Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050517ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 2 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 LIMELIGHT CONCEPTUAL PUD ........................................................................ 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in City Council Chambers Meeting Room at 4:30 p.m. Commission Members Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brian Speck arrived at 5:15 pm. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan and James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger thanked Chris for all of his hard work on infill. Chris Bendon stated that there would be a work session to update P&Z. Steve Skadron and Ruth Kruger requested the work session as soon as possible. Chris Bendon announced that James Lindt passed the AICP Exam, which was a certification program for planners. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/03/05): LIMELIGHT CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Limelight Conceptual PUD. James Lindt stated this was a proposal to redevelop the Limelight, Deep Powder and Snowflake Inn properties with 128 lodge rooms and 18 free-market residential units. Lindt recapped the last meeting by saying the applicant presented the application and the commission took public comments. Staff did an issue identification exercise with the commission for the main issues to be discussed. The commission requested some additional information on a photo simulation from the Wheeler, site section on East Hyman and lodging economics. Lindt said that tonight the discussion would include the height and massing; dimensional requirements and setbacks; the relationship with the neighboring historic cottage; parking; access points; the use and moderately priced rooms. Staff believed the proposed use was a lodge use with free-market residential condominiums, which was an appropriate use for the parcels. The properties were traditionally used as lodging properties in the lodge zone district. Staff believed the moderately sized units proposed were consistent with the AACP proposed lodging goals in providing a mix of lodge units to replenish the declining bedbase in the City of Aspen. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 Lindt said the proposed heights were 48 feet on the principal building heights on both buildings with certain elements at 50 feet. Lindt said that some of the heights may be pushing the height requirements that would be acceptable. Lindt said the proposal included 0 setbacks along Monarch Street, East Hyman Avenue as well as along Cooper; staff felt given the urban context these were appropriate. Lindt stated the relationship to the historic house could go further to reduce the height of that portion of the building to scale. Lindt said the parking provided was sufficient proposed at 2 parking spaces for each of the residential units (the underlying zoning only requires 1 parking space for each unit). Lindt said the applicant proposed .47 parking spaces for each lodge unit, which was fairly consistent with the underlying zone districts requirement of .50 per unit. The applicant proposed to provide the entrance to the parking garage for the lodge building off of East Hyman adjacent to the historic house on the parcel to the west, staff believes it would be more appropriate to look at access from the alleyway rather than East Hyman. Staff believed the applicant could study this between conceptual and final submittal. Lindt said that the majority of the issues could be taken care of as conditions of approval with the exception of height (if the commission feels the height was an issue it should be addressed at conceptual). Lindt said if the commission feels there should be a better relationship between the adjacent historic house and the project; this should be resolved prior to conceptual moving onto City Council. Dale Paas thanked the commission for showing up for the site visit. Robin Schiller, architect, addressed the Wheeler Opera House View Plane and said there was very technical surveying and a plane going out at an angle to define the Wheeler View Plane. Schiller utilized drawings and computerized photos of the view plane to illustrate the 48 foot height limit on one building to see the impact on the view plane. Schiller said there was only a very small portion of the proposed building that sticks up and most of the view plane blockage was from other existing buildings. Schiller utilized a photo simulation from the east side of Wagner Park near the mall; he noted the evergreen trees and deciduous trees were taller than the proposed buildings. Schiller said the lodge building comes above the visible horizon; on the south part, the residential building was below tree line and would block some of the mountain. Schiller said there was a section diagram that shows the relationship between their building and the Park Central Building across ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 Hyman and 210 East Cooper from the 3rd floor of each building to Bell Mountain. Schiller said the portion of the building across from 210 Cooper was 42 feet tall, in compliance with the zone district and across from the Park Central Building their building was proposed at 48 feet. Schiller explained they were making the lodge units 500 square feet and in order to do that they needed that 48 feet in height. Schiller said a 42 foot height limit did not allow for a 4 story building. Schiller said they would come back with the number of on-street parking spaces. Schiller said the parking structure would have the capacity of 50 to 60 cars, which would add 35 to 40 car capacity that was not a significant number of cars. Schiller said it was better to retain, the parking entrance off of East Hyman. John Cottle, architect, said the relationship to the White House was how Aspen's varied scale evolved historically; examples were the Jerome at 60 feet and the Aspen Times Building at 20 feet right next door to the Jerome. Cottle said for over 100 years we have gotten used to that so the whole idea of varied scale is a common historical pattern. Cottle displayed a series of sections of the Limelight to the historic White House, the Wheeler to the Mill Street Plaza and the MotherLode, the Jerome to the Aspen Times and the Elks to the Gap. Cottle said in relative terms the Limelight proposal steps from 48 feet to 36 feet with a 42 foot space and a 17 foot height of the White House. Cottle said they were comfortable with the pattern in Aspen and the relationship to the White House. Jack Johnson asked for copies of the photographs and