HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050510ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 10~ 2005
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE .... 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May l0T 2005
Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in
Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m. Commission Members Brandon Marion, Steve
Skadron, Dylan Johns, Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. Jack
Johnson, Ruth Kruger, and John Rowland were excused. Staff in attendance were
James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre spoke about an article from the Denver Post regarding second
homeowners in the West.
James Lindt reminded the commission of the Limelight site visit on Tuesday, May
17th at noon at the Limelight. Lindt asked the commission if they could meet on
June 14th for a special meeting. Lindt said that Council approved code
amendments to the Lodge District, Growth Management and the SCI Zone
District; there would be a work session to review these changes. Jasmine Tygre
requested the amendments be emailed to the commission members. Brandon
Marion requested the story poles have 10 foot increments.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and John Rowland were conflicted on the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/12/05):
LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain.
James Lindt entered letters into the record from Bruce Farr, Timberidge, who
objected to the height; Tami Solondz, Timberidge, also had issues with the height;
Gailyn Waldron, Timberidge, objected to the height and that the building has not
been moved to the east; Timothy Tucker, Shadow Mountain, who felt the project
did not fulfill the Aspen Area Community Plan goals; Michael Mizen, Shadow
Mountain, objected to the height; Alex Beil would like more of the building buried
below ground and another letter from Bruce Farr objecting to the height on the
revised plan. The Timberidge owners, Alex Bell and Bruce Farr have seen the
changes.
Lindt stated the applicants have revised the design from the last meeting and the
applicants feel that there was more work to be done with the neighbors. John
Sarpa noted that it would become clear through the presentation why the
continuance was requested.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 10t 2005
Sarpa stated they were at a different stage with each of the neighbors listening to
the concems. Sarpa updated the commission on the north end of the building
pulling the building back developing a better view corridor and a story was
dropped.
Kim Weil, Poss and Associates, stated the north end, the Lift One side, was now
approximately 45 feet from the property line; it was within 10 feet of the property
line on the prior plans. Well utilized elevation drawings to show the floor and
mass removed. Brandon Marion asked what single loaded and double loaded was.
Weil replied that a single loaded corridor was rooms on one side only and double
loaded was with a room across the hallway.
Steve Skadron asked how much of the "U" was removed. Weil replied that was
roughly 40 feet.
Tygre requested story poles. Sarpa responded that they would go to the next level
with a more concise model and a digitized heights rendering. Sarpa said that the
PUD and the Aspen Area Community Plan would be addressed in more detail on
June 14th.
Brandon Marion requested to see the intent of the project dovetailed with the intent
of Aspen. There were a lot of concerns over view planes. Marion said it was
important to the process to have an understanding of what belongs on the site and
what will fit with everything else. Sarpa replied this project was a hotel project in
its core at the base of the mountain with a significant residential component.
Public Comments:
1. Milton Zale, president of Lift One Homeowners Association, said that they
have met with the developer on numerous occasions and have made good progress.
Zale said that there were 2 issues that the developers were addressing now and the
Lift One's goal was to support the project.
2. Bard Johnson, Timberidge lawyer, said that they were meeting with John
Sarpa tomorrow. Johnson said there were still concerns with the massing; he
requested a cross-section though the site. Johnson noted the elevation difference
between this project and the Timberidge.
3. Alex Beil, Shadow Mountain Townhomes, stated they were not as far along
as the neighbors were with discussions however they were optimistically awaiting
revisions. Beil said that story poles were essential for visualization and hoped the
commission insisted on them as a condition of approval.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 10, 2005
4. Simon Pinniger, Shadow Mountain, requested two or three weeks to review
the plans to make a sensible response.
5. Gailyn Waldron, Timberidge, requested the commission read the letter that
she wrote because it addressed the concerns of the Timberidge owners; she agreed
with Simon on the three week period to review the plans to get the homeowners
association. Waldron asked for platforms to be placed around the site for people in
the neighborhood to see the heights.
6. Ed Brown, Lift One, asked what was located in the 40 feet where the
building was moved back. Kim Well replied that it was the driveway and turn
around; in the originals plan the circle was outside the building inside the "U".
Weil said the driveway was really in the same location but the circle goes under the
building (like at the St. Regis). Sarpa said they first eliminated the roof and then
pulled the whole building back. Brown asked about the lighting in that 40 foot
space. Well responded the lighting will meet the Aspen Code; the lighting will
point almost straight down. Milton Zale said that hopefully they will not see, hear
or see the headlights from cars or landscape; there was about 79 feet of space from
this building to their building.
The commission read the letters submitted into the record.
Dylan Johns said that he was interested in what the project will look like next time.
Brandon Marion asked about the 50 foot wall in front of the Timberidge. Kim
Weil replied the height (the way that the City measures height) was 46 foot 9
inches; at 26 it was 44.9; at 25 it was 46 feet 9 inches. Marion said he needed as
much visual aid as possible; a rendering with overlays that show code and the
proposal; the angle from Shadow Mountain. Brandon requested story poles
marked in 10 foot increments with a mark where code is and where the proposal is.
Marion said that he did not have to hear about the economic feasibility of the
project but more about how the project fits into the community and the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Steve Skadron said that he was happy to hear from the neighbors and looked
forward to hearing from Sunny Vann on the project.
Jasmine Tygre said her concern was the PUD; if the development follows the same
rules then even if your view is blocked the development followed the rules. Tygre
said that the expectations for the orderly transfer of property according to the rules
established in a governmental code that people rely on was important; the reason
for the PUD instead of the underlying zoning should be convincing. Vann said
4