Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050614ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 14, 2005 COMMENTS DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 LIMELIGHT LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD .......................................................... 2 LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE .... 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 14~ 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in Fire Station at 4:30 p.m. Commission Members Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Brian Speck, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon and James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Steve Skadron stated that the MotherLode was closed; at the March 15th P&Z meeting Steve asked the developer what their intention was, if this was the end of the MotherLode. Skadron said their response was that they wanted to continue the MotherLode. Skadron said he knew that they couldn't legislate commercial uses but he was curious about the representation made by the developer upon which the commission made a decision. James Lindt responded that the developer said they would try to put a restaurant back in or a continuation of the MotherLode. Ruth Kruger said that there were a number of parties involved and the developer can't make promises for the current operator of the restaurant. Lindt stated that a draft plat was provided for the development approvals; they did not know if it would be restaurant space or retail space. Jasmine Tygre said that since there were instances where the developer was not the owner of a property that was being redeveloped the commission should ask the applicant if they were the actual owner of the property. Tygre said when we talk about downtown vitality, when there are restaurants at street level there tends to be more activity; Mill Street being a good example with the fountain, mall and restaurants. The commission requested that they not meet in the Fire Station again. Dale Paas suggested moving to the Limelight conference room. Lindt stated story poles will be up at the Lodge at Aspen Mountain this Friday to Wednesday. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger and John Rowland were conflicted on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/17/05): LIMELIGHT LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing; notice had been provided at the last meeting. James Lindt read 2 letters into the record; one fi.om Bob and Debby Jacobson, 210 Cooper, were concerned about access and views; the other letter fi.om Andrea Clark, 210 Cooper, was concerned about the shading on her building fi.om the height of the development. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ Minutes - June 14~ 2005 Lindt said the issues were growth management applications, the percentage of fi'ee market residential FAR, preservation of the Deep Powder Lodge and the possibility of providing public parking in relation to this development. Lindt noted there was no employee housing mitigation planned as part of this development because them would be a reduction in the amount of employees needed for the new lodge; currently the 3 lodges employ 42 full time employees and previously employed 48 prior to consolidating the ownership of the lodges. Lindt said the applicant expects the new lodge to employ about 40 full-time employees so they would like to get credit transferred to the free-market residential component as part of their mitigation and the code allows for that and when the final PUD application and their Growth Management application is reviewed by P&Z the applicant will be required to submit the request. Lindt said the newly adopted land use regulations allow for 25% of the lodge FAR for free-market residential square footage; the applicant has proposed 40% in the PUD. Staff felt the major community benefit of this project was the density of moderate rooms. Chris Bendon explained the original infill zone district and lodge zone district mitigation and difficulties. Bendon noted the rental rates, occupancy rates and management percentage of rates can vary drastically from property to property. Bendon said the standard was 500 square feet for each unit of 500 square feet of density; there were lodge owners with council and planners present at work sessions. Bendon stated that there were serious incentives for the infill and lodge districts. Lindt said the HPC wanted several components of the Deep Powder Lodge to be preserved but the buildings were not designated historic; staff did not feel that it was the Planning Commission's purview to figure out if these buildings had historic significance or not. Lindt said that would be a Council decision after receiving a recommendation from HPC. Staff wanted to identify this as an issue; if Council wanted to preserve the Deep Powder then P&Z may see this project again. Lindt acknowledged the public parking as an issue in this area but can not see how many parking spaces could actually fit under the project and it would be expensive to construct. Staff noted there was no funding mechanism in place such as a business improvements district to fund the parking garage. Tygr.e stated the commission and applicant spent a lot of time on this proposal and now ~t may or may not be the proposal that we have to deal with and that can not be the right way to go about this. Bendon stated that there was no historic ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 14, 2005 designation on the property so there was no prohibition on the property. Bendon said if part were designated historic where could the rest of the mass be placed for the Limelight redevelopment. Kruger said it wasn't fair to place this kind of a burden on this and if this was to be historic it should have been designated prior when to the application was submitted. The commission was upset by the process. Dale Paas said that they were the owners and plan on doing what they say they will be doing and brought in a board of signatures in support of the project. Paas said they were here to salvage a large portion of the mid-market hotel rooms in Aspen; presently there were 110 rooms. Paas said that this was a financial challenge to re- develop the mid-market; they were building for future guests needs. Paas said each individual lodge has different needs. Paas noted they were proposing more that the code allows but the PUD process allows that. Paas wanted to build a product that everyone was proud of and benefits the community. Steve Szymanski suggested tackling the GMQS and free market and save the height issue for the last; they opened their books to the city finance department and city manager. Robin Schiller said they have not proposed any public parking; they produced a study of how much parking could be accommodated if they created a second below grade level, which was in the packet. Schiller said that because all of the utilities under the street building a parking lot under the street was not feasible. Schiller said the 48 employees used for the purpose of mitigation was the