Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050621ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -June 21, 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE ........................... 2 CHART HOUSE LODGE FINAL PUD AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS ............................................................................................................... 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. Commission Members Brian Speck, Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland and Ruth Kruger were excused. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon and James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Steve Skadron said Aspen Highlands was marketing their free parking and riding the free RFTA bus into town. Toni Kronberg said it was bumper to bumper traffic and thought that the Highlands idea was a wonderful one. Skadron said there were 5 buses an hour to Highlands. MINUTES MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from Apri! 12, 2005; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger and John Rowland were conflicted on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen conceptual PUD and Timeshare. James Lindt explained this was to construct an 82 unit lodge and 23 fractional units on the west side of South Aspen Street. Lindt said that on May l0th the applicant requested more time to work with neighbors to further reduce the impacts of the proposal on the neighboring properties; revisions to the design. Sunny Vann said one of the key themes that rtms through the Aspen Area Community Plan was the concept of economic sustainability. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan Committee brought forth the fact of the deteriorating lodging facilities and outright loss of tourist beds; there was a loss of 1/3 of the beds in town. Vann said the Lodge at Aspen Mountain will help replenish the dwindling tourist accommodations bed base; the entire site is zoned lodge. The base of Aspen Mountain has been zoned for tourist accommodations since the late 1970s. Vann noted the Lodge will help promote a healthy and.diverse economic base that supports our local economy and tourist industry; the Lodge includes a restaurant, Apres ski deck, Spa and other facilities that will provide additional choices for our visitors and locals. The Lodge's affordable housing mitigation will be entirely met by the applicant both on site and within the urban growth boundary. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -June 21~ 2005 Vann said the Lodge was the right type of project in the right location and provides community benefits. Vann explained the new legislation for the Lodge District and the Timeshare Lodges were best determined through the PUD process. Vann said the Lode at Aspen Mountain was submitted prior to the changes in the code. Vann said the Timeshare component complied with all of the fractional requirements and provided another component to the lodging inventory and an opportunity for other people to reserve or rent a different type of product. Vann added that the floor area has come down steadily since the beginning and was now slightly less than 2 to 1; the allowable FAR was about 2.5 tO 1. Vann said the lower half of the site was basically being left undeveloped and the building is being stepped back towards Juan Street to reduce the height in the immediate face of the Lift One and Timberidge Condos. Vann noted the lower site was also encumbered by a deed-restriction, which limits the heights to approximately 17 feet. The major mass of the upper portion was setback almost 100 feet from the streetscape. Vann stated in order to lower the heights around the perimeter of the building the center becomes higher. John Sarpa stated that the major changes were reductions in heights on the north, lowered the bridge from 3 stories to 2 and lowered the cupola; the second round changes were that the porte cochere and the cupola were eliminated; the bridge went to one story and the north side of the building was pulled back; the Juan Street elevation was lowered at South Aspen Street. Sarpa said they have met with the three groups of neighbors; Lift One, Timberidge and Shadow Mountain. Sarpa stated the building on the right hand side was redone and as a result the building was pulled back away from the neighbors on the north and south. Bill Poss stated the drawings were 2 dimensional and it was important to review the model also. Poss reiterated the mass was condensed and tightened up. Lindt said staff believed that the lodge use was the most appropriate use for the site and the back up plan that was entitled on the property was for 14 townhomes and 17 affordable housing units, which was not necessarily the best plan but met the code requirements to receive approval. Lindt said the community benefits for the lodge use with funding for a new ski lift at the base of lift one was a significant benefit to the community for tourists and residents alike. Lindt said the neighborhood capability was the biggest question; this was a big building and will likely be the dominant structure in the neighborhood but the design was good. Lindt displayed photos of the story poles; he described the story pole colors 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 depicting the buildings, trees and mountain. P&Z was to weigh the community benefits against the scale of the project for the decision making process. Chris Bendon stated that the points that staff supported in this application were that the plan was consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; consistent with the economic sustainability report addressing the loss of lodge rooms and there would be positive impacts to the area. Bendon said the back up plan of 14 townhomes would not bring the level of vitality and economic impact to the area. Bendon explained during the infill discussions the incentives toward lodging were addressed from the loss of bed base to economic impacts to provide additional incentives but single family and duplex were taken out of that zone district; that was why the "TR" was taken off because it was just a Lodge Zone. Bendon said this project has been in the review process for quite sometime and it has not been an easy review; it is a big project. Bendon noted the developer has also gone out to the homeowners associations in the area and the developer has made some changes to the project. Brandon Marion asked if there was any parking envisioned at the new lift. Lindt responded that there was no parking at that lift. Sunny Vann said the changes in the land use regulations will provide incentives for other projects to come forward. Marion asked what the ceiling heights were in the buildings. Weil replied that they were about 9 feet except for the restaurant level, which was about 12 feet. Sm-pa stated that the entire floor with the high ceilings was eliminated. Marion asked what the FAR was when the project started and where it was now and the difference in the number of rooms. Weft answered the rooms have moved around with 10 fewer hotel rooms (originally there were 90 hotel rooms, 28 fractions and 4 free market); now there were 82 hotel room keys, 22 fractions and 4 free market. Vann said there was 105,000 square feet taking out the alleys, right-of-ways and so forth so the net lot area was about 94,000 square feet. Vann said the original proposal had a floor area of about 2 to 2; it was at 202,000 square feet of floor area which was now down around 185,000 square feet. Marion inquired about prior code requirements. Lindt asked if the question was about the height requirements. Marion replied that it was. Bendon responded that height was a sensitive subject; the 42 feet that came up was a touchstone with the Independence Place Building at Cooper and Galena for downtown development. Bendon said there was a comfort level with that building and philosophically feeling that the commercial core should be the place where the biggest buildings were located in terms of zoning. Bendon stated the 42 foot height was at the parapet and 46 feet for recessed areas; the same proposal was made for lodging 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 assuming there would be a 3 story fa¢ade and a 4th story that bumps up into the mass of the building. Bendon said the biggest buildings were in the lodge zone in terms of height and floor area but then there were the Wheeler and Elks Buildings. Bendon said that Council was not comfortable with the 46 foot so they kept it at 42 feet for a flat roof and 38 for a pitched roof; it fit into the commercial core. Brian Speck asked if the portion that was pulled back from the employee housing affected the size of the employee housing. Sarpa replied that the building was pulled back from Juan Street Affordable Housing giving them more relief from this project and did not affect this project's affordable housing. Vann said additional open space was created by setting the buildings back from Juan Street. Speck asked where the massing was pinpointed. Vann responded that it was about 90 feet from Aspen Street at the base of Shadow Mountain in the rear of the entrance. Steve Skadron asked if the hotel room size was dictated by the flagship hotel and the number of rooms. Lindt replied there were several different sizes of units in the Hyatt; the 3 bedroom units were approximately 2,000 square feet. Lindt said there were 51 units approved for the Hyatt with about 130 keys. Lindt said the 2 bedroom units were about 1500 square feet and the 1 bedroom units were up to 900 square feet. Vann noted the rewriting of the lodge districts changed the average minimum room size to 500 square feet with the ability to increase 10% to 550. Vann said for this project the module for the hotel rooms was approximately 550 square feet. Skadron asked the distance between this project and the Juan Street Affordable Housing. Sarpa said that they have not heard any objections from them. Weil said the project was about 30 feet from Juan Street Housing and most of that was on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain property. Skadron asked if that was where the fence was. Weil said the fence was on the Lodge property. Tygre asked how the project fulfilled the healthy and diverse economic base from the AACP. Vann replied they were losing lodging and can't go back into the entire non-conforming small lodges in the districts and that they were not able to upgrade or expand existing lodges in the late 70s, all of the 80s and early 90s. The only lodge built was the St. Regis. The lodge preservation district was created and eliminated some of the non-conforming lodges; the lodging community came back to the city and said that they were a viable part of the community. Vann said that some of the lodges were converted to single family dwellings; the small lodges were limited in their development because they were surrounded by residential development or other constraints that precludes them from upgrading. Vann said this vacant site provides an opportunity to produce a net gain on tourist accommodations, hotel rooms and the fractional component. Tygre said this hotel 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -June 21~ 2005 will not have diverse price points. Sarpa stated this was diverse because it was a hotel right next to a new lift and will have price diversity in comparison to the other hotels at the base of the mountain. Tygre stated the product that was to be included in the new code for small lodges that met the dimensional requirements of 500 square foot rooms were allowed to go to 38 feet for sloped roofs and 42 feet for flat roofs. Tygre said the hotels or lodges with larger units were only allowed to go to 28 feet. Lindt replied that was true. Sarpa stated they took a good hard look at the 14 townhomes and this project, which would be well marketed and utilized by people that would not otherwise come to Aspen. Vann said that the small lodges are now able to redevelop and this project at the upper end of the market was the only place that this could be done. Skadron said this project seems to accelerate the upper ceiling of 5 star projects. Vann responded that Aspen wasn't getting lower scale; they have attracted wealthier clientele who have the discretionary income to keep the art groups afloat and the Real Estate Transfer Tax is funding the community. Vann said the reality was not how we stop getting more higher end but how as this community evolves to keep those things that are still affordable in this community. Public Comments: 1. Doug Allen said that he represents Lift One Condos and stated they no longer have objection to the project. 