HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060131
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, (CONT'D FROM 1/17/06)................................................................................2
Ii
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31.2006
Chairperson, Jasmine Tygre called the special meeting to order at 4:30 p.rn.
Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Kruger, Mary Liz Wilson, Brian Speck, Steve
Skadron, Brandon Marion and Jasmine Tygre. Excused were Dylan Johns and
John Rowland.
Staff present: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; David Hoefer,
Assistant City Attorney; Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk.
SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, (CONT'D FROM 1/17/06)
Chris Bendon said his process for tonight would be to walk through each of the
cri teria.
26.4 70.040.A 7 - Exhibit A - Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial
or lodge development.
Chris Bendon said this is something that is allowed by right. We put this in as a
review because it is an administrative review and yes, it does comply with the
standard. There is no expansion of the number of lodge units itself so essentially
it is a redevelopment by right. The same would be for the commercial.
Jasmine asked about the lodge incentive criteria. Chris said it only requires that
the density standard be met and that there is one unit per 500 square feet oflot
area and that the units themselves average 500 square feet or less.
Steve asked Chris to explain the standard. Chris said it is a density and unit size
standard and it doesn't require that there be additional units through that. It is
kind of like if their height was based on use, you either are or are not that use. The
same thing applies to the density and room size, you either are or are not. If you
do conform to the 500 standard then you are automatically allowed that additional
height and floor area regardless of what was there before. The project either meets
it or doesn't meet it.
Mary Liz asked iflodge zoning includes the free market units as well? Chris said
yes. If you look at the zoning Exhibit G, #9 & 10 describers affordable residential
and free market residential as permitted uses. They are not counted in the 500
standard. In other words, to meet the 500 standard it is the density of the lodge
units. The project has residential units along with it and those cannot be used to
demonstrate that the density standard has been met, only the lodge units.
2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
26.470.040.8.3 Incentive lodge development.
Chris said this deals with the expansion and redevelopment ofthe lodge. It can be
approved by P&Z. The first one deals with a sufficient number of allotments
being available to accommodate the development and there are so staff feels it
complies with that standard. There are numerous lodge allotments so I don't feel
that we will have to worry about reaching the cap. There is no yearly cap on lodge
allotments. There is a cap on residential free market allotments and that is 37 per
year. This project was the second submitted in this current growth management
year. For this project there are 36 available and they are requesting 10 so we find
that it meets that standard. .
The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Chris relayed that the property is located in the Lodge zone district and it was
described on our future land use map as part of the 2000 AACP as lodging. It is
within walking distance of downtown, Gondola and there are mixed uses that are
complimentary and compatible with the immediate area. That being lodging,
residential and a commercial component. The review talks about economic
sustainability of the AACP which talks about the long-term viability of the
community. They talk about lively, small-scale downtown with diverse unique
shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges. Staff feels
the proposal is consistent with this philosophy statement.
The Action Plan of the 2000 AACP called for a task force to identify ways to
sustain and improve local economy. A member of the AACP and economic
sustainability section was a little thin so the action plan called for a task force to
further flush out what the City should pursue in terms of sustainability.
In 2004 the City completed an analysis of the downtown retail environment which
was the Frick and Beer Report. The report suggested a few things:
Allow downtown change, development, density and diversity. Reduce non-retail
ground floor. Pursue, stimulate and promote new downtown investments and
improvements. Projects to support residential life downtown. This project is
consistent with that general guidance.
The report also suggests "body heat" that is a compression and a mix of uses
downtown. Lastly the City started the "Infill project" based on the AACP and
action items that were in that plan. Staff believes the project is consistent with the
purposes of the land use code revisions to get a rejuvenation of commercial and
lodging properties in downtown.
3
11--___
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Meeting the 500/500 standard.
Chris said if it doesn't meet the 500 standard it sends you to a section where you
can vary that standard. Staff finds that the project meets the two qualifiers. The
minimum unit density required for this property sizes is at 85 lodge rooms and
they have 90 and the average unit size is 480 square feet which is less than the 500
square feet so that standard has been met.
Associated free-market residential development.
Chris said there are 10 units proposed in this project and it gives the applicant
serious mitigation methods. There are essentially three methods to choose from.
P&Z must find that the project meets either one of them entirely or a combination
to meet the mitigation requirement. The second mitigation requirement is what the
proposal includes which is affordable housing units equal to 30% of the free-
market residential units (on a unit bases). So they have 10 free market residential
units which require 3 affordable housing units and that is being done on-site. This
requirement is for those units to be a category 4 and the applicant is proposing a
category 2 which is more affordable. We find that it meets that standard.
Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge units have
to be mitigated and we need a dialogue as to how that mitigation should be done.
Because there are no additional units, there are 90 units there currently and 90
units in the proposal; there is no mitigation required as far as the lodge portion of
the project so, we find it meets that standard.
Additional demands on Public infrastructure.
The project is not representing a burden on the public with infrastructure plans.
The project has been reviewed by DRC and there have been a couple of approvals
recommended by the agency that is included in the resolution, but we find it meets
that condition.
