Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060613 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...............................................2 CODE AMENDMENT IMPACT FEES .................................................................. 2 BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PUD.............................................. 3 1 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the Special Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:30 pm in the Pitkin County Library. Commissioners Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, Mary Liz Wilson, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger and Brandon Marion were excused. Staff in attendance were Jennifer Phelan, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Dylan Johns spoke about the June lzth City Council Meeting. Jennifer Phelan said there was a work session scheduled the week of August 24th with P&Z and Council. The commissioners discussed infill projects and the moratorium. Steve Skadron mentioned that while driving through Glenwood Springs he was impressed by the availability of free parking and free internet service in one of their parks; he was able to conduct his business within 15 minutes. Skadron stated the Glenwood Springs experience was positive. Jennifer Phelan distributed the first reading of Ordinance 23, 2006 with minor changes to the moratorium and service award nominations. The minutes will be voted at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT IMPACT FEES Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Code Amendment Impact Fees. Jennifer Phelan explained the work sessions and discussions. Resolution #23 would update the current park impact fees, the TDM air quality impact fees and school land dedication fees. Phelan said there would be a per bedroom impact fee charge and studios would be charged at.8 of the per bedroom fee with the basis that there would be less people in a studio than a one bedroom unit. Phelan said that if you were remodeling and you do not increase the number of net bedrooms or the surface area there would not be an impact fee. Staff requested feedback from P&Z on the current park and dedication impact fee exempts historic landmark inventoried property. Phelan said that a historic lot split property would not have to pay the fee but the new lot and structure would pay the impact fee. 2 . Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 Phelan stated the park impact development fee has increased; the air quality and storm drainage fees were new as well as an appeal process. The school land dedication fee was reviewed by the number of students generated by the kind of housing, which the consultant updated. The school land dedication was only assessed through subdivision but this revision would require any bedrooms added would be assessed the fee. Lodges and commercial development were not assessed. Public Comments: Tom Dunlop, former Environmental Health Director for the City and County, stated that the PM 10 mitigation program went through a number of processes and it was a battle that went on for years. The Commission agreed with staffs' approach for the changes to the park dedication and school land dedication impact fees. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #23, Series of 2006, recommending City Council approve the proposed land use code amendments to Section 26.610 and 26.630 Park Development Impact Fee and School Land Dedication. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment PUD. Tygre noted that she was not at the last Boomerang hearing and has not read the minutes but this was a revised plan. Sunny Vann responded that they had no objections to Jasmine participating. Joyce Allgaier provided the overview of the project now with 52 hotel rooms and about 50,500 square feet. There were 6 free-market units proposed with about 12,822 square feet; 2 affordable housing units; 48 parking spaces, 31 in an underground garage and 17 surface spaces. The property was zoned R-6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay; this was a lodge incentive development. Growth Management Review included the lodge units, free-market units and affordable housing units. This was a planned unit development to set the dimensional standards for the project; rezoning for the PUD overlay; subdivision because of the 8 new residential units (6 free market and 2 affordable); and condominiumization. Allgaier stated the issues were height, massing of the structure and the historic east wing; the historic preservation commission would like to see a component of this 3 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 structure saved for posterity or a reflection of the historic lodge built by Charles Paterson. Allgaier said that the traditional type of lodge was a compliment to the project. Staff supported the application. There were revisions to the resolution that reflect the floor area, height and new cross-sections. Sunny Vann stated the project was designed to comply with the City's new Lodge Incentive Program; those provisions provide an opportunity to take a run-down lodge and renovate and expand it. That made economic sense to produce a new product in a location that was historically served lodging in this community. Vann said the only objections from neighbors came from some Christiania owners located on the back of the building, which several units were impacted by the existing lodge. The current Boomerang Lodge occupies half of a city block and runs from Fourth Streetto Fifth Street and has been the biggest structure in the neighborhood with the exception of the redevelopment of the Christiania and some new large homes. Vann stated there were substantial trees that would sustain the visual impact of the new taller building when viewed from the public right-of-way; the trees were large enough to screen it from the public use of Hopkins. Vann stated to reduce the impact of the lodge on the 6 adjacent Christiania units the alley parking was moved entirely below grade and the new building was set back from the alley. Vann stated the principal objectives were to maintain a small lodge; to expand it to recoup some of the lost small lodge units; to renovate and expand the Boomerang Lodge in such a way that it has a minimal impact on the neighborhood in general and the community at large. Augie Reno, architect, presented drawings showing the existing lodge and proposed lodge footprints; the existing building was broken up into three identifiable masses and tried to follow through with the redevelopment design. Reno stated the center mass of the proposed building was moved 20 feet from the property line. Reno stated the 4th floor plan contained 2 lodge rooms at 42 feet high, which have been removed so the 42 foot roof was 60 feet from the Christiania building being constructed. Reno stated that there were 4 roof heights and it was important to understand that the building was not all one level; adding up all the roofs that were 39 feet or less in height amounted to 89% of the entire roof. Reno utilized cross-sections to illustrate that the pedestrian view plane and shadow studies to show Shadow Mountain's affects on the area. John Rowland asked how the project was left with HPC on the use of materials. Vann replied that they did not have an obligation to be reviewed under HPC but 4 --".-.-..,..~_._,."_..~..,,."_.