Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060516 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST............................................. 2 LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT ...........................................................2 BOOMERANG PUD ................................................................................................ 3 MOSES PROPERTY 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW............................................... 7 1 il;" "^-",. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Dylan Johns opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Meeting in Sister Cities at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Mary Liz Wilson, John Rowland, Steve Skadron, Brian Speck and Dylan Johns. Jasmine Tygre, Ruth Kruger and Brandon Marion were excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon reported that the Council work session for May 15th did not take place regarding the moratorium. Staff would like to host a P&Z lunch work session and forward results to Council. MINUTES MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from April 4th and April II'\- seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. APPROVED 3-0. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve the minutes from AprilI8th; seconded by John Rowland. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/02/06): LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENT Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Lodge District Code Amendment. James Lindt stated the proof of notice for publication in the newspaper was submitted by the Lift One Condos; it was a staff sponsored code amendment. The request was to remove the minimum lot area for the dwelling unit requirement in the lodge zone district for affordable housing units. Lift One would like to convert a bandit residential dwelling unit into affordable housing unit but they don't have enough lot area to do that; the other land use request has been separated from this request. Lindt noted the proposed language for the code amendment was on page 2 of the staff memo. There was a minimum lot area of3,OOO square feet per dwelling unit, which contradicts some of the main infill goals to create additional density in the downtown area as well as the lodge base. Staff preferred the removal of the minimum lot area per dwelling unit (page 3 ofthe staff memo provides this elimination). Paul Taddune spoke on behalf of the Condo Association. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Dylan Johns asked what the thinking was behind the 3,000 square foot minimum lot size to begin with. Lindt replied that it was a carry over from the Lodge/TouristlResidential District that was in place before the infill code amendments changed the code. Lindt said originally there was concern for too much density and that transformed over the years; in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan there were goals that look for ways to increase the density in the core area. No public comments. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #I9, Series of 2006 recommending City Council approve the amendments to the land use code Section 26.7I 0.I90(D )(2A) Lodge Zone District minimum lot area per dwelling unit for affordable housing units. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion of motion: Skadron asked if other properties would be affected by this amendment. Lindt responded there was not a good record of the properties built in the 1970s or before so GIS footprint mapping was used to average the FAR of the properties which might be impacted. Lindt said there would not be expansions of buildings coming out of this change but possibly utilizing existing floor area. Johns asked how this tied into the 500 square foot room size. Lindt replied that typically it would not impact the incentive lodge developments because only 25% was allowed unless it was varied in a PUD for residential units. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (5/2/6): BOOMERANG PUD Dylan Johns opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon provided the history on Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Boomerang Lodge is currently in the R-6 Zone District with an LP Overlay. Bendon said the neighborhood surrounding the Boomerang was eclectic with a broad mix of uses from single family, duplex, affordable housing, free market multi family housing, lodging development, parks, civic use, and one block from Main Street with full transit access. There was a range of sizes or buildings. Staff supports the application with concerns. Bendon noted this was an expansion oflodging units; there were 34 existing units. Staffwas concerned for the height of the building; the underlying zoning was a guide for height in a PUD and also the surrounding neighborhood. 3 -u..."~""""~'''',"""."",",_~";,,,~-'''.,-", , ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Bendon said they have had the historic designation discussions with the former owner and current owner and the focus was on the east wing of the Boomerang as a kind of window of the past. The HPC had concerns for the addition of the 3rd floor on the east wing, which presents a problem for placement of that mass in a way that still meets the consistency of the neighborhood. Sunny Vann appreciated the support of staff. Vann said the code Lodge Incentive Amendment made this project viable with 25% of the floor area free market. Vann said that the underlying R-6 Zone can not be used to design a hotel; there was not enough floor area or height. Vann said this was designed with the Lodge Zone District rules. Vann stated the lodge rooms were increased by 20 and meet the incentives for the average unit size to obtain the free market portion of the project. Augie Reno addressed the height issues beginning with meeting with the Community Development Staff and neighbors. Reno said there were a large number of people in the neighborhood in support of this project, which was important to the owner Steve Stunda. Reno stated the lodge fit into the Incentive Lodge Ordinance as it stands. The building as it now stands was 33 feet to the ridgeline and other building heights would be 30 feet and 31.5 feet. Reno said they were keeping 39 out of the 42 existing trees; they tried to maintain the east wing. The building was pushed as far away from the Christiana as possible in the center section, which is 70 feet away. Drawing Al06 shows the different shades of brown denoting the various heights of the project. The footprint was 27,000 square feet and the roof was about 17,200. Reno reiterated that they were keeping the pool (renovating it), keeping the lower seating area, the lobby, public rooms and meeting