HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050222ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-Februarv 22~ 2005
COMMENTS .............................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................. 2
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN (REVISED DESIGN) CONCEPTUAL
PUD/TIMESHARE ..................................................................................................... 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 22~ 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the Special Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting in Sister
Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners present were Brandon Marion,
Brian Speck, Steve Skadron and Jasmine Tygre. John Rowland, Jack Johnson, Ruth
Kruger and Dylan Johns were excused. Staff in attendance were: James Lindt,
Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; John Worcester, City Attorney; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre stated that members of the Planning and Zoning Commission have
received emails and letters regarding public hearings. John Worcester responded
that ex parte communications were disfavored because the applicants and the public
have the right to see what information the commissioners receive. Worcester said
decisions should be based upon what information is gained at the public hearings
and if that decision were challenged there would be a record. Worcester stated ex
parte communications were made outside of the hearing itself so there was no way
for staff or any one to know what kind of information was received or whether it
was disputed or not. Worcester said there was no difference between a letter and
email as long as it was placed into the record. Worcester said it would be improper
for the commissioners to make a decision based upon information received from an
ex parte communication. The public cannot be prevented from sending letters or
emails but they should be placed into the record to be appropriate. Worcester said
the way to cure an ex parte communication was to put it into the record and disclose
at the hearing.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
John Rowland, Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger were conflicted on the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/15/05):
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN (REVISED DESIGN) CONCEPTUAL
PUD/TIMESHARE
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain (revised design). James Lindt stated that notice was provided. Lindt
stated the application was to conStruct a lodge on several properties just west of
South Aspen Street. The Planning & Zoning Commission was the recommending
body to City Council; there was a review of this project about a year ago, which was
denied by the commission. Lindt said the applicant revised the application based
upon comments from staff as well as the P&Z and resubmitted for P&Z review.
Lindt asked the commission to hear the applicant first and then staff comments.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 22~ 2005
Sunny Vann, applicant planner, said that P&Z commissioners Steve and Jasmine
were present as well as Dylan Johns at the last hearings a year ago. Vann
introduced John Sarpa who was part of the team for this project, which were 2
separate parcels (parcel 1 north of Juan Street 42,600 square feet and parcel 2 south
of Juan Street was 62,000 square feet). Vann said Timberfidge and the Lift One
Condominiums bordered Parcel 1; the project was approximately 104,600 square
feet. Parcel 2 contained the SkiCo parking lot and the Mine Dump Apartments; the
property was zoned LTR/PUD. Vann said that Parcel 1 currently contained one
single-family house and the SkiCo parking; Mary Barbee placed a deed-restriction
as long as she owns her house across Juan Street. The deed-restriction placed height
limitations of 16 feet on the northern most portion of the property and the southern
portion of the western end of the parcel could have no above grade development.
The deed restriction would go away if Mary Barbee were to sell her house.
Vann said any loss of vegetation would be mitigated with replacement or cash-in-
lieu. Vann explained there was a backup project with vested rights until mid 2006
with 14 free market townhomes and 17 on site affordable units distributed between
parcel 1 and 2.
Vann said this original application was for 121-unit mixed-use hotel/~ctional
ownership project. The revised project had 82 hotel units, 23 fractional units, 3
free-market units and 12 AH. The facility also contains a fitness center and spa, an
outdoor pool, restaurant/bar, aprbs ski dining terrace, ballroom, meeting room,
business center, children and young adults recreation area. It was considered a
timeshare hotel for the city's land use regulations. Vann said the basic concept was
to secure a conceptual approval for the project and then court an operator for the
five star facility. Vann said there were about 82 hotel keys with 500 square foot
rooms; there were no variations from the timeshare regulations, which would be 1/8
ownerships and available to the public when not used by the owners.
Vann said there would be about 105 lodge development rights required to build this
project because fractional units were considered lodge development (82 keys for the
hotel and 23 for the fractional). There would be 9 residential reconstruction credits
from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments, which could be converted to
lodge rooms under the city regulations with a ratio of 2.95 lodge keys per residential
use; the left over 47 or the remainder of keys needed would be under the growth
management competition.
Vann said the parking was the same as designed with 156 spaces located in the 2
garages, which includes the 30 SkiCo parking spaces. Vann said Juan Street was to
be widened to unified 27-feet with sidewalk, curb and gutter. The affordable
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 22~ 2005
housing mitigation was based on two separate components; the first component was
the affordable housing to mitigate for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments
(the code required replacement of 50% of the square footage and 50% of the
bedrooms with replacement housing, which equates to 12 bedrooms and 3800
square feet). Vann said they were mitigating onsite with 12 onsite housing units and
a total of 13 bedrooms. The second component of the affordable housing mitigation
requirement was those employees generated by'the mixed-use hotel/timeshare with
the city formula at .5 per key so it would be about 50 employees; there would be a
detailed staffing plan with an operator at final PUD. Vann said that they would
house 60% of the employees generated by the hotel and fractional ownership
component and 60% of that 60% would be housed within the city limits and the
remaining 40% would be housed within the urban growth boundary. Vann said they
would buy down units.