correct number to use. John Cottle said parking garages were measured per square foot per car and they used 700 square foot per space for the parking garage. Cottle said it was common for larger parking garages under buildings to be from 400 to 450 square feet and an efficient parking structure the spaces would be around 350 square feet. Paas stated that they have been conservative on their estimates and when the Deep Powder, Limelight and Snowflake operated on their own there were about 54 or 55 employees. Paas said when the Limelight purchased the Deep Powder (hoping to get enough land for the development) the number of employees went down to the 48, which was 6 years ago. Paas said that there were currently 5 old buildings with outside entrances scattered on two sides of the street and alley; they felt comfortable saying they could get along with 40 employees with all new inside entrances and a better building. John Rowland asked who checked on the number of employees. Lindt replied the Housing Authority. Steve Skadron asked if employee mitigation is warranted how 4 .ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 14, 200:, is it achieved. Lindt responded there were a couple of options cash-in-lieu or providing 4 ADUs on site. The commissioners agreed that the conversion credit for the lodge employees to be formulated to apply to the residential component. Lindt said that the P&Z commission would review the employee mitigation plan at GMQS. Marion thought the process was flawed; the remainder of the commission disagreed. The percentage of free market FAR was acceptable to Speck, Kruger, Johns, Rowland and Tygre. Marion and Skadron had issues with the free market FAR. It was acceptable because of the community benefits of the project. Steve Szymanski said the 12,850 square feet of the Deep Powder would have to be replaced somewhere else on the project, which could be done by spreading it across the other parts of the 2 buildings that would go to 5 stories. The commissioners did not think that the preservation of the Deep Powder Lodge would allow the project to proceed as a moderately priced lodge. The commission did not feel that a public parking garage should be connected with this project due to the time line, financial implications and the current application. Robin Schiller utilized illustrations to show the relationship of the height issue. The plan drawing north and south showed the Wheeler view plane. Schiller said most of the building that is in the view plane is blocked by existing buildings. Schiller said that all of the building directly opposite 210 Cooper was within the 42 foot height limit and a one story building. Schiller provided the solar shading study. Schiller noted significant landscape mitigation for the little white house as a buffer. Marion asked why was the part that was blocked by the Wheeler view plane not significant. Schiller replied it did not block a large portion of the mountain and did not block the ridge line. MOTION.. Brian Speck moved to continue the public hearing on the Limelight Conceptual PUD to 7.'15; Brandon Marion seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comments: 1. Andrea Clark, 210 Cooper, said that they look south not north. Clark stated the Cooper block was covered in ice in the winter with the building now, which doesn't break up until early March. Clark summed up her concerns in her letter. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -June 14~ 2005 2. Bob Leatherman, 210 Cooper, stated they haven't taken an official position yet and have scheduled a homeowners meeting for July 9th; he asked for some drawings for that meeting. Leatherman said the parking entrance should be on Hyman. Lindt distributed the possible added condition: Section 19: Building Height The Applicant shall study the possibility of using alternative structural and mechanical system options to reduce the height of the proposal by reducing the floor to floor heights prior to submitting a final PUD application. The applicant shall include a description of the alternative structural and mechanical options considered as part of the final PUD application. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #20, series 2005 recommending that City Council approve with conditions the Limelight Conceptual PUD request to construct a 128 lodge rooms and 18free market residential units on the Limelight Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, Snowflake Inn with the added condition of Section 19: building height. Motion died for lack of second. Discussion: John Rowland said he was sure that the design team could come back with heights that were more acceptable. Rowland said their intent was proper. Dylan Johns said he believed that things would go well but he would not approve at this height. Steve Skadron said the project was a good one and necessary, which has been established. Skadron said he felt he had to act judiciously beyond this application even though the project is beautiful it is imposing specifically on 210 Cooper. Skadron said he would like to see the project smaller. Brandon Marion echoed Steve's comments and did not want to see the Wheeler view plane violated. Marion said he had problems with balancing the size of the rooms, heights, mass and view plane. Brain Speck commended the applicants on a great project but had concerns with the height. Jasmine Tygre said there were a lot of things that the commission liked about the project but the height was such an important issue that they were not about to pass an approval with the assumption that the height would be addressed properly. Tygre suggested continuing the hearing to address the height issue; there was a code amendment changing the height from 28 feet to 42 feet. Tygre said there was evidence that the commission wanted to see the project move forward because of allowing the uses of the free market residences, working on the employee mitigation and parking. John Cottle asked if they added to Section 19 the approximated adopted height of 42 feet could work; he wanted the language to be more flexible. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the public hearing Until 7:30; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, motion carried. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - June 14~ 2005 Johns said that this review would take a little more time to get to a comfort level on the height issue. Steve Szymanski said that 42 feet was not enough to make the project a 4 story building from a pure design comment. Tygre presented 2 options to the applicant (1) to take a vote tonight or (2) continue the public hearing for 2 weeks. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Limelight Conceptual PUD to July 5th; seconded by Steve Skadron. Ail in favor, motion carried. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/12/05): LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued heating on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD and Timeshare to July 5th. Brandon Marion seconded. All in favor; motion carried. ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7