2. Frank Dolinsek said he lived at 619 South Monarch and objected to the height because it blocked the view of the mountain. Dolinsek stated that he was bom and raised in Aspen and this was going to be like the St. Regis blocking the mountain view. Dolinsek asked where the people including skiers were going to park and why redo Lift lA. 3. Bart Johnson stated that he was representing the Timberridge Condo Association and the developer has made some changes that work for them; they aren't enthusiastic about the project but were willing to accept it at this point. The changes include (1) the mass of the building was reduced on the southside where it faces Timberridge; (2) the multi-story building was moved back to the East; (3) the part of the building directly in front of Timberridge was a one-story employee housing component under the pool deck with landscaping in front of it and (4) the vacation of Dean Street as it extends in front of Lift One and Timberddge with a 3 way agreement between the developer, Lift One and Timberridge for parking in fomt of Timberridge becoming privately owned by Timberridge. John Sarpa said that was their understanding as well. 4. Hugh Hatcher said that he owned a Southpoint Condo and wanted to be on the record regarding the snow and ice problem in the winter. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes- June 21~ 2005 5. Alex Kane, Timberridge owner, said that she appreciated the changes but would like to see a reduction in height. 6. Derek Johnson said he represented the Juan Street Homeowners Association and 5 of the 6 homeowners had issue not receiving public notice or formal contact. John Sarpa said the notice went out in February and made a number of calls trying to get homeowners to attend the meetings outside of theses public hearings. Sunny Vann said they mailed to the most recent list from the assessors office on February 15th; this has been a continued public hearing from that date so there have not been any more mailings since that date. Vann showed that Derek was mailed a notice on February 15th. 7. Larry Dorring of the Pines Lodge said he likes the project and wanted to address the city and staff missing an opportunity to provide additional parking with the improvement to Lift One. Brandon Marion said that he could not support the size of the structure and project but felt it was an appropriate place for a hotel. Dylan Johns said this project has come along way since the beginning of this process. Johns said that this was probably the most appropriate use on this site and did not think that the townhomes were appropriate. Johns stated that the height and mass had less of an impact as far as the overall height is perceived because of the location on the hillside. Johns said the diversity reactivates this neighborhood and allows for more opportunity in this project bringing a more competitive environment to the tourist accommodations. Johns would like to see more exploration on parking for opportunities with employees, skiers and guests. Johns stated overall support for the project. Johns said he felt confident in the rest of the process to iron out some the existing kinks. Brian Speck said that he wanted to commend the community for coming together with some consensus; initially he had concerns with the height of the project but now felt confident with the setbacks. Speck said the issue of expanded parking was of concern. Speck liked the revitalization of the area and supported the project. Steve Skadron asked about the community benefit verses the scale of the project; he did not like to see the Lift marketed in the way that it was for the community but it would help sell the hotel. Skadron said the increase in short term bed base was what was critical for him and agreed that this site was appropriate for the lodge and the revitalization of the area. Skadron stated standing on the site undemeath the story poles became opposing and daunting although he was somewhat reassured by the comments made by Timberridge and Lift One owners. Skadron said he was disappointed that no one represented Shadow Mountain. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 Skadron respected the 20% reduction but the building was still huge; if the neighbors were happy he said he could live with this project but he wasn't sure it was there yet. Skadron said it was a little too big for the parameters of the code to support. Jasmine Tygre stated the commissioners agree that the hotel use is the most appropriate use for this site and can provide a valuable bed base for the community regardless of the price point. Tygre said her concern all along was dimensional. Tygre said the code revision was not adequate for a viable hotel project to proceed and at some point the community would have to come to grips with what price we were paying as a community for this vitality. Tygre asked if the price of this vitality was buildings that were too big. Tygre appreciated the significant reductions; it was an excellent situation that the developers have worked so closely with the neighbors. Tygre thanked the developers for the scaffolding with dimensions but the height alone was in excess of what the code would allow. Tygre said the footprint was also very large and the marks on the scaffolding were too overwhelming; she cannot support the heights. Sarpa said Shadow Mountain Homeowners were still in the process of deciding whether they support the project or not; at this stage some support it and some don't. Sarpa said to get to that next threshold the building won't come down 20 or 30 feet but if there was someway to find a way they would be glad to look at whatever it was. Marion