Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20180619 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting June 19, 2018 Chairperson Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 Commissioners in attendance: Scott Marcoux, James Marcus, Skippy Mesirow, Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern Absent: Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Kelly McNicholas Kury Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner Amy Simon, Senior Planner Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager As Ms. McNicholas Kury and Ms. Carver were expected but not present at the start of the meeting, Mr. Mesirow commented that, if those commissioners enter the meeting late, he will state that for the record. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight moved to approve the minutes from May 15, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow asked if anyone has a conflict of interest. None were declared. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OTHER BUSINESS Work Session - Lift One Corridor Project Mr. Anderson stated that the purpose of the evening’s meeting was to give P&Z an introduction to this process. He gave background on the project, stating that the City engaged with SE Group to examine the possibility of bringing a lift closer to Dean Street. In that process, several options were explored and City Council ultimately landed on this option, labeled Option Seven, that brought the lift within 150 feet of Dean Street. As a consequence of that, the project required some changes to the Lift One Lodge project, which has established vested rights from an approval that was originally granted in 2011. And because of the changes in the ski corridor and the design as related to the relocation of the lift, there are some changes that would be necessary to Lift One Lodge project, Willoughby Park, and the Gorsuch Haus Project. Ms. McNicholas Kury entered the meeting at 4:33. Mr. Anderson stated that P&Z reviewed the Gorsuch Haus Project, which then moved on to City Council and that project is now tabled. Lift One Lodge, as its currently approved, would require changes to the Gorsuch Haus project. That would be handled through a major amendment to a planned development. Community Development has not received an application for that yet. P&Z would give a formal review to that project in August and then provide a recommendation to City Council, which would review P&Z’s recommendation in September or October. Staff doesn’t have a lot of comment this evening other than providing some opportunity to the Lift One Lodge representatives and other stakeholders who are here this evening from the Gorsuch Haus, Aspen Ski Co, and the Aspen Historical Society. The latter is related to the project with a proposed museum that is scheduled to be located in Willoughby Park under the current approvals. Community Development wanted to give the commission a chance to see the initial proposal for some proposed site plan changes to Lift One Lodge Project and Willoughby Park, have a chance to ask questions, and make some comments that can give some direction as a formal application’s being proposed. This project will potentially move forward to a public vote, tentatively scheduled for the first week of February. Mr. Anderson introduced Amy Simon, the Historic Preservation Officer. He stated that there would be time for the commissioners to make formal comments, then representatives from Lift One Lodge and the Gorsuch Haus would talk a little bit about the status of their project. Ms. Carver entered the meeting at 4:36. Mr. Mesirow stated for the record that both Ruth Carver and Kelly McNicholas Kury are now with us. Ms. Simon introduced herself as the Historic Preservation Officer. She gave some information about the current status of the project and stated that she can answer questions about the historic aspects of the properties in question. She noted that there were some related approvals granted ten years ago and many aspects of those are not changing. Willoughby Park and Lift One Park are designated historical landmarks, which means that HPC has decision-making authority over any alterations to those. The P&Z packet includes a white paper with the history of the lift. This project, with the installation of a new lift coming all the way down towards Dean St, is going to have a major impact on the historic lift and that was not considered ten years ago. This is a big new change and will be the focus of HPC’s discussion and recommendations to Council. Also, there are two historic buildings that are going to be potentially located on Willoughby Park: Skier Chalet Steakhouse and Skier Chalet Lodge. Both those structures are proposed to be relocated, which was contemplated ten years ago. The lodge is to come downhill and be a site for a ski museum. She believes the current concept for the is to become affordable housing. It is shifting somewhat down Aspen Street. Ms. Carver announced that her daughter is the Director of Development with Aspen Historical Society and she is unsure if that is a conflict of interest. Ms. Phalen asked if Ms. Carver would get financial