Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20051213ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 THE LIMELIGHT FINAL ....................................................................................... 2 575 SNEAKY LANE .............................................................................................. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers at 5:00pm. Members Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier and James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Steve Skadron complimented the people who clear the trails for the walkers and joggers. Ruth Kruger asked how speed bumps were requested. Joyce Allgaier responded that a letter from the neighborhood to the city engineer or to the city council during the public comment section. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST John Rowland had a conflict on the Limelight. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/06/05): THE LIMELIGHT FINAL Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Limelight Final. Notice was provided at the meeting on December 6th. James Lindt provided a memo from John Worcester regarding Mr. French's concems about the Limelight ownership. Lindt began with the growth management implications. Lindt stated the applicant currently utilized 48 full-time employees to operate the 3 lodges and believed they would only need 40 full time employees to operate the new lodge because of efficiencies gained. The housing board agreed with the efficiency argument as long as an audit was done after 2 years of operation of the project to verify only 40 full-time employees. Staffand the Housing Board would like to see if the applicant could provide one affordable housing unit on site rather than paying the cash-in-lieu fee; if the commission agrees with that there could be a change or addition to sections 13 and 14 of the proposed Resolution. The applicant's could add a unit in their design before going to City Council. Lindt said that the next issue was the pedestrian amenity requirements; 25% of the lot be retained as open space and the applicant's requested a waiver down to 10% of the lot area and will provide comer bulb outs proposal along Monarch Street. The applicant's would pay a cash-in-lieu for about 9% or about $157,000.00. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 Lindt said the widening on Monarch Street was where the head-in diagonal parking was proposed; the City Engineer requested that Monarch be widened to 54 feet. The planning staff believes that this will conflict with the intent of the bulb outs; for pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Lindt said the Wheeler view plane had to do with the western extent of the project; staff believed the main focus of the view plane was Aspen Mountain. Staff supported the view plane exemption as requested. Lindt said the construction management was included in the resolution with on-site contacts to neighbors of the project and the applicant would like to use 10 feet of Monarch for construction staging but the city parking department would not like to see those spaces closed off during the construction of the project. Staff believed the project satisfied the AACP Lodging goals and recommended approval. Dale Paas said that they were there to answer questions. Paas said that some kitchenettes would be included. Steve Szymanski said that they would like to study the potential placement of an employee unit but they have lost square footage since conceptual. Szymanski said they would like the option of cash-in-lieu if it did not work but like the idea to move forward. Public Comments: 1. Shellie Roy, public, stated that she cared greatly for this community and have worked to keep this community with the small town flavor. Roy spoke of the buildings built with 8 to 10 foot ceilings that were outdated and guests did not want to stay in these types of rooms. Roy urged the commission to go forward and build this project as suggested. Roy said the county down-zoned all properties outside of the urban growth boundary with the intention of increased density in the city including height. 2. Bill Tomcich, public, stated that he was the president of Stay Aspen Snowmass; he said the results of a number of redevelopments were happening. Tomcich said a lot of the older properties were not remodel able and were not up to the standards of today. Tomcich said the board of directors supported this project that modernizes this certain niche of lodges in town. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 3. Bob Leatherman, public, stated he was on the board of managers for 210 Cooper Condominium Association; most of the owners have sent letters. Leatherman said the period of construction will be about 18 months along with construction of the Dancing Bear, Chart House and the Shadow Mountain project, which affect their living standards; they hope they can alleviate some of the negative effects from all that construction. Leatherman was concerned about the alley, truck traffic, deliveries and the height of the project; there was no way that the owners could be compensated for loosing their views of Aspen Mountain. 4. Melissa read a letter from her brother-in-law Peter Loring with 3 concerns about the project the height of the private residences; the creation of a dead end alley; and the affect on the residents of 210 Cooper with a construction period of 18 months. The loss of rents on the units because of the construction was also of concern along with the large spruce tree. 5. Alan Bush, public, owns property at 210 East Hyman; he commended the Paas family for the changes in the project and it was a project that was desperately needed this moderate priced lodge rooms. Bush said the residential building had substantial impacts on the views of the mountain. Bush said placing the parking garage entrance on Hyman Street would increase the traffic load and the cars exiting the garage would have their headlights shine directly into their building. Bush said the city changed the rules on them with this project. 6. Andrea Clark, public, 210 East Cooper stated that she had problems with the information provided in the packet and said that she transcribed the last city council meeting and quoted from it. Clark spoke of the construction time, dangers of diesel, obliterated views, the character of the surrounding area and the underlying zoning determining the heights. 7. Jim French, public, provided written comments and said that the Limelight project was the wrong project made by the right people, the Paas family. French said that the project was extremely large and questioned the housing audit 2 years down the road. French said they were requesting rezoning with a PUD overlay and have not provided information and what it takes to put theses two parcels together from Ordinance 9; the height limit on free market was 28 feet. 8. Carl Hanson, public, stated the project was build able the way it was presented and do able. Hanson said the Paas family had an obligation to protect their interests. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 9. Rich Wager, public, said the city and county changed a lot of zoning over the years and this was one of the better ski resorts. James Lindt read letters into the record from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Jacobnson, Mr. Josh Mondry, Ron Christian, Linda Singer Froning and Diana Sirko, the Aspen School District. Steve Skadron asked for additional information on Ordinance #9 and the applicant's involvement in this ordinance. Lindt responded that Ordinance #9 was a rewrite as part of the code infill amendments; the applicants attended those public hearing for the review of that ordinance as did others from the community. Lindt stated those were public hearings so anyone has the ability to come. Skadron asked for staff to comment on the rezoning versus the PUD overlay. Lindt replied that in order to place a PUD overlay on the property a rezoning was required as was this application. Lindt stated this was part of the incentive lodge code amendments and that intent had a free market residential component to help drive and fund the lodge redevelopment. Skadron asked if this was in the spirit of the decision. Lindt answered that staff made an interpretation at the conceptual level that verified the conceptual approvals that were granted and the residential component was part of the incentive lodge project. Joyce Allgaier said that when rezoning comes into a project there needs to be history attached; about 5 years ago the city through community development took on an analysis to study the downtown revitalization. Allgaier said that it was about the impediments of redevelopment and reconstruction of the vital economic developments of Aspen; there were numerous impediments as to why Aspen was stagnating such as the rents were too high, the zoning code was too difficult to navigate through, it was too expensive to redevelop in Aspen and the incentive lodging was one of the off- shoots as were many others. Ruth Kruger said that in a project such as this you have to have a financial engine because the lodging industry will not support the land, construction and development costs that were needed to see a project through. Skadron said that he looks back at the projects approved since his tenure on the commission with projects that were over the allowed heights and variances to setbacks; he said it was circumspect for the commission to look at the whole rather than individual projects to not get weighted down by the individual projects. Skadron said that he spoke to the St. Regis regarding floor to ceiling heights at 8 feet at conceptual and this 8 foot height had no negative impact on the sales; he asked the applicant what was their response to that ceiling height. Robin Schiller replied that they sat with various realtors that would market project like this and others and without exception they would have an easier time selling property for a higher dollar value if it had higher ceilings. Schiller said that many potential purchasers in Aspen and other markets expect higher ceilings. Skadron said in his 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 decision making process he weighed factors like this against the impacts on the neighbors. Skadron asked the height be reduced to 28 feet on the residential to lessen the impacts on the neighborhood. Lindt responded that staff made the interpretation that the 42 height limit for the lodge applied to both properties based on the lodge district code amendment. Jasmine Tygre said that if all of the buildings had some lodge rooms in them then the 42 foot height limit would not even be a question. Dylan Johns asked for an understanding of the residential floor to ceiling heights. Robin Schiller responded the height was focused on the 42 foot limit and divided into 3 sections to respond to the grade changes; on the eastern end the ground floor was slightly above grade. Schiller said that there was 12 feet floor to floor on the two lower levels to allow for beams, floor deck, radiant heat, pipes and ducts would allow for 9 foot 6 inch ceilings and the top floor had 14 foot floor to floor to allow for the spacious feel of single family residences. John Cottle responded that the residential building was less than 42 feet everywhere; it goes from 28.8 to 41.8 feet. Cotttle said there was a tremendous amount of height variations in the buildings. Ruth Kruger asked about a model for this project. Cottle replied that they haven't planned on bringing one in. Schiller said they had concerns ifa 3-dimensional model would in fact serve that purpose. Kruger asked where the parking was for 210 East Cooper. Schiller responded that they entered off the alley; there was an underground garage and spaces in the alley with one space for each unit. Kruger asked if the applicant was blocking all of Cooper Street during construction. Szymanski said that it was only in front of the buildings (half of the block); access to 210 Cooper and the alley would stay open. Kruger requested that applicants in the future to be more paper contentious; the packet was difficult to haul around. Brian Speck stated that he supported the project and the design would revitalize downtown helping with the balance of the town. Speck noted it was difficult to overcome the objections of 210 Cooper. Speck said that there was nothing that would show that the Paas family was not consistent in what they have done in this community; the town needed to stay competitive in the world of skiing. Jasmine Tygre stated that the character of the applicant was not part of the criteria to judge a project and was unfortunate in this case with an applicant that was liked and respected. Tygre stated that thousands of hours were spent on infill and she was still shocked by buildings that were so large and that was the rule set by the code. Tygre said that she personally did not believe that 42 foot buildings were the 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13, 2005 community that Aspen was all about but this application followed the rules that they were told to fulfill. Dylan Johns stated that the rules changed to respond to the set of conditions which in the long term will help fulfill the community goals that have been identified and needed to be addressed. Johns said that because there were 2 detached buildings we were looking at the rules in a different light from what was the original thought. Johns said he understood the residential part of the project; hopefully the lodge incentive program will achieve what they were intended to do, which was moderately priced hotel rooms. Johns said that the ultimate community goal was to have moderately priced rooms. Johns said the lodge itself has come along way from where it started; he stated the lodge itself was good but felt the residential components of floor heights could be reduced and did not feel that it would detract from the sale ability of the project or the financial engine of the property. Johns said the difference between a 10 foot and 9 foot ceiling was not all that great when this was a downtown infill type of space; he did not feel that was the intent of the change in those rules. Johns said the purpose of the infill changes was to allow development downtown; part of that was that development was going to be more compact then what would be allowed to happen elsewhere, that was what we were trying to avoid, sprawl. Johns said there was still room to bring the building down in height to respond to meet the neighbors halfway between what was allowed and what was there. Johns commented that the 42 foot height regulation was intended to allow for projects to happen and become functional as overall projects but ifa component could function at a lesser height, the height limit was not guaranteed and felt the residential building could come down several feet. Johns felt strongly enough about the PUD process and what was allowed to happen with the lodge and it was more important to have the height in the lodge then it was in the residential building. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All in favor, motion carried. Allgaier stated that the commission had purview over the height because it was a Planned Unit Development; she urged the commission to use the components of the PUD to judge the project. Allgaier said there were criteria for compatibility. Kruger stated that she agreed with Dylan on taking a few feet off of the residential component, which would be more likely to pass with Council. Kruger did not want to pass another project onto Council in such a way that they will not like it and will not approve it. Kruger said she would like to pass a project onto Council 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 that was more in sync with their view of what the commission should be approving. Skadron agreed because the height had been a concern since the beginning. Lindt said the pedestrian amenities with the reduction to 10% instead of 25% with the justification that the project will provide bulb outs on Monarch Street comers of Cooper and Hyman; staff believed this provided greater pedestrian safety, traffic calming and an added benefit to the project. Lindt said that the applicant would pay about 9% of that 10% cash-in-lieu, which can be used elsewhere to provide other pedestrian elements. Kruger asked why 9% and not 10%. Lindt said because the bulb outs were provided. Johns, Tygre and Kruger did not think that the bulb outs belonged in the downtown area and they interrupted the flow of traffic. Tygre asked how much of the percentage was used by those. Lindt replied that would account for the 25% requirement with a combination of the cash-in-lieu, the 1½ % that would be provided with open space on site. The commission had consensus on not wanting the bulb outs. Lindt said the city engineer felt it would be more appropriate to widen Monarch because it was the secondary bus route. Schiller said the sidewalk was on the applicant's property. Szymanski said this (in front of their project) was the only place on Monarch that would be widened. The commission did not support the widening of Monarch in front of this project. Four commissioners did not feel the Wheeler View Plane was significant enough and supported the variance. Steve Skadron did not support the Wheeler view plane variance to keep the small town feel. There was no construction management plan to approve or not approve but there were suggested construction techniques proposed by staff and conditions in the resolution. Lindt said this was a council discussion item. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7:30; seconded by Steve Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. The housing board requested that the applicant study the possibility of on site employee housing. Kruger stated that the housing language would not require the housing to be built but only studied. Kruger said that she did not want to lose any more lodge rooms and would rather see a cash-in-lieu payment. Cottle said that studying the possibilities was a viable notion. Kruger stated that she would be very impressed if they came up with more lodge rooms. Dale Paas said they realize that more hotel rooms the better and are pushing for that as well as the employee 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 housing. Tygre agreed with Ruth even though she was a proponent for onsite employee housing but to keep the building at a size that was more compatible with the neighborhood would be better. Skadron asked if the cash-in-lieu was earmarked. Lindt replied that the cash-in-lieu would go into the affordable housing fund for the development of affordable housing by the city. Szymanski said this entire project was in the lodge zone district; the new code requirements provided up to 42 feet in height. Tygre said this was no longer a discussion item and the commission wanted to see the residential portion height reduced. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to extend the meeting 10 minutes; Ruth Kruger seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Cottle said that they would rather have a goal to go to council with even if they cannot achieve that goal but will have a clearer goal. Cottle said 10 to 15% was a massive change. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #38, series of 2005 recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Limelight Final PUD and associated land use requests to construct 125 lodge rooms and 17free market residential units on the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, Snowflake Inn properties, City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado conditioned upon an overall reduction in the height of the building on the south parcel by 10% to 15%from the building heights that were proposed in the Limelight final PUD application dated November 4, 2005 and study the on site affordable housing as proposed. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. Approved 5-0. Discussion of motion: Steve Skadron voiced concern about the encroachment into the Wheeler view plane and a further concern about the pattern of development and impact these type of buildings have on the Aspen Experience. Tygre agreed with a lot of Steve's comments and would like to include Steve's second comment in the work session. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Minutes December 13~ 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: 575 SNEAKY LANE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 575 Sneaky Lane. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on 575 Sneaky Lane to January 3ra,' seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, motion carried. //J~ickie;j Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10