room. Vann stated they have the ability to minimize the adverse impact of this building on Hopkins Avenue because of the trees. Vann said they have a project that works with an applicant that wants to build it. Mary Liz Wilson asked that if the east wing was taken down then 5 rooms would be lost. Vann replied there were 5 rooms to the east wing addition. Vann said that as a condition of approval they were willing to have a change in material for the addition to the east wing. Wilson asked if the height were reduced would the rooms become smaller. .Vann responded that a couple of rooms just couldn't be pulled out and still maintain the structure. Reno explained the existing east wing with 3 units remained and existing lobby had a new lounge; there were 2 extra rooms. Reno said that everything else was pretty much the same; the configuration was changed without a double loaded corridor. The 3rd floor 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16,2005 contained the 5 rooms from the eastern wing, 3 free market units and lodge rooms in the west wing; the 4th level has 3 free market units and 2 lodge rooms. Steve Skadron asked ifit was the applicant's intent to rent the rooms at a moderate price point. Vann replied that rents are not regulated; the size ofthe rooms and the location will dictate. Vann stated the problem was not having the person to rent the room as it was to have the ability to redevelop the property. Skadron asked for a visual of the shading impact with the new height onto surrounding properties for both summer and winter. Reno answered that in the summer time the shadows would be negligible and in the winter the shadows were a 30% angle coming across to the other side of the alley. Vann stated with the existing building the alley was pretty much in the shade after midday because of Shadow Mountain. Brian Speck asked why the eastern wing was so important to keep. Bendon responded that it was not designated historic but has been on the HPC radar screen for quite some time to preserve post World War II architecture especially in the lodging districts where the evolution of skiing was partnered with the evolution of buildings. Bendon noted this was also the one of the first modern architectural buildings; beyond that eastern wing there were many changes over time so the architecture was not pure enough. Vann said it was more of a desire to preserve old Aspen than an architecturally or historically significant building in context to what HPC normally regulates. Vann said that they voluntarily agreed to talk to HPC and agreed to preserve it if it could be incorporated into the overall design without being a detriment to the project as a whole. Vann said the applicant voluntarily agreed to designate the portion of the property in which the wing is setting as historic so any further changes to the wing would be subject to HPC review and approval. Speck asked about the pedestrian amenity percentage. Bendon replied this project was outside the zone that required pedestrian amenity; the numbers shown were the open space for the pool. Vann said that they were also making improvements to Hopkins to enhance pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. John Rowland asked in what year was the east wing built. Vann said that it was in 1956 beginning with the cabin in 1955. Rowland asked ifthere were building sections showing the street and to address the height. Mary Liz Wilson asked the size of the employee housing units. Vann replied they were category 2, one bedroom units with 650 square feet of net livable space. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Dylan Johns asked for a walk through of the operations of visitors and deliveries. Vann replied the parking was relocated to a below grade garage with the exception of the parking in front of the east wing entrance lobby (main entrance). Reno said that small deliveries would probably come to the main entrance but larger ones would go down into the parking garage. Reno denoted the enclosed trash area off ofthe back alley. Johns asked if the height does become an issue how would that affect the project. Bendon replied that it would affect the unit sizes. Johns asked how many other lodges still exist that would be in an LP Overlay that still function as a lodge. Bendon answered probably 10-15; quite a few have gone through an LP redevelopment process in the last few years. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jody Edwards, represents the Christina Homeowners Association with the exception of Diane, stated the Christiana was opposed to the mass and scale of this proposal and believe that it should be significantly smaller. Edwards said the proposal was out of scale with the neighborhood and will have negative impacts on traffic. Edwards said the objections were the lack of separation of buildings, it reads as one massive building and it was much too high. Edwards said that the Christiana was broken up in heights and varied pitched roof lines and the Christina was consistent with the neighborhood. Edwards utilized the model to show the way the other properties in the neighborhood looked with spaces between buildings that allow light to come through and people to move through; this particular proposal lacked those spaces. Edwards quoted from the AACP why he thought this project did not meet those criteria. Brian Speck asked if there was a lot of public discussion about the height, mass and bulk of the Christina and what we see is the project before getting its height and massing and what we saw with the Sky Hotel neighbors. Bendon replied that there was discussion on the north structures and along the alley massing. Mary Liz Wilson stated concern for the bulk and mass of the project in the neighborhood and would also like to see it broken up more. Wilson encouraged the applicant to bring the height down. John Rowland was sympathetic to the program since the economic driver was why it was in the shape it was in; he said that he could not vote until he saw some cross sections. Rowland requested a macro map of the neighborhood that shows other lodges that could potentially capitalize on this program. Bendon said there was a map of the LP properties. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Steve Skadron requested any other visuals that this project might impact like shadows cast onto the Christina. Augie Reno noted that Shadow Mountain was about 1,000 feet higher. Skadron asked if the east wing was not maintained could some of the height and massing be moved to that portion of the property. Vann replied that if you take a third ofthe site and restrict it to a small finger building then you could spread the building out. Dylan Johns stated that the scale was an issue but this project was better for the area; the 4 stories was an issue on the west end of the site. Johns said that there was a lot of articulation on the building. Johns said the underground parking would clean things up around the site. Johns asked if the project would fall apart if it were to fall below 54 rooms. Johns said that he really did not have a problem with the size but more of a contextual aspect of fitting into the neighborhood. Bendon said the design team needed to respond to the commission concerns. Vann said that if they went to the 600/600 formula about 5 or 6 units were lost but much more was lost from the building trying to get those 6 units out of the building; they cannot lose a whole floor. Vann said they can look at the articulation to reduce the perception of the mass. Vann noted the majority of the neighbors that were impacted were in support of this project. Vann stated this has to function as a hotel and condominium. Vann said that the commission as a whole was not concerned for the historic aspect but the applicant wanted to see it retained. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the Boomerang PUD to June I3, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: MOSES PROPERTY 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Moses 8040 Greenline Review. Ben Gagnon provided the notice. Gagnon explained the property was located at the end of Aspen Alps Road adjacent to the Alps 700 building. In 1987 the property was rezoned from Conservation to R-15 and approved subdivision known as the Moses Lot Split, which established Lot 1 and Lot 2 (about an acre). Gagnon said the subdivision established the floor area cap at 3800 square feet for Lot 2 (the brown building). In 1992 Council approved a subdivision of Lot 2 granting Lots 2A and 2B as open 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 space and accepted a voluntary prohibition on future development on those lots, which run down to the tennis courts on Ute A venue about 3 acres of open space. Council eliminated the 3800 square foot cap on the building and increased it to 5000 square feet with permanent vesting, which was unusual. In 1992 Planning & Zoning approved an 8040 Greenline Review that was contingent on a certain building envelope. The applicant wants to adjust the building envelope to change the design of the home. Gagnon said that there was a geological conditions was addressed by 2 different reports, one from 1992, which P&Z addressed as prior to building the conditions must be met and one from CTL Thompson. Staff suggested conditions in the Resolution with the hiring of an engineer to decide on what kind of foundation was necessary and if any retaining walls were necessary. Gagnon said the resolution also includes conditions that require excavation stabilization, site grading, erosion and drainage control to make sure that the site is treated appropriately as part of the development process. Gagnon added a condition to the resolution to conduct a supplementary engineering assessment of a section of the road just below the residence where there is a retaining wall; for weight bearing on the road with construction vehicles and fire department vehicles. Stan Clauson pointed out this is a site with an existing one story log residence on it. Clauson said the 8040 Greenline has 11 standards, which were addressed in the staff report. Clauson noted that Charles Cunniffe Archj.tects provided the model because of the steep terrain of the existing site with very little grading and change. There would be some restoration of the grades to the site and additional screening between the Aspen Alps 700 Building. Clauson presented the landscape plan prepared by Kathy Markel showing the new plantings. Clauson said they accept the addition of an engineering study and have determined the weight limit for construction vehicles. Clauson said they fully understand the parking prohibition on the Aspen Alps South Road, which was part of the existing approvals and will be carried forward in the new approvals. Clauson said there was a small area off the roadway where some construction staging can take place appropriately but the contractor will have to be mindful of the parking restrictions in terms of how construction workers were brought to the site. Clauson reiterated the key changes were the building design itself, minor change in the building envelope, which eliminates that portion of the envelope closest to the 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 700 Alps Building and adds back a portion ofthe building envelope that was locked out for reasons lost in history. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7:I5 seconded by Brain Speck. All infavor, APPROVED. Skadron asked what the minimal cut into the slope meant in the memo. Gagnon answered it was literally a couple of feet at the base of the slope. Johns asked is the administrative residential design standards approval comes into play prior to this. Gagnon replied that seemed to be at the edge of the infill area and if they adhered to the residential guidelines the secondary mass would have violated the 8040 Greenline, which was to minimize the visual impact. Johns asked what the cut depths were on the southern most edge. John Olson, builder, replied the existing bench was about 13 feet and it would go one story below grade. Public Comments: Pamela Cunningham, general manager for the Aspen Alps, thanked the design team for working out some of the issues. Cunningham said that the owners of the Alps realize that Gerald has the right to build his house. Cunningham provided the history of Ordinance 31 that pertains to this. Mr. Mitchell started the Aspen Alps by buying mining claims around the Aspen Alps. Cunningham said that the voluntary conservation was closer to six and half acres sterilized; the road going up through the Aspen Alps is indeed a private road, which is closed one day a year for maintenance. Cunningham eXplained that the Mitchell's built their house over years to shut down construction to lessen the impacts and then completely restored the road. Cunningham said that the construction traffic for this project was of major concern. Cunningham specified the owners would like to see four 20 foot blue spruces and six Aspens on the Alps land and 4 to 6 Engelmann Spruce on Gerald's property. Cunningham requested until a solution to the sloughing road is found that the building be postponed; construction staging was imperative; the stipulation ofthe tress was appreciated; and urged a geotechnical engineer review the issues not just a geologist or engineer. MOTION: Brain Speck moved to approve Resolution I7, 2006 finding the review criteria have been met with conditions seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes. APPROVED 5-0. 9