Vann said there were 2 separate buildings connected by a bridge and the spa and
pool were located on parcel 1. All of the hotel rooms,, the restaurant, the bar, dining
terrace and entrance area were on parcel 2. The 12 affordable housing units were
located on the northwestern part of parcel 1 located at grade on the pool terrace
level. Vann noted there were 2 vehicular access points (off of South Aspen Street
and the secondary access off of parcel 1). Vann said this parmership was the same
as the Residences at Little Nell and they have attempted to address some of the
concerns of the neighborhood, which reduced the size of the project from about 2.2
to 1 as aFARto 2 to 1.
John Sarpa stated that he represented Centurion Parmers, which were the managing
parmers for this project. Sarpa said there were 4-5 major changes in the project,
which Bill Poss will present.
Bill Poss introduced Kim Weil from Poss Architecture. Poss utilized plans to
illustrate the portions of the building (urban context plan, use of materials for the
separation of buildings and roof shapes, articulation of a mountain character). Poss
stated there were reductions in the levels on the Shadow Mountain (38 feet) side and
2 levels taken offnext to Timberridge. The bridge was reduced to a narrower 2-
story bridge without rooms. Poss stated the mass was reduced by Lift One with
materials changed and the upper portions were reduced toward Shadow Mountain.
Poss utilized the model to show the differences and relief for Lift One, Timberridge
and the Juan Street Bridge. Vann stated the changes in this project reflected the
P&Z concerns from the first review.
Vann noted the changes to the LTR zone district (currently at first reading with City
Council) affect the allowable height from 28 feet to 42 feet and changes the
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 22~ 2005
underlying floor area from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1. Vann said the project was closer to the
new lodge zone district overall FAR and height.
James Lindt detailed the staff recommendations, which were the lodge use as an
appropriate use; the base of Aspen Mountain was a logical place to locate a large
lodging establishment; the project would provide more of a bed base for the
community; a reduction of mass on parcel 2; a reduction of the stone base to 1 story
on South Aspen and Dean Avenue; reduce the Juan Street Bridge to 1 story; remove
the porte-cochere; the safety of South Aspen Street with the additional traffic and a
winter maintenance plan at final PUD. Staff felt the mass should be addressed at
conceptual. Lindt said the affordable housing was met as well as the parking.
Steve Skadron asked the number of people lived at Mine Dumps. Lindt replied that
there were 18 beds. Skadron asked what kind of marketing program would ensure
the timeshare units would be rented when vacant. Vann replied that was a
mandatory requirement of the timeshare regulations. Sarpa said that because this
was also a hotel it would have a higher likelihood of being rented.
Brandon Marion asked about the iconic clear story. Lindt responded in reviewing
the initial design proposed in the mid 70s it was now reduced to 65 feet. Staffwas
more concerned about the overall massing of the entire project rather than the height
of that clear story, which would add some interest to the faCade and be inviting.
Marion asked the use for this story. Vann replied it was an architectural feature,
which the height was measured to the upper most point rather than the midpoint.
Marion asked if story poles or photoshop had been done to determine the impact on
the viewplanes. Lindt replied that anticipating that this would take several meetings
to review staff would like to setup a commission site visit preferably between this
meeting and the next meeting. Vann said they were interested in helping the
commission visualize but once you get above 2 stories story poles get difficult;
another option would be to use a crane and hang something from the boom. Vann
said a crane would take time to move around. Marion noted that Bill Poss did a
good job on the last photoshop presentation.
Marion asked about the current status of Lift One negotiations. Sarpa replied they
have had a number of discussions with the SkiCo and know the general ideas but
not what other entities may be involved. Sarpa said the agreement, has not been
reached with the SkiCo. Marion asked if the porte-cochere removal was doable and
the one-story bridge. Sarpa replied they were working on re-designing the
fenestration of the bridge to look like one-story.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 22, 2005
Brian Speck asked if the bridge could be one level split. Kim Weil said that was an
option to make the bridge a little wider and one-story. Speck stated other P&Z
members addressed his concerns.
Jasmine Tygre asked the number of timeshare rooms that have already been
approved and what was in the pipeline. Tygre asked if there was a separate
resolution from P&Z on the LTR or did it come from the infill. Lindt answered it
came from infill and council directed staff to bring back portions of the infill code
as separate items for their review. Tygre asked to see that ordinance. Lindt replied
that he would get that ordinance for P&Z.