gain from this project. Ms. Bryan asked if Ms. Carver could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. Ms. Carver responded that she is not getting financial gain and that she could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. Mr. Anderson introduced Kevin Dunnett from the Parks Department. Mr. Dunnett introduced himself. He stated that the Parks Department is working in step with the development stakeholders and today’s Lift One Lodge project. This project effects the Dolinsek property, which has a conservation easement on it, which will be kept as a botanical garden park amenity for the community. The Dolensek family is also amenable to sharing some of that property for the lift operations. The Parks department is working in step with Joesphine and their family with developing a park. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if both staff comments are relevant for all the options. For Willoughby Park and also the Dolensek Gardens. Mr. Anderson replied that, as the project moves forward, staff are going to be parsing out the things that are under the jurisdictions of different boards and commissions and the recommendations that they are all making. Until we have a hard application to respond to, any comments would be helpful, but in terms of the formal recommendation to City Council, that will be outlined a little more once the City gets a formal application. Mr. Mesirow asked if the purpose of today’s work session is for the Commissioners to share opinions with the stakeholders so that they have the best chance of success when they come back. Ms. Phalen confirmed that yes, the purpose is to provide initial feedback. Mr. Mesirow asked how P&Z should be thinking about the relation of each of these elements to each other versus individually. Ms. Phalen replied that, at this point, the Commissioners should be thinking about the corridor as a whole. Mr. Mesirow asked if a public vote at end of this process is a certainty. Ms. Phalen replied that it is. Mr. Mesirow asked how P&Z’s recommendations will translate to ballot questions. Ms. Phalen replied that City Council will be the Board that approves the project and whatever they approve will be what’s on the ballot. Mr. Mesirow asked if the City is planning for just one question on the ballot related to this project. Ms. Phalen responded that she does not want to get into details about how the vote will be set up. It could go different ways; the attorneys are hashing that out right now. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. Phalen and asked if the Commissioners had any other questions. There were no further questions. Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to the Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects. Mr. Glass introduced himself and gave his co-presenters the opportunity to introduce themselves. They were Michael Brown with Lift One Lodge and Stan Clauson. Mr. Glass showed a photograph of Lift One Lodge from the 1960’s. He explained that, when thinking about moving the lift, they want to preserve the vibrancy and public access to Lift One Lodge that is shown in that photograph. He stated that this has been a collaborative effort with the stakeholders present, the Parks department, the Historical Society, and Planning and Zoning in order to come up with something that would create a big impact. Mr. Brown provided some additional history on the project. He stated that, after receiving feedback in work sessions with P&Z, the Historic Preservation Commission, and Open Space and Trails, the next step in the collaborative process will be to meet with neighbors in early July and receive feedback. He reiterated that their main concern is creating vitality around Lift One. Mr. Glass stated that they are just as concerned with the summer experience as with the winter experience as well as integrating the buildings into the alpine topography. He stated that they are trying to walk the fine line between the new and historic architecture and concerned about creating an environment that suits the needs of different people and constituencies. He showed slides of different building materials that will potentially be used, which will remain consistent with what was previously approved. He showed slides of the plans for the project. He showed that the corridor and the setbacks from the lift caused them to modify their building plans to accommodate that. Mr. Brown clarified that the ski corridor that Aspen Ski Co wants is 60 feet between buildings, to allow for adequate ski return. He also stated that Aspen Ski Co. is working towards Telemix technology, which accommodates both chairs and gondolas. Mr. Glass showed slides of the basic site plan. He showed that the Gorsuch Haus had to modify the shape and organization of their building to accommodate the lift. They’ve also created a large open ski corridor between the buildings. The buildings were elongated to absorb the extra width. The steakhouse maintains its prime visual location. The chalet has been moved closer to the street, which creates the opportunity for a little bit of commercial space to support the museum and functions in this area. In