simulations. Brandon Marion asked if the free-market portion was allowed the same code that applied to the lodge units. Lindt replied that the staff interpretation though the writing of the code language for lodge was that the height limit that would apply to the overall project was 42 feet. Marion asked why staff felt the height was okay. Lindt replied the height was consistent with other Lodge PUDs that have been approved in the immediate area; Dancing Bear was approved at 46 feet. Lindt said the story poles at the site visit showed the 42 foot height limit and the 48 foot height limit proposed by the applicant. Lindt provided photos of the site story poles. Lindt said this project was slightly higher than the Chart House conceptually approved at 46 feet 6 inches. Staff was concerned about some of the elements that breech the 50 foot mark. Marion asked about the zero street setback; he asked if it would not be appropriate to give some relief to the height if the buildings were moved back from the sidewalk. Schiller said there were two issues one from a city shaping and space making point of view and they did not think it was appropriate to hold the buildings back with tremendous open space across Monarch with Wagner Park. Schiller said the second issue was to go back to providing one lodge unit per 500 feet of site area, which requires 128 lodge units. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 Schiller said the next packet will provide the heights of the Wheeler Opera House at 59 feet to the cornice, the St. Regis was 45 feet to the cornice and 55 feet to the ridge, the Hotel Jerome was 49 feet of the original building and 54 feet at the annex, the Independence block was 42 feet, the Elks building was 47 feet and the Mountain Chalet 55 feet at the ridge. Marion asked about the discussion of the alley vacation. Lindt responded the request was not to vacant the entire alley but the Eastern side of the block over to accommodate a courtyard for the Lodge itself. Lindt said the access to the parking garage and queuing proposes in the alley access would be more appropriate with the relationship to the historic house and East Hyman. Marion asked if the alley is left as it is how does it affects the overall plan. Cottle answered the family tried to consolidate onto one piece of land and the challenges of breaking up the building, which notches out and goes back in a series of places. Schiller said if the City chose not to vacate the alley that would be a major economic issue for the project; it impacts the number of rooms that they can provide; it impacts if they meet the City's incentive of one room per 500 square feet of site; it impacts the number of employees and efficiency of operations, which in mm impacts the affordable housing requirements. Marion said that he did not understand the floor to floor calculation; he said that 12 foot ceilings would be a Hyatt and not a mid-priced hotel. Schiller said the ceilings would not be 12 foot but rather the floor to floor is 12 feet and then you take out the space required for the floor structure, ceiling structure, plumbing pipes, sprinkler pipes so they would be 9 foot or 9 foot 6 inch ceiling heights in the lodge units. Schiller said about 2 ½ feet of each floor would be used for the structure, beams and at final more accurate details may be available for the structure. Paas said that travel agents seeing the current lodge say that they can get a modem product in other cities for the same price. Paas said that every time you try to squash the structural pieces between floors the costs go up to accommodate that and they are trying to keep it a moderate priced hotel. Johnson asked about other alley vacations in town and the number of lodging rooms that have been lost in town. Lindt responded that community development provided lost lodging numbers from Stay Aspen. Johnson asked how many rooms were currently at the Snowflake and Limelight and the average size of the rooms. Paas replied 110 rooms at about 350 square feet each. Paas said the extra space was allocated to the bathrooms, which was criticized the most on how small the bathrooms were. Steve Skadron inquired about the portion of the view plane that was out of the view plane. Lindt answered that a portion was out of the Wheeler View Plane. Lindt said the code language would be attached for the next meeting on View 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 171 2005 Plane. Skadron asked the floor to floor height at the St. Regis. Schiller said that the Obermeyer Place project would have 9 foot 4 inch ceiling with 11 foot 6 inch floors. Cottle explained that even a fiat roof slopes for drainage so that also has to be taken into account for the height of the buildings. Skadron said that this scale to scale was different form the other scale to scale project next to one another because the lodge was next to a house not another commercial building. Cottle said that in the MotherLode project there was public as well as residential space. Skadron asked what they were seeing between the Limelight and the White House. Cottle replied the White House steps back and at the closest it is 42 feet from the Limelight and is 36 feet high at the closest point. Dylan Johns asked if there was study done with taking parts of the ground level and dropping those to essentially reduce the height. Schiller responded there were some topographical changes around the site to provide enough challenges that lowering the floors and changing the levels within the building would cause accessibility problems. Johns asked where the boundary was to not infringe upon the view Plane. Schiller replied they did not get into that because it was blocked by the existing building in front of their project. Samansky said they do not technically know if those buildings by the Prospector with the bike shop and the air conditioning stacks on top of those buildings are in the view plane. Kruger noted that the presentation of the Conner Cabins to P&Z for the View Plane Review was extremely helpful and the applicant should look at that presentation. Kruger requested a view plane of the free-market portion of the project. Samansky said the alley, the height, the size of the room, parking were issues that were struggled with from the beginning. Samansky said the starting problems were the questions of connecting 5 buildings, 1 swimming pool and 128 lodge rooms. Samansky said there was a total of 49,915 square feet; the hotel that will be built is 89,600 square feet; they are going from 110 rooms to 128 rooms. Samansky said they were building 80% more hotel space because that was what the traveler demands; elevators, bathrooms, storage, hallways, interior stairways, exists, the floor to floor space. Samansky said if the alley stays opens it will be a totally different project; the family project's success has struggled to build from scratch this hotel; the condos unwind from the hotel. Samansky said he understood the 5 years to get to the height of 42 feet but they were there to show why they need 48 feet to make the lodge what the traveler wants. Samansky said the Snowflake was bought thinking it would fit the needs of the hotel; this has been an evolutionary process and how to pay for the project. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 Paas stated they are looking at this as a family project that will be comfortable at the end of the day and they think their project has community value and community benefit. Public Comments: 1. Scott Broughton, public, said what the tourist expects is a good hotel room and amenities to the facilities. Broughton said the open space created by the project was good while maintaining the increase in bed space in town constitutes stacking the building. 2. Steve Ketchum, public, stated that he was a teacher and coach; he said he has known the Paas family who has been extremely generous to the School District because of what they do for the community. Ketchum said the Limelight Lodge has provided generously to the Basketball camp with donations of hotel space. Ketchum supported the Limelight project. 3. Bob Letherman, public, 210 Cooper reemphasized what he said the last time that they have strong opposition to the ½ alley vacation and 210 Cooper would loose parking. Leatherman said that was a very narrow alley, which would send a lot of congestion into the alley for their building and the Hartman's cottage. Leatherman also stated concern for the winter with snow removal from that alley. 4. Hannah Pevny, public the president of the ACRA, she said that this project was critical to the vitality of the economy and bed base of this town. Pevny said there were hotels in that moderate price range were needed in this community. The Limelight's generosity during Winterskol was admirable; the Limelight provides the bed base for the X Games and Food and Wine. Pevny said the Limelight redevelopment was critical to this town. 5. Chris McKennon, public, stated that she was the director of sales for the Ski Company and spent a lot of time traveling around the country trying to get groups to travel here as well as families. McKennon said the comments were that Aspen was lacking in a modem moderate hotel; The Mountain Travel Symposium was just held with 130 ski club decision makers from around the country who attended for 4 - 5 days; they liked the service but noted the lack of quality of product in the hotel area. McKennon said many other destination resorts have that hotel product but it doesn't exist in Aspen. McKennon said the size at 128 lodge rooms would be good for sizeable groups to come into this town and this project would be a huge value to the community. 6. Andrea Clark, public, 210 Cooper agreed with everything. Clark invited the group to look out her ground floor unit window; they loose the sun in the winter at 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17, 2005 1:30 or 2 and with the height of this building they will be totally dark most of the winter causing them to consume more natural resources. Clark said there was nothing in the code that prohibits shadowing but it was a quality of life issue. Clark sated the reason she moved from Chicago to Aspen was to see the mountains. Clark said that the ski buses line up near the alley. 7. Irma Goldinger, public, said that she has lived in this neighborhood since the early 1960s and said there were buses on their street 5 or 6 in a row and the cars circling around from the hotel would add to the busiest street, Aspen Street. 8. Maric Debski, public, said he worked at the Limelight and felt extremely appreciated by the Limelight for what he does. Debski said some of the guests have been coming to this hotel for about 40 years and the propserty needs to be redeveloped so he can keep his job. 9. Erin Wrigley, public, said that she agreed with what the Paas family was trying to do in the redevelopment; this was one of the mid-range hotels in Aspen for family and friends to stay at. The commission supported the lodge use and the need for the residential component and the community support for this project. The height and setbacks posed concern for the commissioners with respects to the impacts to 210 Cooper and the shading in general to Cooper Street. Other Commissioner concems were the 48 foot height proposal, which was 6 feet over the 42 feet limit with the new code limits; the ceiling heights at 9 feet 6 inch was generous and could be squeezed down; the process of infill was to fulfill the needs of an applicant; more sensitivity to the historic cottage and transition from the lodge to the historic cottage. The commission wanted to support the project but within the proposed code height limitations at 42 feet. Schiller said there was a 30 inch setback from the property line. Parking would be saved for the next meeting. Kruger suggested looking into parking under the street and Wagner Park. Marion agreed with Ruth. The vehicular access and alley way was a concern for the commission from the design and circulation standpoint. Some commissioners had no problem with the alley vacation without significantly impacting Wagner Park but there were traffic concerns on South Aspen Street. The delivery issues were addressed by Schiller who said there was a service area for trash and access for delivery trucks, which were minimal. The function of the alley was important. Lindt noted comments from the Streets Department on the turning radius of the plow tracks; the fire 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 17~ 2005 department felt they don't need to use the alley for fire fighting; the City Engineer had concerns about the utilities that would have to be relocated so that there was no interruption in service. Schiller said that since the DRC meeting they have worked with Sopris Engineers for the basic concepts for the relocation of the utilities. Schiller also said from that DRC meeting they wanted snow storage at the end of the alley. The applicant and staff agreed to sit down and work out the alley issues. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the Limelight Conceptual PUD to June 14, 2005; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All in Favor, Motion Approved. Meeting adjourned. ~ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9