26.4790.040.8.7 - Affordable housing growth management review.
The first criteria deals with the sufficient number of allotments to accommodate
the new units. There are three AH units proposed. There is no yearly cap but
there is a Development Ceiling level. 600 affordable housing units are available
and they are well within that and we find that criteria met.
The second criterion is that the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan. The affordable housing units are above grade and appear
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
to be well-designed. Chris said he hasn't gotten a written referral from housing
but they verbally said the units comply with their guidelines.
There is a condition regarding the units being rental units. The code requires that
the units be deed restricted as "for sale" units unless there is adequate provisions
provided by the developer that the units would remain affordable. What that
looked like it the past is that a minimal percentage undivided interest that is
transferred to the City. The reason for that is that the state reviewed a case in
Telluride regarding rental units and the towns ability to enforce rental caps and the
state found that the only place the town had the authority to do that was in projects
that the town had an ownership interest in, not projects that were purely private.
Steve Skadron inquired about the unit density. The minimum unit density is 85
but this project has 90. The lodge incentive code does allow for the reduction in
the number of rooms if everything else is met. We could in effect attempt to have
more (hot) beds end up with fewer actual rooms. Chris said you certainly could.
Subdivision.
Chris clarified that a traditional subdivision is when you have a raw piece of land
and you divide up into multiple spaces and there are new lot lines. The code also
describes the development of multi-family housing as a subdivision. In the 50 and
60's multi-family apartment buildings were being built but there was no
requirement for them to hook up to the sewer system or provide any kind of
drainage improvements or streets or sidewalks. In this case there are no lot lines
being altered but there is still multi-family housing and residential units that are
free market so it triggers it into the subdivision.
The first standard references the AACP. Staff feels it is compliant.
The next standard is the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area. We believe it is. There are other
lodging projects, multi-family projects that have residential and lodging and
commercial uses in various configurations in the area.
The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas. This is more important if you were taking raw land and
dividing it into multiple lots and that you make sure you are not leaving someone
without public access or public utilities. We find the standard met.
5
I~ -
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements
of this Title. The project is going through the review requirements and is
conditioned upon meeting the standards of the zone district.
The next criterion is the suitability of the land for a subdivision. The property is
not in a zone district that would be susceptible to natural hazards so staff feels this
standard has been met.
Jasmine said what if the subdivision slid down the hill and affected anther house.
David Hoefer said we would not want to approve anything that would be
damaging to the health and welfare of the community. Jasmine said ifit was a
subdivision that interfered with the drainage it would be a different situation.
Special pattern efficient. Chris said this deals with the carving out of raw land and
that you don't create some inefficient development within the City. Staff feels this
criteria is met.
Subdivision design standards. Chris said if the standards are not met there is a
process they need to go through but they are not requesting any variations from the
subdivision design standards.
Chris said the next standard deals with affordable housing. There is a requirement
as part of the subdivision that the housing replacement program is being met and
that the growth management quota system is being met. This was reviewed earlier
and we find the criteria met.
Chris said the last deals with school land dedication. The new subdivision has to
reserve land for schools and in this case we find it is not an appropriate place to
reserve land for a school. The land would be very very small and not compatible
for a separate stand alone facility. It allows for the developer to provide a cash in-
lieu of the value of the land and we find that standard met.
Conditional use standard. The cafe bar/lounge and sundry shop belong to the
conditional use review. Staff finds that this is consistent with the AACP and the
Lodge zone district which contemplates a mixed use facility especially in an area
where there is a high level of commercial activity already. We find that standard
met.
6
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Location, size design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use. Chris said we expect that there are some off-site impacts that will be minimal
and expected in this type of area. It is not expected to generate an abnormal
amount of noise, trash, motor vibrations. The traffic circulation actually improves
with this proposal, so we find that standard met.
Adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use. We find that
there is adequate public facilities for this use. It is actually less than what is there
now in terms of commercial services. We find that standard to be met.
Affordable housing. Chris said the applicant must commit to affordable housing
to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated simply by that
conditional use. In this case the commercial space is going from roughly 5,000
square feet to 2,500 square feet so there were fewer number of employees
generated by the conditional use. We find that there is no affordable housing
mitigation that is triggered by this.
Brandon said if you have a straight forward conditional use for example Main St.
has a conditional use and you want to put a furniture shop in there and the building
is not changing, you just approve the conditional use for that. When we have a
project like this where we are separating out the conditional use looking at the
various criteria for that if you have a little cafe that is no problem but when you
integrate it into the overall building does that increase the latitude of the review of
the conditional use. This is a difficult question for me to phrase. You unplug the
conditional use or do you say the conditional use is causing a floor of this building
which is therefore impacting the overall profile of the building. When evaluating
the conditional use do you just do it as the conditional use of this little piece of it
or do you have to take the conditional use as part of the overall project.
Jasmine said you mean dimensionally.
Brandon said the conditional use is integrated in a larger project. How do we
focus the direction of the conditional use.
