Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20051129ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29~ 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 THE SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION/GMQS ............. ~ .......... 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29~ 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Members Brian Speck, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron were excused. Staffin attendance were Chris Bendon, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Brandon Marion asked when the code amendments were going to Council. Chris Bendon replied the first reading was on the 12th of December. MINUTES MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve the minutes from October 4th,' October ]8th and November ]st,. seconded by John Rowland. All in favor, motion carried. (Brandon Marion abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None were stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: THE SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT~ SUBDIVISION/GMQS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Sky Hotel Redevelopment, Subdivision/GMQS. Notice was provided at the meeting on November 15th. Chris Bendon notified by email the group that showed up for the meeting on November 15th. Bendon noted the site at 709 East Durant Avenue was at the terminus of Spring Street and just under an acre at 43,000 square feet; a lot of the site was vacated right-of-way, which was vacated in the early 1960s. Bendon utilized maps and drawings to show the site. The project was designed with the new zoning regulations for the Lodge District (incentive lodge development); there was a minimum lodge density at 500 square feet per unit and increased dimensional requirements. There were 90 hotel units, 10 free market units and 3 affordable housing units in the proposal. There was a 42-foot height limitation; the landscape plan and renderings showed the footprint of the redeveloped lodge, pool, courtyard and a little bit more space on the north side for pedestrian access. Bendon stated that P&Z was being asked to make a finding (final with P&Z) on the (1) Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) ~ Incentive Lodge Development, which accommodates new lodge allotments (there are none requested for this application) and new associated free market residential allotments (there were 10 requested). (2) GMQS - Affordable Housing, which there are 3 units. (3) 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29, 2005 Conditional Use for the proposed Caf6 Bar, and retail space. (4) Commercial Design Review (a new process) to ensure new commercial and mixed use developments contributes to a pleasant pedestrian environment. Bendon said P&Z recommends to Council on Subdivision for the 13 units being created. Bendon said there were no recommendations from P&Z to Council on the Condominization, Alley Vacation and Vested Rights. Bendon explained that Lot Area was the way to find out what a property's development rights were; the lot area was the net area without the vacated right-of- way so that property does not gain any additional development rights, which was in place in the 1975 ordinance. In 1988 the code was rewritten and the pre-1975 language was stricken from the code. This was technically an administrative action that the city could take to formally vacating the right-of-way. In 1961 all of the area could be counted for development rights; in 1975 the area would not be counted then in 1988 that language was stripped. Sunny Vann stated the old Glory Hole Lodge was built after the vacation sometime in the early 1960s; in those days there was no FAR. Vann said that when it became the Woodstone the entire site was allowed to be counted because of the pre-1975 exemption; in 1988 the exemptions were dropped. Brandon Marion asked if the Sky Hotel conformed. Vann replied that it was remodeled in compliance with the regulations that were in effect. Bendon explained that Council will reconsider the Ordinance and either change what the 1961 Ordinance said or they won't; if they don't then the project will have a substantial change to the project to conform to code. Bendon said that it was highly technical and confusing. Bendon said the Lodge Unit FAR requirement had a non-unit space FAR and P&Z made a recommendation to eliminate that non-unit FAR from the Lodge Code Amendments. The Pedestrian Amenity replaced the Open Space requirement; the area that this affects is bounded by Main Street, Original Street, Aspen Street and Dean Street. The property is bifurcated with the extension of Dean Street. There were standards for the pedestrian amenities built on site; pedestrian amenity areas shall not be enclosed to allow for visual access to and through those areas. A construction management plan was also a requirement that specifies staging, how neighbors will be notified of Aspen Street closures, general contact information, and noise and dust issues. Sunny Vann said this project was a direct result of the City's adoption of code amendments to the lodge zone district and growth management regulations. Vann 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29, 2005 noted that in the Sky Hotel the rooms were small, ceiling heights were low, the bathrooms were small and the mechanical systems were aging. Redevelopment of the property was the only realistic way to significantly upgrade to the caliber and quality for the accommodations. Vann stated that this was the Glory Hole and then the Woodstone when Hans Cantrup bought it; the west wing was added with 3 stories. Vann said the old lodge zone district had a FAR of 1 to 1 and the existing building was 1 to 1. The new lodge zone regulations increased the FAR in order to encourage infill and redevelop parcels of this size to recognize the changing needs of the lodging market and allowed a free-market residential component to be included in the renovated lodges equal to 25% of the total lodge area. Vann said the incentives with respect to affordable housing were no requirement for the replacement lodge units but new free-market residential units require affordable housing. Vann said for projects that meet the requirements they could go to 42 feet and this project was designed in compliance with that requirement. There were 90 lodge units with the floor area of those lodge units within the limitation and there were 