this configuration, the historic lift is slid down the hill about 40 feet or so, with one of the old towers connected to it and the others relocated. Mr. Glass stated that this will create opportunities for vitality, access, and open space. This creates a main entrance to the mountain off of Dean St. and another entrance off the cul de sac between the two properties. There’s a secondary drop off zone that comes off of Juan Street, for direct accessibility off of South Aspen to the lift. Also a minor drop off off of Gilbert Street. The Dolensek Park could have an access point there. He stated that their hope is to create many ways to access this portal to the mountain. Mr. Brown stated that the public access aspect is very important to people. Also that the buildings coming down anchors the preservation at the base of this project. Mr. Glass stated that they’ve realized through the course of this project so far that these two buildings frame the lift, frame access to the mountain, and create a big open space that can be occupied in all seasons. All the ingresses offer reduced pressure on different traffic points. After looking at the traffic, they have proposed a one-way street for this section of Dean Street, with secondary and tertiary drop offs available. Their plan adds back a service ingress to the east of the museum building. That will also access the public parking areas and public lockers in a clean way that will keep the traffic to a minimum. Mr. Brown stated that, currently, a lot of guests from nearby lodges are likely loading onto the mountain from the Gondola, pushing a lot of traffic there. Moving the lift down keeps those skiers out of cars because they can walk directly onto the lift. Mr. Glass showed a slide with an enlarged version of the plan. The garbage will still be contained within the structure. Pushing the museum structure down the hill aligns the façade of it with its neighboring building and helps create a little more space behind it both for skier function and public gathering. Skier services for the lift are planned to be on the upper level, so there’s an elevator. The ski patrol function that used to be in the Gorsuch Haus property is now located down on street level. There’s also an opportunity for a small commercial venue for refreshments or event rental. Along Dean street, there’s a big apron sidewalk for loading and unloading. The lift is brought down the hill a little bit. It’s at its same elevation and orientation, just located a little farther North. They’ve proposed terracing the edge so that the mountain comes down in a gentle way down to Dean Street. The steakhouse is located so that, when you come up South Aspen Street, the lodge and other buildings will be a little bit secondary in terms of the view. The area by the drop off off of South Aspen Street is thought of as a plaza so that people can sit in the sun and use the steakhouse. In the original proposal, it was affordable housing, but they believe it should be a public, vibrant space with potential for people to be gathering during the day and at night all year round. The secondary drop off by the lodge is meant to support the building piece of the design and creates a convenient drop off for public use. Mr. Glass showed an overlay with the old project and the new project to give a sense of where the changes are. It shows how much the shape of the buildings have changed. They’ve been contracted and one has gotten longer and skinnier. Mr. Glass stated that that concludes their presentation, and they would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Marcus asked for clarification on which example, from the packet, was being presented. Is this example seven? Mr. Glass responded that it is. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that it looks a little different in their packet than it did in their presentation. Ms. Phalen stated that the examples in the packet are the original approvals in the SE Group rendering. Mr. Glass explained that the SE Group proposed around the old buildings and expected the new design to react to that. Mr. Marcus asked Mr. Glass to give more details about what he’d mentioned about parking. Mr. Glass stated that, in the previous approval, there was parking for all different functions of the project. There were also 50 public spaces that came from the shrinking of South Aspen Street. This parking still exists in the current project, with improvement to the relationship between when you park and how you get out onto the mountain. In general there has been an improvement in the way things flow. Mr. Mesirow asked how the proposed one-way corridor at the base compares in size, scale, and capacity to the current Little Nell cutout right by the Gondola. Mr. Glass answered that he wasn’t sure. Mr. Clauson stated that the width of the right of way would allow for a one way that’s considerably more generous. There was also interest in making that a pedestrian corridor, which is an option they explored. However, a one-way street can be narrowed to allow pedestrian access on both sides of the street and allow for vehicle drop off there. If it were to be a pedestrian corridor, it