David Hoefer said this will be a two part answer. First of all as long as it doesn't
increase the dimensional requirements i.e. they don't exceed the height
requirement, I think you are somewhat limited as to what you can do with it. You
also need to look at the criteria and see if the conditional use being proposed fits
within the criteria. If on the other hand the proposed use, the restaurant for
7
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
example pushed the height over and they were asking for a variance, then I think
you could integrate it. You have to kind off restrict the integration here as long as
the entire project stays within the dimensional requirements.
Commercial design review standards. This is a new review and it deals with all
the subjective things that were part of the growth management review in our
previous code that were pulled out. This doesn't focus on a specific style of
architecture but more of the components that make the building. If the design
deviates and provides a more appealing pattern of development the standard
allows you to look at the larger picture. It allows you to have latitude. You can
use a variety of things to consider a deviation from the standards. The context and
unique site constraints and there is also a section of suggested design elements that
are not required but might be appropriate in certain cases and used to justify a
deviation from the required standards.
In this case they are not requesting any variation from the commercial design
standard and we are finding that they meet the design standards.
Building relationship to primary street. The facades are to be parallel to the streets
and are not setback inordinately. There should be a consistent setback on the first
and second story to build essentially a street wall. With the first floor the grade
should be the same as the sidewalk, that you don't have a split level situation. The
setback should not have a substantial grade change. Staff finds it meets the
relationship to the primary streets. Both Durant and Spring are primary streets.
Pedestrian amenity space. There is an effective area where pedestrian amenity
space is required. In this project the property effectively bifurcated by that
prescribed area plus they have less than the requirement now. The requirement is
6% and they are meeting that. The space should have active street vitality and
should have an inviting pedestrian environment. It should also not duplicate
existing pedestrian space like malls and sidewalks. The design and operational
standards should also be met. The requirement is 6% and 9%; it is being provided.
They more than meet the numerical requirement.
Jasmine asked if that is without the bulb out. Chris said without. If there was a
request they could use the bulb out as an off-site provision of the pedestrian
amenity.
8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Street level building elements. Chris said this deals with the fenestration and the
ability to understand the building and what its use is. Unarticulated blank walls
are prohibited. There is a 60% fenestration ratio which is openings, windows,
doors to be provided on the street level. This provision allows you to reduce or
waive for lodge properties with no or limited street-level retail. This project meets
that requirement and there are no requests for reduction. There is an internal
airlock. The standard also encourages non-traditional storefronts along alleyways
etc. We feet it meets the standards.
Parking. The location of the parking should be accessed from an alleyway. No
surface parking shall be located between the Street right-of-way and the building
fa9ade. We feel these standards comply.
Utility, delivery, trash service provision. Chris said the standard indicates that the
trash should be along the alley. The proposal meets the size requirements. Utility
pedestals should be on private property or within rights-of-ways and properly
licensed. Deliveries should be along the alley. All mechanical exhausts should
be ventilated through the roof and recessed behind a parapet wall. Staff finds the
criteria met.
Suggested design elements. Chris said these are not required and really speak to
retail buildings or an office building. There should be a signage directory.
Windows should be broad display windows and lighting should comply with the
lighting prograrn. Chris said the project complies with the lighting code. Chris
said the last two criteria are original Townsite articulation and architectural
features.
Ruth asked about the 6% pedestrian amenity. Chris said there is a physical area
described where the 25% is required that is bounded by Spring, Original and Dean
St. and the center line extensions where the streets don't go through. The parcel
is partly in and out of the area. You reduce proportionally the 25% requirement.
Exhibit I -letters entered in the record after the packet went out.
TDA Colo. Inc. is concerned with the parking and access along the alley.
Bruce Jeanes - Owners of Chateau Chaumont #19. - height objection.
Michael Neuman- Owner of Chateau Chaumont #17, & #18.
Gary Kantor - Owner of the Chateau Chaumont # 15.
9
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Brandon asked who TDA was. Michael Hoffman, attorney stated that new
information was handed out by the applicant and wasn't incorporated into the
study that was done by TDA so we gave him the additional information and this is
his response.
Jasmine asked if the applicant wanted to add anything to what Chris has covered
in the review of the applicable criteria.
Sunny replied that this was the first project after the adoption of the new
regulations, the Limelight participated but this was the first project and was
specifically designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the new
lodge zone district and with the various growth management regulations that were
adopted to implement and it was done with the new regulations and this was the
poster child. There is the issue surrounding the 1963 vacation of the alleys but as
Chris said it was a legislative issue for Council and we are confident they will find
it our favor. We have a variety ways to resolve the issue. Any action taken here
would have to be modified to bring it into compliance although the fact of the
matter nothing could be done because the streets required to be subtracted. Sunny
said other than that I think that I'll reserve our time to respond to questions or
comments. Sunny thought that Chris covered the criteria, we can elaborate on but
we'll give up our time to see where this goes.
Jasmine said that the members of the commission have asked the questions they
needed regarding the criteria on which we will base our findings.