Public Comments:
1. James Lindt said the names of the letters not in the packets were Nancy
Willette from Timberridge, Elaine and Heinz Wolfe from Timberridge and Scott
Stewart from Shadow Mountain.
2. Doug Allen, represents Lift One Condominium Assocation, entered letters
dated January 5, 2004 from Allen, Wertz and Feldman; Lift One owners Stanley J.
Cristol, Edward C. Glickman, Sue Imren, Roan Lacy, Jr., Allen P. LeChard, Tom
McConnell, John O'Connor, Riely O'Connor, Don Steiner, Dean & Beverly Vander
Wall, Joel Wugalter and Scott Stewart. Doug Allen said that there was a project
fully approved for this property and that was a fall back project if this one did not
get approved. Allen distributed a conceptual drawing with the first rendition
outlined in green marker and he said this project was reduced in mass less than
10%. Allen said the height was unknown at this point for this building and that the
infill lodge heights were not adopted into the code. Allen likened the Lift One
Condominium as short people standing in a hole next to this project
3. Joel Wugalter, Lift One Condominium owner, said that Doug expressed many
of his points on the project. Wugalter stated concern for the safety on South Aspen
Street because of the steepness; he also stated concern for the amount of accidents
on this comer and the amount of cars from this project going up and down the street.
Wugalter said the main parking was up South Aspen Street. Wugalter said the
height of these buildings was also of concern because of the hill going up.
4. Milton Zale, Lift One president of homeowners association, said that the
developer has never talked to them and they need to be considered. Zale said the
main concern was the setback from their property line.
5. Bart Johnson, attorney for Timberridge Condominium Association, asked the
height of the employee units. Kim Well replied 13 feet to the top of the wall.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 22, 2005
Johnson asked where the entrance to those units was located. Weil answered that
the entrance was internal from the garage and the building. Johnson said the
Timberridge owners were concerned about the height of the project, agreed with
staff on the taking out the porte-cochere, pulling the building back, asked if
Timberddge owners could purchase or lease parking spaces and to be mindful of the
circulation impacts.
6. Galen Wa!dron, Timberridge, said that this was the first time she heard about
the employee housing being 15 feet from the Timberridge. Waldron supported
moving the one ridge of the building and there was a big impact from a 51-foot
building.
7. Richard Spaulding, Southpoint Condominium, voiced concern for the snow
melt for the street and concern for the sidewalk on Dean Street.
8. Hugh Hacher, Southpoint Condos, seconded what Richard said because South
Aspen was very slippery in the winter and very dangerous.
9. Tami Solondz, Timberfidge, asked if there would be any more public parking
spaces on Garmish and Juan. Lindt replied that the city engineer suggested that it
be no parking because of the width of Garmish. Solondz asked for the locations of
the doors coming out onto the streets. Well said there were sliding glass doors onto
Dean Street from the units plus a door on Garmish. Solondz asked if the edifice of
the building at 51 feet could be alleviated and she voiced concern for the flag that
would fly at this hotel.
10. Alex Biel, Shadow Mountain Condo Association, stated the height could' be
reduced if the units were reduced by 50% or dig deeper by undergrounding much of
the hotel. Biel said the glass penthouse could be reduced and traffic was a problem.
Beil said ifa new Lift lA was being built that would cause more traffic and snow
melt was definitely needed.
11. David Ellis, Timberridge owner and resident, reaffirmed everything that has
been said and wanted particular attention to softening the western elevation by
stepping it from west to east. Ellis requested some view sections cut north/south for
the Commission because there was a good 8-9 feet grade change to the threshold to
the lowest level.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 22~ 2005
12. Don Gilbert, Shadow Mountain, stated the 5 levels of this project would
affect the views of Shadow Mounatin and they were unanimously opposed to this
project because of the loss of views and traffic on South Aspen Street.
Tygre requested suggestions on how to visualize this project. Allgaier said that the
points were of importance. Marion said moving to the different points would help
with the photoshop drawings. Tygre asked when this could be scheduled and how
long would it take. Lindt asked how long it would take to get the drawings together.
Weil replied it would take time to gain access to the neighboring properties and
obtain the survey crew for dimensional control and a site section through the
property, which may take 2 weeks to get the surveyor on the property.
The commission did not want to discuss the project until the height was illustrated
in some form and a site visit was set.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting by 10 minutes; seconded by
Brian Speck. All in favor, approved 4-0.
The commission wanted to discuss the street maintenance and safety. Sarpa agreed
to the commission requests on street maintenance and safety. Allgaier said there
was information on the city side from the DRC and the applicant in the large binder.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain revised design to March 29th; seconded by Brain Speck. All in
favor, approved 4-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
~l~c-kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8