__.,,-- Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 Steve Stunda wanted to preserve the east wing and volunteered to place the east wing under HPC review. Vann said HPC would prefer to see different materials on the new addition to the east wing. Steve Skadron asked what the condominiumization had to do with the short term rentals. Joyce Allgaier responded the condominiumization had to do with the free- market units and affordable housing units. Vann explained that it was virtually impossible to build a lodge today and finance it in a seasonal economy, so the lodging community has gone to fractional units with multiple ownerships and making sure it stays available to the public or condominiumize it with the city imposed 30 consecutive day maximum with 90 days total per year consecutive occupancy otherwise it may remain vacant there not functioning as a lodge. Skadron asked how he was reassured that the condominiums would be used as hotbeds. Vann replied that condominiumization was not prohibited so the limitation was imposed on occupancy by an owner and enforced on a complaint basis. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the free-market units would be rentable. Vann answered that the units were sold as whole units that were smaller than most units at 1800 to about 2400 for the largest; they would be happy to rent out the units through the front desk. Wilson asked the size difference in the remodeled lodge rooms and the new lodge rooms. Reno replied that the main floor currently had 5 rooms and would be remodeled to 3 and the second level would basically remain the same. Dylan Johns asked if the pedestrian corridor was a permanent trail or a road. Allgaier replied that it was a good corridor connecting the two ends of town. Jasmine Tygre asked ifthere was a duplex on the other side of Hopkins approved. Allgaier answered there were 3 free-market units and an affordable housing duplex. Tygre asked ifthere was a contingency plan for the trees in case someone went after them. Vann replied that it would take a while for 70 foot trees to be replaced; he said the fine associated with those trees would be enormous. Stunda stated that they had a tree consultant retained to meet with the parks department on the trees. Vann said they relocated the garage to accommodate the trees; they were saving 39 out of the 42 trees on the property. Public Comments: A letter from Aspen Stay Snowmass indicating strong support of the proposed lodge expansion on behalf of the board of directors to see one of the GEMS of Aspen expand its bed base, signed by Bill Tomsich. 5 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 Affiliated Financial Group, Dick Carter, questioned if Jody Edwards represents all of the owners of the Christiania and felt that Jody only represents one or two owners. Craig Ward, real estate broker, stated that he represented Charlie Paterson in the sale of the lodge; he watched Charlie build the lodge. Ward said that he was excited that the east wing was being preserved. Ward hoped the commissioners endorsed this proposal. Steve Skadron asked the traffic flow pattern ofthe pedestrian way. Sunny Vann responded the pedestrian way was signed and only operates during the summer. Vann said that in the winter most people arrive by plane and the summer was the only time expected to have the garage reasonably full. Skadron said that there was much community benefit to be derived from this project and complied with the city lodge code, acceptable to the neighbors, the sub grade parking, maintains the small lodge component of the city inventory and rooms were retained for the short term rental pool. Skadron said that he could support this project and was comfortable with the 4th floor because the vegetation obscures the building. John Rowland stated that there were a lot of good things about the project and appreciated the studies provided. Brain Speck thanked the applicant for their due diligence coming back with great drawings and he supported the project for the same reasons that Steve did. Mary Liz Wilson agreed and thanked the applicant for the changes and new drawings; she thought that it would be great to have a 50 room lodge in a great location. Dylan Johns found himself torn between running into problems with the 4th story and the proximity to the pedestrian way with 4 stories on that side would raise some eyebrows even though it accomplished a lot of community goals but raises the question about context. Johns said if there were only 3 stories it would be easy to support but the 4th story in this location was difficult for him; he felt that city council would have a hard time with the 4th story. Johns said that keeping the quaint and unique (in some respects) east side of the building was somewhat limiting to what could be done on this piece of property and did not feel that it should be a historic resource to drive one-third of the site creating the contextual issue for the rest of the project. Vann responded that without the developable program (room count, etc.) it was not a project but losing the 4th floor would lose a 6 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 substantial component of the economic engine and lodge rooms, which fall outside of the project. Vann said that this was a balancing act of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this project provides substantial community benefit. Johns stated concern for the way the building was perceived from the alley instead of a typical perspective, which would be from the street bringing the building into more of the pedestrian view. Jasmine Tygre agreed with most of the members of the commission and very strongly with Dylan. Tygre said that part was a philosophical context situation; one of the problems was redevelopment oflodges in residential districts in general. Tygre said there was a neighborhood context to do with height, building size and so forth. Tygre said that one of the biggest objections to infill had to do with height because height has to do with street presence, like Dylan pointed out. Tygre said that she would be much happier if the 42 foot heights were toward the alley rather than toward the street fac;ade because the impact to the general public would be really important. Tygre said that she became obsessed with the trees for enough screening and if the location of the 42 foot heights were located in a different portion of the building. Tygre stated that as this project is presently proposed she could not support this project. Tygre stated that this project broke up the massing well and was an attractive building; the trees were extremely helpful. Tygre said the intent of the project was exactly what they intended to have with this kind of ordinance and the overall concern was the height and location of the height. Reno stated there were only two portions on the south side that went to 42 feet. MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #18, Series of2006, approving with conditions, the growth management reviews of lodging and affordable housing and recommending that city council approve with conditions the Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/PUD to include the corrected technical language. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Wilson, yes; Johns, no; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion of the motion: Dylan Johns requested the record reflect that if the 4th floor was not visible from West Hopkins then he did not have a problem with the 4th floor. Johns stated that he was not so concerned about the alley presence. Tygre stated the visible height on Hopkins was her deciding factor. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. , Deputy City Clerk 7