Brandon Marion asked if there were any design changes since the original
presentation. Sunny said the only changes were the architecture of the building in
response to some concerns that were raised regarding circulation in the existing
alley between us and the Chateau Dumont and the portion of our property that is
used to access that alley. Sunny said they got the Fire Marshall to discuss access
and made revisions to the ramp that accesses the garage; we basically reduced it
from a two way ramp to a one way ramp and noted in TDAs letter, he just saw it
today, they concur that reducing the ramp achieved a better circulation for
emergency vehicles, the Chateau owners themselves but at the expense of the
underground parking for the hotel itself. Sunny said the only other change, there
were some representations that were made; Dylan asked a question at the last
meeting "would the alley and the access across our property from Durant Street
remain open during construction"; we were prepared to take a condition that that
access remain open throughout construction and not impeded current circulation.
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
That was acceptable to the applicant and designed to address the question. Sunny
said that there was concern over the way they were moving pedestrians along the
South Spring Street. Sunny said they provided, they don't necessarily agree that it
was the best solution, a traditional sidewalk (5 foot) planting strip adjacent with a
revised landscape plan that shows the sidewalk along that South Avenue corridor.
Brandon said that was so someone doesn't have to come underneath the building.
Sunny said the porte cochere did not change. Brandon said that pedestrian moves
through there. Bill Poss explained that the person could walk through there and
there were two lanes the cars could go through there.
Sunny said the only other change was the revision to the garage ramp, which was
now one way; freed up some space adjacent to what would be the west side of the
Chateau Dumont and which they were now proposing some kind oflandscaping to
the Chateau owners. Brandon asked if they were still proposing one way on that.
Sunny responded that they were suggesting, well it is one way, we had suggested
that the circulation pattern reverse from east to west; west to east. Some of the
owners of the Chateaus objected to that; we thought it made sense when we had a
two way ramp but we were willing to position the streets which ever way it takes.
Sunny said it was their decision not ours, we just simply suggested it as part of our
application. It would be valet parking with the green light red light up and down
the one way ramp. Brandon asked if this was where the deliveries were made.
Sunny said depending on which way the alley winds up being first, which way
circulation in the alley winds up being. Right now we come off of Durant to
access the delivery at the rear of our building on our property not within the alley
itself. Sunny said in other words, everything to the west of the row of trees next to
the Chateau Chaumont or Dumont; the delivery was tucked in the corner of the
elbow of the building; it does not have an exterior dock; they basically created a
portal in a door to take deliveries indoors and get them out of there.
Brandon asked Chris to tie this into the criteria of adverse effects created facilities,
utilities, etc. is there any sort of a number that can be put on a facility like this in
any given day how many deliveries would be expected, how many trucks would be
expected. Brandon asked what sort of impact would incur in that particular area;
if we make it the contrast to City Market or Clarks how many deliveries come in
and the sprawl of that parking ends up because of those delivers. Brandon asked if
there was any way for us to evaluate is that adequate space for a facility like this
and that would be the criteria of the facility, utility etc. Chris replied there were
no standards that require a delivery dock or a different style of delivery dock or
size based on some threshold number of seats or square footage or something like
11
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
that in the code and was not aware any rule of thumb, general planning device that
he could give in terms of the number of deliveries that might be expected per seat
or square footage or for a business type. Brandon said that in evaluating whether
or not this was an adequate operational space for a facility such as this; so you as
the city are evaluating this. Chris reiterated there were no hard standards for that
but they like to see it off of the alley so there is a place for the deliveries to be
made not coming in and out of the front door. Chris said if they were talking
about 10 or 20 times the commercial space they might be concerned about having
a dedicated delivery dock like city market but they don't think that this is in that
category; there was only a few thousand square feet of commercial. Brandon said
that if we look at the alleys in town. Sunny said the alley traditionally are where
the trash is collected and there was no alley in town that wasn't congested at some
time however we recognize that the original developers of the Chaumont and
Dumont chose to orient their buildings to an alley instead of Durant Street and
assume it was for the great views over the top of the lodge that was their view of
Aspen Mountain, which was a reasonable assumption. So traditional activities
that take place in the alley where trash pick up and deliveries take place have an
impact on them that wouldn't normally have had they put the building facing the
street; to that end meeting with Michael Hoffman the representative for the
Chateaus; the applicant offered to agree to sit down and put some limitation on
delivery hours or when or how they could make it function in order to minimize
adverse disruption. Sunny said of course there would be times when there were
conflicts but they were willing to do in this case; obviously they will need
deliveries but as Chris pointed out they have less commercial and more lodge
rooms than before.
Steve Skadron said since the 90 rooms were being replaced by 90 rooms; there
was no increase in the number of rooms and the retail was being minimally sized
that the delivery and trash impacts will be no greater. Sunny said that no he
couldn't say that unequivocally, he did not know but they were not doubling the
size of the hotel or expanding the property with a huge conference room or
ballroom or restaurant. Sunny said of course they will have bar and supply
deliveries for the hotel but they were not substantially changing what was there;
they were improving the way it functions. Brandon said they were adding
residential besides the hotel impacts.
Steve asked what happens to the south side parking spots for the Alps. Sunny said
they were being retained and proposed relocating those spaces to the subgrade
garage and the Alps 100 Building expressed an interest in retaining those spaces
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
where they were located so they have agreed to maintain them during construction
and the end result.
