 3. Skadron asked if parcel H
remained C Conservation. Vann replied parcel H, which was being purchased
from the Ski Company was part of much larger parcel owned buy the Ski
Company; the lower most portion encompasses the Little Nell Hotel and the one
has the gondola, plaza and commercial spaces underneath with the bulk of this
zoned C Conservation. The Little Nell was approved by Council as an SPA with/n
the C Conservation zone .d/strict, Lots 1 and 2 at the base of the mountain, which
allows the city to grant all of the other uses without changing the underlying
zoning. Vann said they would be limited to the basic PUD plan as submitted to
cap the height, size and square footage, which cannot be changed without coming
back to amend the approvals.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISS.IQN - Minutes - Au~
Johns inquired about the Little Nell Ski Lift realignment. Vann responded that this
was a relocation of the lower portion of the Little Nell Ski Lift (the bullwheel,
shack and lower towers) moves 15 feet. JOhns asked for site sections. Klm Weil
replied that they were in the process now and will have some to present. Johns
asked for a roof'plan with topography. Well replied sheet 30 of the submission had
a drawing with points that.go down to grade. Johns asked if the additional square
footage was due to the addition of the 2 free-market units. Vann replied that was
true with the circulation adjacent to it; the access to the upper units from the sub-
grade parking garage was an elevator with a tower in the middle of the project to
access the walkways through the corridors. Johns asked the prior room count that
could be considered short term when it was the Tipple Lodge, Tippler and Tipple
Inn. Vann answered there were 12 free-market condominiums (discussed in the
existing conditions portion of the application) in the Tipple Inn the Tippler had'
about 13,000 square feet of commercial with the restaurant and bar and the Tipple
Lodge had 10 lodge rooms and 2 residential units, which was originally a duplex
and subsequently converted at some point to the lodge. Vann reiterated the
development rights were coming from the demolition of the Tipple Lodge and
conversion of the residential credits to lodge credits as provided under the code.
Each residential credit was equivalent to 2.95 lodge keys; 24 fractional ownership
units with 16 lock-outs equals 40 plus the 8 pure hotel rooms equals 48 plus the 2
free-market units.
Marion thanked the applicant and staff for the analysis and asked if they had
explored anything other than the flat roof. Bill Poss responded that there were
images from the prior approval, which show why it was changed. Marion asked
for the allowable square footage. Bendon replied that the council main concern
was the height. Vann replied that the slope reduction and allowable square footage
for the free-market units was 6,000 square feet and proposed was 6,315 square feet
for the residential because of the elevator access, stair tower and fitness center.
Marion asked if' the only public space was the restaurant. Vann replied that all of'
the lobby space, restaurant, apres ski deck, and the retail spaces were public; the
fitness center was private to the guests of the property as well as the rooftop pool.
Tygre said the final PUD proposal contained 48 keys plus the 2 free-market units.
Vann replied that was correct when it went from P&Z to City Council it went to $
pure hotel rooms and 24 timeshare with 16 additional lockouts. The timeshare
was a 1/$ share.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing for the
Residences at Little.Nell Final PUD to August 10, 2004; seconded by DyIan Johns.
ALL IN FA VOR. MOTION CARRIED.
h i~City Clerk lO