10 free-market units with the allowable floor area within 25%. The affordable housing requirement was 3 one-bedroom on site units. There was a growth management allocation to be awarded. Vann said the current parking was minimal with 14 spaces in a subgrade garage and 33 were in the surface parking lot accessed from Durant adjacent to the lodge units. Vann said there were 15 spaces on the south side of the site used by the Aspen Alps 100 building subject to an easement entered into by Mr. Cantmp in the early 70s with the remodeling and expansion of the property. The new structure complies with the current parking code requirements; there will be a total of 62 underground spaces. The 15 spaces used by the Alps will remain. Vann said on the comer they wanted to create a pedestrian plaza with landscaping and a small caf6; this also serves as a visual terminus of South Spring Street. Vann said the only dimensional requirement that they don't comply with was the internal limitation on non-unit space, which was established at .5 and they were at .7. Vann said that if they were forced to comply then corridor widths and lobby areas would be reduced in scale as an amenity to the public. Vann stated with this one exception they comply with the dimensional requirements. Vann stated that they have been in discussion with the Alps regarding noise generated by the pool to the Alps 100 building; if they were required to do so with a barrier wall it might not count for the open space. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29, 2005 Vann stated the right-of-way issue was very technical and one that they assume will be resolved with Council. Vann said that the architecture and site plan make improvements to the traffic and pedestrian circulation in this portion of the city. Bill Poss introduced the design team and provided an overview for the improvements and design intent. Poss utilized a site plan and floor plan; the entrance was proposed in the front off of Spring Street tucked in under the building with two driveways. Jasmine Tygre asked how the height of 42 feet compares to the other buildings along Durant. Vann responded they have not measured but the northwest comer of the Dumont was a little over 38 feet; the Little Nell was at least 40 feet. Vann said the north east wing of the proposed project was about 39 feet as looked at from the Chaumont; it slopes up a little bit. Vann said they were requesting the vacation of that little tiny piece of leftover alley, which there would be an electric transformer for this project. It could be done with an encroachment but it seemed simpler to make it part of the property; it doesn't add to the floor area to the building or increase the FAR. Vann said the other request was to reverse the flow of the alley to reduce vehicle conflicts because the proposed ramp for the underground parking would go straight into it. Vann said the removal of this projects surface parking should facilitate the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont's surface parking access. Vann noted if the popular consensus was not to reverse the alley it was not essential to this particular project. Poss utilized drawings to show the relocated parking. Dylan Johns asked where the current delivery area was located. Vann responded it was at the entrance to the subgrade garage; there was no real loading dock at the back of the house facilities located in the building. Tygre noted if this was a two-step process it would be a better process. Brandon Marion asked what property belonged to the Alps and what belonged to Spring Street. Vann indicated the piece on the map that still belonged to Spring Street because it had never been vacated; Ute Avenue at that point had been vacated and belongs to the Alps. Vann said that the legal descriptions and surveys from the 1960s were different; Vann said it is what it is now. Marion asked about the roof plan. Vann said there was a representation in the application on page 12 of the packet. Bill Poss said the heights were not stated. Bendon said that there could be a condition in the Resolution with heights and the mechanical clustering in the middle. Tygre noted this was the only time for P&Z 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29~ 2005 to review this with the consolidated process. Marion asked for some review on the impacts from the roof mechanical and heights. Marion asked if the open space was just visual or were they public open space. Bendon replied that sometimes the space was public and sometimes visual. Bendon reiterated that the term open space was replaced with the pedestrian amenity requirement, which has the same goals behind it but a more flexible application to meet. Bendon noted the requirement could be met on site or it could be met by cash-in-lieu or an improvement; P&Z would be seeing more of this in the new review process. Marion asked if the code amendments that just went before city council would be complied with the percentages for the interior spaces. John Rowland asked if the Porte Cochere was part of the public amenity space. Bendon replied that it was not because it was covered. Public Comments: Letters from Michael and Winnifred Makinen, Holland and Hart, Alexander Slater, Joan and Michael Marek, Iling and C.C. Chang, and David W. Roberts were read and placed into the public record. Tom Todd, public, said that he was a lawyer representing the Aspen Alps. Todd introduced Geraldine Whittman on the board of managers and Para Cunningham the general manager. Todd explained that the 100 building of the Alps was one of nine buildings. The 4 main concerns were doubling the height of the buildings; where will the Alps parking be located; the swimming pool noise and construction management plan. Pam Cunningham stated the Alps owners that were disturbed by the noise from the swimming pool would call the police directly. Cunningham stated that she has renters that will not stay in the 100 building because of the on-going problems; she said that she was glad that Sunny said this would be corrected. Cunningham noted that unless something was codified the assurances in a public forum don't necessarily come to be decided and were of grave importance. Cunningham said the after hours pool visiting was dangerous. Geraldine Whittman said that their main concem was the use for the 100 building and parking area during the construction process. Whittman requested more specifics on the