Public Comments:
1. Willie Sabarese, owner of Chateau units, stated that he sent a letter and
stated concern for the height with increased build up of ice from the building
height. Sabarese said there would be problems with delivery trucks and affect the
Aspen vacationers experience with all the construction going on; he stated concern
for the renting of the units and not meeting the mortgage payments as easily.
2. Todd Verigren questioned the welcomed experience to Aspen by the wall
built in front of the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont buildings. This was an
enormous scale downtown and the small lodges would be impacted adversely and
questioned the diminished ability to rent their units with the Sky redevelopment.
Verigren said he was concerned that the criteria was not met.
3. Michael Hoffman, attorney for the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont, said
that so much time has been spent going over the criteria and the impression is that
you have no choice but to approve the project. Hoffman said that there were
exhaustively negative impacts on the two Chateau projects and he directed the
attention to the subdivision criteria that the application be consistent with the
character of the surrounding area. The application was not consistent with the
AACP; Hoffman said that David could talk about a rebut table presumption that he
had led the commission for the economic sustainability and design quality sections
of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Hoffman said the conditional use permit for
the cafe bar was part of the project and can't be separated from that and therefore
the discretion provided by that section of the code is also available to take what we
needed to take the right step, which was to deny the application. Hoffman said it
requires consistency with the AACP, consistency with the neighboring community
and that the applicant minimizes the negative impacts on the surrounding area.
Hoffman said that you are not being asked to make a recommendation on the
impact of the vacation of Spring Street and those questions that P&Z was not
being asked to make a recommendation to Council. Chris said they can if they
chose to but it wasn't part of Council's requirement; they don't need a
recommendation from P&Z. Hoffman said would you recommend not granting
the land area as part of the floor area calculation for the vacated aspects of Spring
Street.
13
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Steve asked what the impact is; what are you suggesting. Jasmine said that she did
not want a debate. Brandon said that it (the square footage) was not within the
P&Z purview and will be a legal decision made by city council. Jasmine said that
in other words any approval was contingent upon the finding by City Council that
the square footage, the FAR, is calculated based upon what it is if they should
make a finding otherwise, then the project would not be eligible because it could
not be built because it wouldn't have enough square footage so what Chris said
was that was a condition in the resolution that the finding is made that there is the
adequate square footage.
Brandon clarified in the past sometimes this commission discussion got into
dialogue between the applicant and the commissioners and I want to clarify if that
is correct or not because sometimes if you just state your opinion then you just
want that opinion to be stated and not then hear why that opinion might not be
correct or what that opinion is missing etc. from the applicant. Brandon wanted
clarification somewhere to how when Steve, when Michael said something and
Steve wanted to talk to him and you wanted to limit that and I've noticed in the
last several meetings we seem to be having more of a two way discussion and so
can you or David clarify for me in this portion here is this simply commissioner
comments, commissioner discussion, the applicant doesn't respond. Jasmine said
the applicant will have an opportunity to respond after all of the commissioner
comments; we are not going to have you say something and then the applicant
respond; we will have the applicant respond at the end of the commissioner
comments. David Hoefer agreed.
Brandon said the developer, the applicant has done a good job in anticipating and
adhering to the Aspen Area Community Plan, the code changes and a lot of the
hurdles have been met in the application however because it is the poster child for
the commission to evaluate against the criteria methodically and exactly and one
of the things that hits him are the comments by the public and the community.
Brandon said the criteria that the project doesn't meet subdivision, staff findings
item C, and the proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas. Brandon stated concern from the Dean Street
area and the use of that for access to the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont
and the use ofthat with the potential for a fire truck or ambulance having to come
into that area to put out a fire and he did not think that the infrastructure for that
area was adequate for what was required; based on his own knowledge oflooking
at the model, the site and seeing the Ritz Carlton delivery area and his experience
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
with the Nell. Brandon said that based on that it does have an adverse effect on
the surrounding area.
Brandon said that in the conditional use item #3 the location, size, design and
operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrians and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash service, noise, vibration and odor on surrounding properties.
Brandon said that density of the three units (Chaumont, Dumont and Sky Hotel)
was trying to put too much in one specific area and we have seen the impacts in
our town in the alleyways, we've seen the impacts of buses trying to negotiate
various area and we have an opportunity here to take more consideration about the
areas and the whole use and how that works as a puzzle within that mini complex
there.
Brandon said the pedestrian amenity space was no more than a sidewalk. Brandon
said it did not meet the utility service and trash service based upon the earlier
statement said by hirn. Brandon said as much as he wanted to see the Sky Hotel
redeveloped he could not support it based on those criteria.
Ruth said that Sunny has done a beautiful job and she said the project does fit
within the new rules that were adopted for redevelopment; this wasn't exactly the
project she expected to see from the beginning. Ruth said there was a lot of time
spent on the redevelopment of the rules of infill with the intent to redevelop
projects that were in disrepair and in dire need of replacement or renovation. Ruth
said that this project fits into all the rules and staff has done a good job looking at
the criteria. Ruth said that she looks at projects individually and she said that she
would support this project even though it was a shame to be doubling the size of
the building with no addition to the rooms and hotbeds into the lodging inventory.