said the commissioners agreed that the site was appropriate for hotel rooms and they figure out a way to bring the size, mass and scale down. Marion said he could not support the project at this time because of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the code guidelines but would like to support the project. Sarpa said the lift was important to the project and given the cost they felt it had significant community benefit; the variances requested were offset by the community benefits. Skadron asked the distance from the Juan Street Affordable Housing; he found merits in the project and requested the developer come back with support from the neighborhood. Skadron said that he did not expect the project to come down to 28 feet in height. Marion said that he was not stuck on the 28 feet either but he was stuck on the 72 feet. Sarpa noted issues to work on with one more shot with P&Z. MOTION: Dylan dohns moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD to duly 5th; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, motion approved 5-0. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7 :15 p. m.; Brian Speck seconded. All in favor, motion approved 4-0. Jasmine Tygre left at 7:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/07/05): CHART HOUSE LODGE FINAL PUD AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS Dylan Johns opened the continued public hearing for the Chart House Final PUD and associated land use requests. Joyce Allgaier commented from the staff report and on June 7th there were comments from the commissioners and public. Allgaier stated the project changed quite a bit from the original application. Allgaier noted the Chart House PUD project proposed GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing; the Wheeler Mountain View Plane; the parking; Timeshare and Subdivision. Allgaier said there was discussion of the width of the point of entry for the affordable housing, which was on the west side of the project at 7 feet with the retaining wall and 6 feet 6 inches (code required 5 feet). Staff can support that dimension especially for handicap access and greater livability for the affordable housing units. Allgaier stated the timeshare use plan proposed required a 6 month lead time for the owner to make a reservation for the winter and summer peak times after which time the unit goes into a lottery and was open to the public. Allgaier said for the extra time that was available to owners, other than their weeks, had only a 14 day timeframe; staff recommended that be increased to 30 days. Allgaier said the size of the lock-off units was 204 square feet. Stan Clauson reiterated the average was 204; the units varied slightly. Allgaier said there were 11 units proposed and 10 had proposed lock-off options with a total of 21 keys. Allgaier said the Dean Street improvement contribution was due at the time of certificate of occupancy for the building. Staff recommended approval of the application with a number of conditions in the resolution. Allgaier said the top floor (4th floor) had a step back of 13 to 15 feet with just the penthouse unit at the top, which makes a significant difference from the street. Steve Skadron asked if the money was specifically earmarked for the $250,000.00. James Lindt replied it was not specified as to what different portions of the Dean Street Plan that those monies would go to i.e. design or actual construction documents but was earmarked for the Dean Street Pedestrian Project. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 21~ 2005 MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Chart House to 7.'30p. m.; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, motion approved 4-0. Public Comments: 1. Lidia Vantongeren stated She was on the east side of South Point and thought that 10 feet was what was accepted by the city. Ms. Vantongeren provided a drawing of the building at Southpoint. Ms. Vantongeren said that Jim DeFrancia and Stan Clauson told Southpoint in November that the building code was 48 inches and that they would abide by it but at the last meeting this came up again. Ms. Vantongeren asked that the patios be limited to the 48 inches and the height should be brought down because they were at 46 feet and the zone height was at 42 feet. Ms. Vantongeren said they have never liked the height and bulk but compromised because of the 10 feet in the setback and now that was gone. 2. Joyce Dancer said that she agreed with Lidia; her condo was on the 1st floor. 3. Hugh Hatcher said he lived in Southpoint and the project was very close. Stan Clauson stated the top of wall was at 101 and the entryway was 5 feet below; the entryway was essentially flat and the wall tapers to zero. Skadron asked if something was given and then taken back. Clauson replied no; the building was moved over because originally it was 5 feet from the property line and it was now 15 feet off of the property line. Allgaier said the 7 foot width was the point of access to the affordable housing and was being perceived as taken out of that extra 10 feet. Clauson said that was approved during conceptual and GMQS. Skadron asked if Southpoint was built to the property line. Clauson replied that Southpoint was built 5 feet from the property line and the balconies were within 1 foot of the property line. Allgaier stated just to be clear the building code required 5 feet not the 6.6 that was proposed from the property line. Skadron asked what the floor to floor heights were in the building. Clauson replied 11 feet floor to floor. David Brown answered that the floor to ceiling was as low as 8 feet in some areas. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #21, series 2005, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the final PUD and related land use requests to construct a timeshare lodge of 11 units and 2 affordable housing units for the Chart House Property located at 219 East Durant; seconded by Brandon Marion. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Marion, yes; Speck, yes; Johns yes. Approved 4-0. Meeting a~j~umed at 7:30 p.m. ~'~kie Lotl~i~n, Deputy City Clerk 10