just puts a little too much strain on Durant, particularly, and other parts of the street system. Mr. McKnight asked where they see the pedestrian access coming from Monarch and Aspen. How are people from town or the bus stop getting to the lift? Mr. Glass asked Mr. McKnight to clarify if he meant from ground level up to ski level. Mr. McKnight replied that he’s wondering about that and beyond that. How are they coming through if they’re coming from Dean Street? Mr. Glass showed on the map on the slide that pedestrians could come up Monarch, enter through the recessed plaza, and take an elevator up to the lift. There are also stairs built into the amphitheater terracing that can get pedestrians up in at least one location, possibly more. Mr. Brown asked how many steps that is. Mr. Glass responded that it’s nine feet of elevation change and 18 steps. Mr. Brown pointed out that this is less than at Gondola Plaza. Mr. Marcus asked where the closest drop off to public transportation is from there. Mr. Brown answered that it would be Rubey Park. Mr. Marcus asked if there’s a stop on Durant. Mr. Clausson responded that there isn’t a stop on Durant, though could be a routing of some busses into the Dean Street loop. Mr. Glass stated that they had talked about sizing the loop so that it could accommodate a bus, either a circulator route or the ski busses could go through there on their way to Rubey Park, which is a detail they haven’t worked out yet. Mr. Brown stated that it’s a couple hundred feet more distance from Rubey Park to this lift versus the Gondola. Ms. McGovern asked if the historic lift tower is getting moved, which isn’t reflected in the packet but is reflected in the presentation. Mr. Clauson replied that that’s a proposal. He explained that there was an option that moved the new lift all the way down to Dean Street, which involved relocating or removing the historic lift gantry. Council decided that’s not where they wanted to go. Getting close to Dean Street was desirable, but they wanted to retain the existing lift gantry. SE Group’s proposal was to retain the lift gantry behind Lift One, in its actual historic location. Ms. McGovern asked if that’s not feasible. Mr. Clauson replied that that plan has some drawbacks, and it’s more beneficial to maintain the same alignment, but to move it down toward Dean Street, which allows the interposition of one lift tower. The gantry by itself doesn’t convey the same meaning as it does in the context of other equipment, which can show how it worked in a fuller sense. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be possible to have the historic lift towers underneath the new lift, so they would be removed. By moving the lift gantry down by Dean Street. Mr. Messirow stated that he prefers the option of moving the lift further down is appealing to him. He asked where it moves in that instance and how the applicants feel about it generally as opposed to the option being presented. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants feel that this option works and that City Council clearly expressed a preference for this. There was some interest in getting the lift even closer to Dean street, but that was balanced against the historic lift alignment. On balance this gets it close enough to have it readily accessible and usable for people without disrupting the historic gantry. Ms. Phalen stated that this option has reasonable access for skiers to get to this proposed location. The loading area for this lift would be essentially where the original loading area of Lift One. Mr. Mesirow asked where the historic lift be moved to in Option B. Mr. Clauson stated that it wasn’t clarified. Mr. Messirow asked if it would be possible if it was along the side of the new lift. Mr. Clauson stated that it would be possible, but it wouldn’t replicate the original alignment. Ms. Phalen stated that, if you brought the lift further down to the North, you start cramping the queueing and the radiuses and turns that Ski Co will need for snow plowing, grooming, etc. Mr. Glass stated that there is width space at the Northern end of the new lift that Ski Co needs for access if they ever need to remove the bull wheel. The plan takes into account Ski Co’s needs as well. Mr. Clauson showed on the slide some lines that indicate the queueing area. If that were to be pushed down, it would get very tight. Ms. The lift right now is the bull wheel and three towers. It’s not possible to shift it to the left since skiers are coming through there. It would have to be a scenario similar to this one, total demolition, or offsite relocation, which would be difficult since it’s an alpine chairlift and doesn’t belong on a flat site somewhere else in town. Ms. Carver asked if the applicants had a plan for where to put the additional two lift towers. Ms. Phalen answered that that’s up for discussion. It would be that they are not kept, which would give a more realistic representation of the alignment of the historic Lift One and the towers. Ms. Carver stated that the drop off to the East of the Lodge would be probably heavily used. She asked if there is parking there also. Mr. Glass stated