Ruth said this was an unintended consequence of changing the rules; the whole
idea of the incentive lodging was to bring back the bed base and she would like to
see this project come back with more lodging rooms. Ruth said that she
understood that the rooms were small and the travel experience has changed and
the demands for rooms have changed; she thought it was a shame that only 2
affordable housing units were gained in the redevelopment. Ruth said that they
should re-look at the rules. The commission agreed with Ruth on re-reviewing the
rules.
Mary Liz Wilson said that she appreciated that the Sky Hotel will be redeveloped
and she also wished that they were getting more lodge rooms; Dean Street was a
15
-II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
concern of hers and how it would handle (she agreed with Brandon). Mary Liz
supported the parking garage with the ramp reduction to one lane; she said that she
would rather see this as a 3 story building because of the neighbors concerns and
they way the project will look.
Steve Skadron complimented the applicant on satisfying much of the growth
management criteria, the subdivision, the conditional use and the commercial
design review; their attempt at satisfying these reviews was somewhat complete.
Steve said there was one belief that fell back on the Aspen Area Community Plan
with the harmonious and compatible development. Steve said his main issue with
the subdivision was with point A, his concern was specifically the impact this
development has on the neighbors and does not satisfy the objective of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Brian Speck said that some aesthetic issues concerned him and parts of the project
he really liked. Brian said the fire department and engineering department could
be taken care of with safety valves to protect that and he would like to see the
height on the alley side come down. Brian said the regulations and guidelines
were fulfilled and he gave a hesitant nod.
Jasmine Tygre stated that Brandon covered a couple of points that were of great
concern to her in terms of specific criteria; the negative effect on the surrounding
area under subdivision was something she takes very seriously because lodge
preservation should not necessarily come under the expense of existing lodging
properties. Jasmine said there was no question in her mind that the impacts of this
project on the neighboring properties, many of which have been used traditionally
for short term accommodations will be very serious and she was not talking about
the financial losses that the individual unit owners may have because their units
become less desirable as rental units because that was not this commissions
concern but it was a tremendous concern for a community that has been trying
desperately to enhance the lodging experience so what we were doing was creating
a better lodge experience for the Sky Hotel while diminishing the experience of
those who have traditionally stayed at the Chateaus and the Aspen Alps. Jasmine
said the fact there was no expansion of lodge rooms really make her question if
this project should qualify for a lodge incentive program according to the lodge
incentive criteria or discussion that appear on the second page of the staff
findings; what we have is the same number oflodge rooms with a condominium
project plopped on top of it and that was the same as the old historic preservation
of taking a historic house and putting a new great big bustle on it; this was not in
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
compliance to what her interpretation oflodge incentive should be under the
Aspen Area Community Plan. Jasmine said there were many things about the
project that she did like, but she could not support it as it was currently proposed.
Sunny Vann found it incongruous that everybody wants more rooms but yet wants
to reduce the size of the building. Sunny said that they were entitled to process
under effect and broadening the criteria to address you have with the program was
appropriate; this project complied with the rules as drafted. Sunny said the
subdivision regulations specifically say consistency with the Aspen Area
Community Plan; he said it did not ask the commission to find that the building or
its impact on the neighbors was consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Sunny said that it was asking the commission to do was the sale of multiple
interests, which is the only thing that is triggering subdivision and the fact that
there was more than one free-market residence, is that consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan, not the restaurant, not the alley, not the design; in fact, the
criteria that deal with those are not in this particular set of reviews and he asked
David earlier to respond if this came up. Sunny said the only thing the
commission is being asked to find consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan and were the commercial uses in this building consistent with what you want
to happen in this community not does it result in a building that you don't like or a
building that will adversely affect the neighbors.
Sunny said the commission was not being asked to find the building, you were
being asked under subdivision, does that have an adverse affect on the future
development of the neighborhood or the character of the area. Sunny said if there
was a PUD you would be talking about the design of the building and some other
considerations.
Sunny said the comment about wanting to see more rooms but the code did not
anticipate that there would always be an increase; the fact that some cases the
density was so high in existing location that to meet the criteria as Chris pointed
out, you would actually have a reduction in the actual number of units but an
upgrade in the quality of product. Sunny said that in this particular case you have
a very dense product to start with and we must put 85 units back on site just to
meet the requirements of the code. Ifwe upgrade the size of the rooms, which are
small today, we can't put more than the original 90 back there without making a
5th floor, which we can't do because of the height. Sunny said saying that we want
more rooms really is saying we want to maintain the status quo, which is very
small rooms one sink bathroom; that was the only way to add units and still meet
17
I-I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31.2006
the other requirements that were in the application and he did not think that the
commission would see every lodge project come in that maintains the same
number or actually diminishes.
Sunny said that the alley was a tough situation, we have existing impacts on
people back there today; there is no ability in redeveloping this project and not
have adverse impacts on the alley unless you put everything on South Spring
Street if that solution was acceptable to the community as well. So the question is
not is there going to be impacts; is can we manage them in some way. Sunny said
they have tried to find a way to manage what's there and what will be there when
the property is redeveloped. Sunny said the broader public good that the city was
trying to accomplish was to upgrade aging lodge facilities. Sunny said the owner
was here to talk about what was there today and what was going to happen if we
can't fix this thing; he's not talking about economics just the reality of the
situation as it exits today. Sunny said were it not for this legislation they would
not be here because there was no mechanism under the old code to replace it; if we
can't get something like this to work then the program is crafted with difficulty
from the very start.
Sunny said the pedestrian amenity was more than just a sidewalk along the street;
it was a rest of the internal open space that works with this project as well as the
public benefits that accrued from this little bump out, it's the aggregate, we can't
do a South Spring Street solution like the Little Nell did. Sunny noted this was a
very narrow lot, with double loaded corridors for moving people inside the
building instead of outside the building; there were limitations of what could be
done. Sunny said what concerns him the most was the broadening of the criteria
to address the overall project; you are being asked to make a recommendation on a
specific approval by specific criteria. Sunny said that he was not attacking the
commissioners points of view but they were going to have to see these problems
on every infill project that comes down the pike; the city said let's fix the lodges;
the height was increased, the FAR was increased, if everything else around it is
smaller it will adversely affect something; there were no sites in the infill area
where you can build the dimensional requirements of the new regulations without
adversely affecting something; this is no difference when the regulations were
changed in the late 1960s or early 1970s when the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont
were built. Sunny said they built to the new regulations and blocked the views of
the adjacent lodge to the mountain; they adversely impacted the alley because they
had to have their parking down below but it was approved. The same thing occurs
now, we are building to the new regulations and will have some impacts on some
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
people and they are free to pursue redevelop of their own properties. Sunny asked
how much longer do we think the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont will function
with their current functionality; at some point they will avail themselves to the
regulations that are in effect when they come in and it mayor may not have an
adverse effect on the redeveloped Sky Hotel.
David Hoefer stated the Commission has done an admirable job addressing the
criteria and that was all that was asked and it was up to each individual to review.
David Myler stated from his perspective the functioning of the alley would
actually improve because there were parking spaces to the benefit of some of the
Sky Hotel units that face onto the alley and that parking would be removed. Those
cars probably encroach on the alley when there was snow built up against the front
of the parking spaces so there will be fewer cars in connection with their project
that access the alley than there is today and by relying upon valet parking, by
narrowing the ramp, by scheduling deliveries and working with the neighbors to
minimize the impact of deliveries. There was an opportunity to reduce the number
of cars that drive in and out of that alley and hopefully allow it to function a little
better. Dave Myler echoed Sunny's comment that to a great extent they may be
constrained on what they can do with their property based on design decisions that
the original designers of the Chateau made back in 1967 and 1968; they chose
front units on an alley, understanding that the alley was only 20 feet wide at the
time when it was a 10 foot setback on the Chateau side they built 7 feet from the
alley so they either knew or should have known that if our property was even
developed to the same extent of theirs you have a minimal separation between
buildings that was going to cause all of the problems that everyone is now
complaining about, problems that this property has endured since the Chateau was
built. Myler said that he was sympathetic to these problems but it's an alley; we
need to manage it and treat it as an alley because that was exactly what it is. Dave
said there was a bit of a danger when, and we will always have this angst,
justifiably so of what's the impact on the neighborhood going to be. As long as he
has practiced land use law in this community he has admired the degree to which
planning commissions and councils always want to take into consideration impacts
on neighbors, he said that was the right thing to do but it was always balanced
against what is the public objective that we are trying to achieve. Dave said he
thought the City Council after 6 years of studying analysis with a lot of input from
the Planning Commission articulated a very important and crucial public objective
for this community. We want to revitalize our aging decrepit lodging inventory
and we want to have that revitalization occur not down the road or out near
19
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
Buttermilk or someplace else where we were not going to have any impact on
neighbors but we want it right downtown. And they set some standards that would
provide first of all a meaningful incentive (42 feet of height, increased FAR)
meaning the owner of a property was actually going to be able to successfully
accomplish a revitalization because he's going to be able to have enough
development to justify the cause. But we want to balance that against not over
whelming the neighborhood; he looks at the model and sees a bigger building but
he doesn't see overwhelming the neighborhood. Actually what he sees is the new
standard for the neighborhood; there is a danger in measuring the future with what
already exists. All these properties around us are capable of developing to the
same height; we will be enduring the same impacts if our neighbors do that. We
understand that, that's what happens when you encourage density to move into the
commercial core; when you increase the heights, when you decrease the setbacks.
It's not an unintended consequence to have views be blocked for example; as
much as we love our views and he loves his too; it's not an unintended
consequence when you are encouraging high density in these particular areas. It is
an anticipated result in consequence and it's something we need to accept in order
to achieve the greater public good of enhancing our failing inventory. Dave said if
the standards were lowered so that we don't exceed the height of any of the
buildings around them for example they will not get lodge revitalization. Dave
said you might get somebody doing a really substandard poor job of a lodge but
you are not going to get rooms that are sized to take us 50 years into the future, it's
not going to happen. Dave said that if they don't get the condo project on top of
the lodge the economic engine for the revitalization is gone; to take a floor off this
building is to simply eliminate this incentive, it's gone. Dave said the only thing
left when this lodge falls down around their ears is a more traditional residential
product instead of a high occupancy lodging product that they are attempting to
create here. They wouldn't be here if the city hadn't written the new ordinance
given them the blueprint from which to design a project and invited them to come
here; we were here in response to what we think we heard in the city and hope that
you keep that in mind as you consider the project.
David Hoefer said that prior to a vote and regardless of how the vote comes this
project can go forward to Council through appeals as well as through a negative or
positive vote. Chris Bendon said that some of the reviews are only a
recommendation from P&Z to City Council so that goes to City Council
regardless. Sunny Vann said this was a little different in the past; the regulations
were changed where you are no longer a recommending body on most of these
20
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
reviews; because the criteria changed you will give the final action on everything
but subdivision. Sunny said they will have to file an appeal to the final action.
Chris Bendon said that Sunny offered to maintain the alley open through the
construction process, that's not in the resolution so if you want add that in.
Dave Jackson president of the Sky Hotel said he bought the hotel about 5 years
ago and has been coming here for about 10 years; he said he flew out from
Washington for this meeting. Dave Jackson said the property that they bought 5
years ago and there was a dramatic improvement to the quality of the guest
experience for the hotel; when they bought the hotel was losing money and they
turned it into a property that attracts feature articles in National and International
publications, they were featured in Ski Magazine last year, featured Apres Ski
Lounge in the New York Times last year and last month. Dave Jackson said that
MSNBC has given it coverage in the last years since the 39 degrees Lounge
opened; we think that millions of viewers and readers have been exposed to Aspen
as a result of the excitement of the buzz that has been created by the Sky Hotel and
39 Degrees. Dave Jackson said that there was a limit to what our business can be
with the tiny rooms and low ceilings and the exterior corridors like a motel and it
is not appropriate for the Aspen visitor and we hear that all the time.
John, manager of the Sky Hotel, said that it has been a great experience over the
last 3 years watching the growing business every year; they have tried to embellish
the experience of the Sky Hotel by the creation of 39 Degrees being something
vibrant, playful and young. John said that they have to do some dramatic things to
the Sky Hotel because the most creative designers can't make the 300 square foot
rooms something that's appropriate for the face Aspen Mountain; the big
complaint right now are the size of these guest rooms, these bathrooms that have
not been renovated and are very small with one sink. John said the East Wing had
entrances to the outside with a motel feel, which he hears all the time and it was a
security issue for their guests. John said the hotel had a lot of potential with the
right size rooms with amenities to compete with next door and to the Hotel Jerome
and that was what the sight deserves. John said the alley was being used for
deliveries through that garage; they control most of the parking area with 20 some
parking spaces outside; ifit affects anybody it affects thern. John said when the
alley was used correctly is was used one way and the impacts will be no different
than they are today.
21
II
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 31. 2006
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7: 15pm seconded by
Brian. All in Favor, APPROVED.
Dave Jackson began to speak about the investment and Jasmine Tygre stated that
was not within the purview of this commission.
Cheryl Jones, Northwest Capital, spoke of being in the hospitality business for
about 20 years and they were looking at this asset and saying where is it
positioned in the marketplace today. Cheryl Jones said the dynamics in the world
have changed; people want bigger rooms, more spacious rooms; that's the
direction that the lodging industry is going, that's the direction that residential is
going so in an effort to accommodate that demand and be competitive in the
market place and satisfy what people want in Aspen, this is the way that we feel
that we could redevelop the property with respect to the residential on top. There
was the ability to put it into the rental program when it was not in use so it wasn't
as if it's going to go dormant; there would be demand for that. Cheryl said that in
the event this doesn't get redeveloped in this fashion it will be very, very difficult
to redevelop because it was a dilapidated building; the ceiling heights were very
low and it would not be a development worthy of redevelopment. They have put
as much lipstick on this property and have reached the limit and done as much as
we can with the structure as we can; we are going to be very hard pressed to of
how to reposition this asset and meet future demand.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution 36, Series of 2005
approving with conditions Growth Management Allotments for 10 free-market
residences and 3 Affordable Housing Allotments, Commercial Design Review and
Conditional Use and recommending City Council approve the Subdivision for the
redevelopment of the Sky Hotel and adding the condition that the alley be
maintained during construction. Brian Speck seconded. Roll call vote: Ruth
Kruger, yes; Mary Liz Wilson, yes; Brian Speck, yes; Steve Skadron, no; Brandon
Marion, no; Jasmine Tygre, no. DENIED 3-3.
Discussion: Ruth said that it has been a benefit to the community to bring in the
youth and vitality to the Sky Hotel.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
y Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
22