pedestrian amenities on Spring Street. Cunningham said she understood the need for the Sky Hotel structure replacement; the Alps voluntarily sterilized 6 acres and another parcel known as the Spar Ranch turned over to the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Cunningham said that the Alps have 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29~ 2005 done everything to create a pedestrian feel and an urban wild land interface. The Alps 100 building owners were terrifically concerned about adding a very tall development; the greatest height for this project was directly behind the Alps 100 building. Cunningham said the positive was the entrance to the new proposal. Tim Clark, public, said that he was with Frias Properties and was here on behalf of the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont buildings, located to the north of the proposed project. Clark said the buildings were built in 1968, which were comprised of 52 homeowners, who will be impacted during construction. Clark provided photo renderings of the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on the Dumont and Chaumont. Clark said the views of Aspen Mountain would be negated by the height of the building. Chuck Frias, public, stated that they were moving the diagonal parking into the parking garage and moving the building closer to the front entry of the Dumont and Chaumont. Frais said that he represented the owners of the Dumont and Chaumont and also was an owner at the Dumont; he requested the commissioners do a site visit to see the front entries of these buildings and how they will be impacted by a new taller structure. Frias said that the traffic circulation needs to be carefully looked at with a change in the flow and how fire trucks, trash trucks and service trucks will negotiate the tighter turning radius. Frias said the construction management will be very important especially to the financial impacts for the Chaumont and Dumont owners because of the loss of rentals. Michael Hoffman, public, stated he was an attorney for the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont Condominium Associations. Hoffman distributed a copy of the 1896 Willits Map that shows the alley or street was in fact Dean Street. Hoffman asked the commission to think carefully about all of Spring Street to be included in the lot area because the applicant was seeking to maximize the FAR based on that lot area. Hoffman was concerned with the consistency and mass with other properties in the area. Hoffman said that Chaumont and Dumont were maximally impacted by this application. Mickey Spaulding, public, stated that he represented Julie Rackless the owner of Chateau Dumont #21; her concerns were the loss of views to the third floor units, loss of rental income and the construction impacts from vehicles and noise. John Porter said that he was an employee of the Sky Hotel and was present as an observer. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29, 2005 Pam Cunningham spoke on behalf of Eric Calderon, the general manager of the Little Nell, and expressed concern for the construction. Marion asked how the caf6, bar and pool falls into retail space. Bendon said the restaurant use, bar and lounge were the conditional uses and the outside area was accessory to that. Marion asked if the pool area counted. Bendon said that in the 3700 square foot net leaseable space did not count the pool area from the housing mitigation requirement but was part of that conditional use. Vann said there was no outdoor bar in the pedestrian space or pool area. Marion asked the zoning of the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont. Bendon replied it was lodge. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, motion carried. Marion asked if Dean Street was a street or an alley. Bendon responded from gondola plaza west it was a 50 foot right-of-way, which was known as Dean Street as opposed to the area by the Sky Hotel, which was a standard 20 foot wide alley. Bendon said access was reviewed by City Engineering and the Fire Department and Dean had a 20 foot right-of-way at this point. John Rowland stated concern because this was one of the most intense urban design projects in town in the last several years. Rowland requested a more site specific model, which would alleviate a lot of the commissioners concerns. Brian Speck stated similar concerns in terms of not seeing a model and asked the accuracy of the impacts shown by the photo renderings supplied by the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont. Speck asked the amount of traffic accessed through the alley or roadway. Speck stated concern for the vacation of the alley and questioned the impacts from the electrical on the neighbors. Speck said the rooflines should be softened on that side by the Chaumont and Dumont or moving the free-market units; he had concern for the overall height. Speck stated that he liked the design and it was an attractive project. Speck commented that it was not the job of P&Z to insure the economic sustainability of someone's project. Speck requested more information on the 1975 street vacation. Speck said the FAR was too maxed out. Speck said that maybe something creative could be used as a sound barrier at the pool; he appreciated the infill concept and increasing the public amenities. Dylan Johns shared the same views expressed by the other commissioners. Johns requested additional information on the height on this project verses the other 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 29~ 2005 buildings around it. There needed to be a more intensive construction management plan. Jasmine Tygre agreed with the comments that her fellow commissioners have made. Tygre said that she did not like the projection into Durant and was opposed to the mickey mouse ears (bulb outs at the end of streets) that are appearing all over town, which was a suburban approach to design. Marion said that he wanted more of the issues that the Aspen Alps, Chateau Chamont and Dumont have raised and how those things can be integrated as well as taking advantage of the dead end by integrating it into their plan. Marion stated that there was no streetscape and he did not like that. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the public hearing for the Sky Hotel Redevelopment, Subdivision/GMQS to January 17th,· seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ia'n, Deputy City Clerk 9