that that location was intended as a convenient drop off. Ms. Carver clarified the location she was talking about. Mr. Glass stated that the location in question is connected underground. Ms. Carver asked about the small building pictured in the slide. Mr. Glass replied that the slide is a ground-level view, so the object that Ms. Carver was referencing has a building on top of it. Ms. Carver commented that the new location of the museum building might be too close to the street based on her familiarity with that area of Aspen. She would like to see that building moved back to allow more space for pedestrians. She asked if the little red building that the ski patron uses now is the shed the applicants were talking about. Mr. Brown responded that it is not. The shed they are referencing is the pool shed behind the chalet lodge. It sits right now on Gilbert Street, behind the lodge. It was probably mechanicals for the pool house, but its future use is not defined at the moment. It is part of the historical asset, so it will be moved. Ms. Carver asked about the red building that ski patrol uses. Is that going to be moved? Mr. Glass replied that they are not moving that building. Ms. Carver asked what will happen to that building. Mr. Glass replied that it is going away. Ms. Carver asked if it is historic. Mr. Glass replied that it is not. Ms. Phalen added that Community Development staff are looking at the feasibility of co-locating ski patrol with ticketing and operations in the skier chalet building. Ski Co would have back of house and front of house operations with the museum space. Mr. Brown added that the envisioned uses for that building are: the historical society museum taking the bulk of the space, ticketing, and potentially some snacks in the shed area. Ms. Carver stated that she is envisioning traffic being stopped on Dean Street while people load and unload. She also commented that she would love to see heated sidewalks. Mr. Brown noted her comments regarding heated sidewalks. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this is the opportunity to give opinions about the project or only to ask questions. Ms. Carver apologized. Mr. Marcoux asked about hours of operation for the amenities. He commented that, if the steakhouse is open late, that could potentially attract other amenities. It could also affect parking in that area. This could potentially be a second hub in town where people gather. Mr. Brown stated that there are 50 parking spots under the building and the building itself is not very big. Mr. Marcoux reiterated his concern about patrons taking up neighborhood and ice garden parking spots. Mr. Clauson stated that there is already parking control in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The 50 parking spots are intended to replace the parking spots that were moved when South Aspen Street was narrowed and the belief is that this will engender a lot of people into walking to the lifts and walking to the various functions, and even to the restaurant if it’s open in the evening. So the applicants don’t believe that this will have a big impact. The City may be in a better position to answer that. Mr. Anderson stated that he believe that’s a fair assessment. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are any questions from the applicants. The applicants responded that they have no questions. Mr. Mesirow asked if they are doing public comment. Ms. Phalen responded that they are not required to, since it’s a work session, but that the commissioners can if they wish. She also asked the applicants if they had images related to the planning around World Cup. Mr. Glass responded that they do not have those images yet, but it does not directly affect the buildings covered in the presentation. Mr. Mesirow stated that he would welcome public comment. Mr. Galen Bright introduced himself as the president of the Southpoint Condominiums, just north of Dean Street. He sat on the coop in 2007 so is very familiar with the initial application. He likes the design and called it very well thought out. He agrees with having a steakhouse there instead of affordable housing. He thanked the applicants for retaining the 5o parking spaces. His biggest concern for home owners concern will be the additional traffic. He would like to know if there is an estimate on the amount of additional traffic this plan will bring. Also, the HOA has an issue with moving the non- historic skier chalet building closer to Dean Street. Mr. Mesirow thanked Mr. Bright for keeping his comments short. He asked for any other comments from the public. There were none. He then turned to the commissioners for discussion. He stated that he would love if the commissioners could give the applicants some good concrete feedback to leave them with a strong roadmap for moving forward. Mr. McKnight stated that this presented was head and shoulders above what was last brought to P&Z on this project. He praised the look of the project and the positive impact it will have on Aspen. He stated that he does understand the concerns about traffic and about where some of the buildings are moving. He does not think it’s possible to not affect those things on this project. He does agree with the applicants that this lift will draw pedestrians from the nearby hotels. He agrees that it does not make sense to add a bus stop due to the proximity to Rubey Park. He praised the parking spaces, cut outs, and on-way street ideas. He apologized that he needed to leave for a previous engagement and excused himself. Mr. McKnight left the meeting at 5:30 PM. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they generally feel the same way about the project as Mr. McKnight. He asked if there are any areas where there could be improvement. Mr. Marcoux stated that, in all the messaging to the public about the lift, he has not heard much emphasis on the historic value of the lift. He suggested that the city better inform the public about the importance of the lift. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Carver for her thoughts on areas for improvement. Ms. Carver stated that this plan is as good as it’s going to get. She emphasized hat it is extremely important that the applicants get this right because it is going to last a long time. She feels, in general, that it looks pretty good. She is concerned about the traffic and the ice. Ms. McGovern stated that she likes the proposal. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants are envisioning this as a summer asset as well. It may have a water feature. Parks is envisioning weddings in Dolensek Gardens. Ms. McGovern stated that it seemed like a good vision, as long as HPC approves moving the lift. Ms. Carver asked to see the Gorsuch Haus portion of the picture being shown on the slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she has seen the project come a long way in her time on P&Z. She said that this is a real achievement for the applicants and for the town. This will be a real rebirth for that side of town and will be a positive development for the community. She commented that she thinks it would be fantastic to be able to look from the bottom of the old lift and have a view straight up the mountain through the historic ski corridor. She liked the creation of the larger public space in the middle. She commented that we would want to maintain a consistent sidewalk in front of the museum building. She liked the idea of gradual terracing as an entrance. Mr. Marcus stated that he thinks the applicants have done a very good job in being thoughtful about the flow. He liked the comment about how the entrance is framed by the historical aspects. He cautioned the applicants to be thoughtful of the residences in the area and balancing access and flow. He commented that it would be nice to have some bus routing through that area, but that needs to be balanced with that as a residential area. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that, originally, vehicle shuttles would provide transportation to the site, but she would prefer incentivizing pedestrian activity. Also she liked Ms. Carver’s suggestion that, if the two other towers are moved, they be placed somewhere else along the mountain. Mr. Mesirow asked if the top terminus of the lift is set in the proposal. Mr. Brown replied that it is not and that is at Ski Co’s digression. Mr. Mesirow stated that he likes the proposal. He feels that the applicants should be aiming for the same realignment of the town that the Gondola provided in the early ‘90’s. He mentioned to areas where he sees room for improvement. He would like to see the lift terminate even further down. He feels that this will help eliminate a lot of car traffic. Though he does understand that the issue is the historic lift basin and feels like that is for HPC to determine. He also thinks that this is an opportunity to reclaim some of the local vibrancy. This could live up near the lift or as a pedestrian friendly version of Dean Street. He encourages the applicants to think about that as a place where people want to linger. Ms. Carver stated that something like Venga Venga at Snowmass would be perfect for a restaurant here. She’d like to see something that’s not super formal. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants if there is anything that they didn’t hear from the commissioners. Mr. Brown replied that he appreciated Mr. Mesirow asking, but no, he feels that the commissioners covered the project. He was appreciative for the feedback before submitting a formal application so that they take the comments and address them. Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicants for coming. Ms. Carver asked about the width of the cul-de-sac by the Gorsuch Haus where the ski return is located. Mr. Glass stated that that space is more than 75 feet. Mr. Clauson stated that Ski Co stated that it needed to be a certain width in order to be safe and accommodate their snow equipment. Mr. Brown stated that Ski Co is keen to maintain that it’s the premiere ski resort, and we’re happy to help with that. Mr. Mesirow asked if there’s anything else the commission needs to address. Mr. Anderson responded no. Mr. Mesirow thanked everyone for coming and closed the work session at 5:45 pm. Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager