Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20081118AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, November 18, 2008 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff -Jessica Garrow on the AACP C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ZG Master Plan B. 311 S. Monarch (Dancing Bear Lodge), PUD Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIIL ADJOURN ~~ . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development ~.: J'~~~ DATE OF MEMO: November 13, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 RE; Zupancis-Galena (ZG) Master Plan BACKGROUND: There is no additional information regarding the ZG Master Plan as of the date of this memo. Staff intends to be prepared further for the Planning and Zoning Commission by the date of the continued public hearing, November 18. aspenartmuseum P/970.925.8050 F/970.925.8054 590 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 aspenartmuseum.org November 18, 2008 Dear City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissioners, This letter serves as notice from the Aspen Art Museum as to our intentions to withdraw from the Zupancis-Galena (ZG) Partnership. The Aspen Art Museum is pleased to have been a part of the ZG Master Planning process for the last eighteen months. We want to acknowledge the contributions to this project from the public who participated in multiple meetings and generously shared their hopes and ideas. Under guidance from the Civic Master Plan, and through public input and recommendation, it was determined that the best placement for the museum would be the former Youth Center site. All five parties of the ZG Master Planning group agreed with this placement and also that the museum would proceed first in the phasing process. Our role in first position was informed by our financial viability to successfully fund this investment in our community among other values. During this economic downturn, the Aspen Art Museum remains able to move forward with its goal to reinforce Aspen's identity as a center for arts and culture with a new, architecturally innovative building in the downtown core. The Civic Master Plan of 2006 recommended that the Aspen Art Museum should move forward with a new, signature building closer to downtown, and the City of Aspen should collaborate with the museum to achieve this goal. By withdrawing from the ZG Master Plan it is our intention to continue to move forward with an application for the former Youth Center site that can be evaluated on its own merits. We hope to arrange for a transfer of the land that will bring revenues to the City of Aspen while at the same time construct a new public venue for the community that will be free to the public and available to other local non-profits for receptions and events. We further recognize the need for a public vote before any land transaction would take place. As the Aspen Art Museum pursues the acquisition of the former Youth Center site we are eager for a continued dialogue with the city and its constituents regarding our developing project. We wish to thank our former partners in the ZG Master Plan -the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Pitkin County Library, and ACRA -for their good guidance, collaboration, and support thus far and to express hope that the sound work and ideas laid forth in the ZG Master Plan will continue to serve our great city. Sine ly H ~ uc rm n Ja obson, Director and Chief Curator ~. MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea Hingley, Planning Technician ~~ THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director ~ ~~ DATE OF MEMO: November 3, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 18, 2008 RE; 411 S. Monarch Street -Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Commercial Design Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Dancing Bear Land, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Eben P. Clark, Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 401 S. Monarch Street; Legal Description -Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 182-19-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Lodge zone district with a PUD overlay containing a timeshare lodge development currently under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved PUD to accommodate the screening and enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to accommodate the equipment area on the 3r floor rooftop. During the original approval process, both City Council and P & Z had concerns regarding the height, scale and massing of the upper floors of the building. SUMMARY: A site specific PUD was approved for the development of the lodge in 2003. The project is currently under construction. During a routine field inspection, the City's Building Department staff noticed an additional unapproved enclosure. The City "Red Tagged" the project and allowed construction on other elements of the project to proceed with the condition that the applicant apply for this PUD Amendment. Page 1 of 12 ,... ±~ f ~~, z. * . ~,.w1 .~3' Photo of the subject property -taken from Durant Avenue showing the enclosure (in yellow). ~; ~.- Page 2 of 12 Photo of property -taken from S. Aspen/Alley Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3`d floor rooftop, adjacent to the gazebo of the previously approved project, the Dancing Bear Lodge, that is now currently under construction at 411 S. Monarch Street (See Application -Exhibit B). The majority of the project has been completed, including an enclosure on the 3`d floor roof, which was `Red Tagged' as the structure differed from the approved plans. This structure that exists currently is different than what was submitted as part of this application. The proposed structure includes roofs of varying heights (5 ft & 9ft). The mechanical area has been on all approved plans in the same general area where this enclosure is proposed. The concern is that what is proposed is more visible, as the structure is located closer to the parapet. Two different approvals are required. The applicants' representative, Eben Clark, had met with staff to see if the request could be approved administratively. Staff determined that the request could not be made administratively, as more than one approval is necessary. The required approvals include a PUD Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment. Page 3 of 12 The Dancing Bear Lodge received final PUD approval by Council on August 11, 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 of Series 2003. Prior to the original approval, numerous discussions were held as there was concern among City Council members as well as Planning and Zoning members regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to accommodate the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment area on the 3rd floor rooftop on the Dancing Bear Lodge: , • PUD Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B. Other Amendment An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved,, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Since height and massing were discussed in great detail during the original approvals, staff feels the proposed enclosure is not consistent with the projects original approval and cannot be reviewed administratively. • Commercial Design Review for a change to the original design that received final approval, as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.080.B. Substantial Amendments. The application, as presented, requires both a PUD Amendment, as well as commercial design review which qualifies the review as a substantial review. DISCUSSION: During the approval processes there was much concern regarding the height, scale and massing of the building. Plans were revised to accommodate P & Z's and City Council's recommendation to reduce the visual mass and height of the building. This was accomplished through having a tiered effect of the upper floors of the building, the uppermost floor being the gazebo. The gazebo was centered in the middle of the building so that it appeared that the building did not have a 4th floor. It was noted in the meeting minutes from City Council dated, June 23, 2003, that the view plane from the Wheeler Opera House would not be compromised by this project, as lodges farther up Aspen Mountain are higher. The proposed mechanical equipment on the roof has been shown on previous plans and is not a new element for the building. The equipment enclosure in the proposed location will be visible from certain points around the building. Staff feels that the enclosure could be less of an eyesore for the neighbors than uncovered spa mechanical equipment, but because of the concerns of the boards that this application is being returned back to P & Z for the decision. • PUD Other Amendment The plat showing the approved PUD is different than the application received. The approved plat shows elevations that show only the gazebo to be above the parapet wall for all sides of the building. The submitted application shows a significant structure adjacent to the gazebo which Page 4 of 12 will be visible from several sides. The height of the proposed enclosure is approximately the same as the top of the gazebo, but still lower than the existing elevators shaft. The desired enclosure is considered an `Other Amendment' as it changes the dimensions which were previously approved for the 4~' floor. • C'nmmercial De~is~n Review It appears that the enclosure, in its intended location addresses the design concerns of placing the mechanical equipment to the rear of the building to help shield it from view. The concern of staff is that the part that is visible does change the intended look of the building. The tiered effect does not appear to work as well with the proposed enclosure and therefore it is a height and massing concern, not evident in the original approvals. The proposed structure is visible from the alley and S. Aspen St., only slightly visible from E. Durant Ave and not visible from S. Monarch St. The application must also comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The project is located in the Commercial Character Area. The Commercial Character Area has some design objectives and guidelines that the proposed amendments to the building must meet. The intent of the proposed enclosure is to meet the design guidelines as much as possible and still remain compliant with the building code. This is demonstrated by the proposed location of the enclosure being located towards the rear of the building and being set back from the facade, which helps to screen it from view. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is substantial in nature. Much discussion of size, height and mass at the approval hearings that it has warranted a P & Z review of the proposed structure on the 3rd floor roof plane. The same materials will be used to cover the proposed enclosure. The Commission should consider the possible visual and. noise mitigation benefits of the proposed enclosure. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning. Commission deny the Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment requests. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the PUD Amendment application. All motions should be made in the positive. If, after sufficient effort no motion can be adopted the chairman should request a motion to deny the application. "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2008, to approve the Spa Equipment Enclosure application for 411 S. Monarch St." ATTACIiMENT5: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Meeting Minutes from Aspen City Council (June 23, 2003 and July 28, 2003) Exhibit C -Application Page 5 of 12 EXHIBIT A PUD Other Amendment The same criteria are used to reviewing a PUD with the focus on the changed conditions and the requested amendment. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen area Community Plan. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as the intent of the change is to protect the neighboring properties from the visual and auditory impacts of necessary mechanical equipment. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The proposed development remains consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area, as the proposed change is not a change in use. The development will serve as a benefit to the community by acting as an auditory and visual buffer for the spa equipment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: Much of the surrounding area is currently under development, so the proposed change will not drastically alter the use or appearance as it will not need to be replaced in the near future. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Response: GMQS does not apply to this change, as the proposed development is for a mechanical enclosure only. - B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The proposed amendment will not change the height, scale or site coverage on the given property, though the massing will be altered on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved elevator shaft. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Page 6 of 12 .Response: Natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways, trees and land forms aze not impacted by the proposed spa enclosure on the roof. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding azea such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, pazking and historical resources. Response: The structure is proposed to help decrease the auditory and visual effects of spa mechanical equipment, therefore making it less of an impact on the neighborhood. View planes in concern are only impacted very slightly by the proposed 3ra floor alteration, as the existing gazebo is not higher than the proposed enclosure. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. Response: Massing is only the dimensional requirement impacted by the spa enclosure on the roof on the northwest corner of the building. The height of the proposed enclosure is no higher than the previously approved roof line of 46'. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which aze unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures aze appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. , 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: Page 7 of 12 The proposed enclosure on the 3`d floor roof will minimally impact natural features, such as the Wheeler Opera House view plane, as there already exists a gazebo on the roof to obstruct the view. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed t following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits awell-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. - Response: N/A E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the Ciry, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for~ancl indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: The general architectural appearance of the building is not changing; the proposal is to enclose spa equipment on the 3`d floor roof. The enclosure is closer to the parapet and therefore more visible. The equipment has always been located in the area of the proposed enclosure. The enclosure is meant to screen the equipment from view, as well as control the noise from the equipment. The enclosure will be covered with material consistent with the rest of the building and is compatible with the rest of the character of the neighborhood. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. Response: N/A G. COmmon park, open space or recreation area. Response: N/A G. Utilities and public facilities. Page 8 of 12 The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. Response: N/A Commercial Design Review Criteria An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that aze to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there maybe circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) Response: The proposed spa enclosure on the roof is a slight deviation from the original design. The enclosure is to visually block the spa equipment from view, as well as help control the noise from the equipment. The structure will match the materials if the rest of the building Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial azeas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Page 9 of 12 Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and e po en enan s an uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of--way aze encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of--way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standazds for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Response: The proposed enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the roof will not change any public . amenity space, as the location of the enclosure is roughly in the same place as the original proposed location, though slightly larger and set closer to the parapet. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities aze highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including pazking gazage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be Page 10 of 12 visible from a public right-of--way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1) Response: Utility, delivery and trash services will nat be impacted by the proposed amendment to the structure. The mechanical equipment has been located as much as possible towards the rear of the. building, and eq~pment has been grouped in the proposed location The structure, though visi om s e Applicable review criteria from the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Character Area Design Objectives and Guidelines: Floor Stature: 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. (Page 31) • Where a third floor's floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft. it should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street facade to reduce the apparent height • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of the tall top floor • The design of a setback third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary facade Response: The proposed change is an alteration to the 3rd floor roof top. The enclosure is closer to the parapet than the original proposed location of the equipment. The proposed alteration of the roof is on the western side of building and only covers a small portion of that side. The 2nd floor roof is set back from the street facade, as is the 3rd floor. The enclosure is at the edge of the 3rd floor and is visible from certain perspectives. Roofscape: 1.44 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof. (Page 34)' This should be achieved through the following: • A setback of the top floor from the facade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 1 Response: The top floor is set back from the front facade. The proposed alteration is closer to the parapet than the original design location of the equipment. The proposed alteration is to screen the equipment from view as well as provide a sound barrier for the noise. 1.45. The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the buildings. (Page 34) • Group and screen mechanical equipment from view • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building • Use materials which compliment the design of the building facades Page 11 of 12 Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street Use Green Roof design best practice where feasible Response: The roofscape has been designed as much as possible to meet this standard, and will result in a greater compliance with this guideline as the equipment will now be shielded from view. The equipment is located at the back of the building and is grouped into one area. The enclosure's oca ion is as uno sive as possi e; i is no visi e only visible from certain locations on Durant St. Page 12 of 12 Regular Meetine ~ Aspen City Council. June 23, 2003 Councilwoman Richard moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, ' e provision that the neighbors be consulted at the time of the soils s ey . wi a engineer and that the fire marshal look at fire and safety ess . during an " emolition and excavation time as well as the final evelopment lan and that uilding ermit will not be issued for this ess the Peterson asked what consu g with the nee means. Councilwoman Richar said the;~n background and history when the ~ ' is ~ stud the applicants are required to submit a o' s city staff. Vann said the condition sta s ghbo on the soils survey :i ors.would like to give is being looked at. Vann said evaluation to be reviewed by applicants will comply.with the recommendation of the soils analy ' .Julie Woods, community _ development department; said ~i a neighbors a not "consulted", where does that leave staff. Peterso said when the soils dy is submitted, they will give the Falenders a c y. Peterson said he is no omfortable with the language "consulted". Councilwoman Riards withdrew her motion. Councilman mrau moved to adopt .Ordinance #23, Series of 2003, second rea g with the condition that prior to the issuance of a buildin permit o~ demolition permit, the application for the Residences at the ~..ittl Nell ' 1 be withdrawn and that the Falenders will be provided with a copy of -soils study and invited to comment; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. . ORDINANCE #29. SERIES OF 2003 -Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a lodge preservation PUD to redevelop a site at 411 South Monarch street. Council is the final reviewing body of a111and use requests for this site. Lindt showed Council where the site is, just west of Wagner park. The site is 12,000 square feet and is zoned i;TR. There is currently cone-story lodge building with 23 bedrooms. This building has been vacant for the last 5 years. Lindt said the proposal is to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with an 11-unit time share lodge of 28 bedrooms. Each unit will have lock off capabilities. . 15 a Regular Meeting Amen City Council Jane 23, 2(103 Lind( reviewed each floor of the proposal. The first floor has a lobby and check in area,access from South Monarch street; alounge/bar with patio seating; one 1400 square foot, 2 bedroom lodge unit; 2 affordable housing units of 2 bedrooms. The second floor contains 4.lodge units, two 1400 square feet 2 bedroom units; two 2800 square feet 3 bedroom units. The third-floor.contains 3 2800 square foot 3 bedroom units. The fourth floor has 3 three bedroom units and .a recessed patio. The fifth floor has a glass gazebo, which would have a hot tub and exercise area. Lind( said the' applicant proposes 3 below grade levels. The first level has a garage access accessed from the alley, as well as a games. and recreation area, and a storage area. There are 24 parking spaces proposed on site; 5 spaces at grade on the applicant's property. The second floor below grade contains the majority of the garage. The third floor below grade contains more storage for the owner's personal goods, mechanical area and conference room.. Lindt said the timeshare will be 8 shares per unit, 58 totals estates. The FAR is 3.25:1 and a height of 57 feet to the midpoint of the gazebo. Lindt. told Council staff feels this is an appropriate use for the site. In the past this has been used as a lodge. This project will bring vitality to a very important corner in town. The applicant has proposed a good deal of their affordable housing mitigation on site. The applicant has proposed greater than .7/lodge bedroom of parking spaces, which is required.by code. Lindt noted one concern is the height, which is proposed at 57 feet as measured by the land use code. Other lodges in that area are the St. Regis, which is 50 to 60 feet, „ ~ , the Mountain Chalet is low 50's. Three P&Z members felt the height was too extreme for the 28 feet as allowed in the LTR zone. Lindt told Council the upper floors are recessed to create a wedding cake effect, which helps lessen the mass. The~building. has been stepped down to ~.. the,west towards the townhomes. Lindt said staff feels the massing is appropriate with the exception of the turret. Lindt told Council the applicant proposed to use two spaces on Monarch as loading zones. ~ Staff does not 'agree a lodge of 11 units needs a loading; zone and added a condition that two alley spaces be signed as check-in parking. The third issue is the financYal impact analysis to compare the proposed timeshare lodge with the tax revenues that would have been gained through lodge use. Lindt said the applicant's financial impact analysis shows there ~. 16 Reenlar Meeting Aspen City Council ~ June 23.2003 would not be a tax revenue loss through this fractional fee change. ~ The city's fanance director, Paul Menter, commented the projected nightly rental rates are too high and the analysis should be redone with a lower rate. Menter requested a condition that the city be able to do an audit -after the lodge is operating. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, reiterated this site has been sitting vacant for several years and has been years since it has contributed to Aspen's bed base. Haas said a boarded. up building is sending. an antithetical message to tourists regarding the economy and the vitality of lodges on the fringe of the commercial core. Ha.a told Council .most potential purchasers of this property wanted to build residential townhomes. ~ .This owner is interested in developing something that will contribute to the vitality and economic sustainability of the town. The applicant proposes two above grade employee housing units. This development should raise occupancy levels and should attract new visitors to Aspen. . Haas noted there are trash compactors and recycling facilities access off the alley.. There will be a decrease of 1 lodge unit from the Aspen Manor; . however; the bedrooms will increase from.23 to 28. There will be an increase of leasable commercial space on the property including a sidewalk patio cafe on the corner:. Haas told Council` the .applicants propose to house 4.5 employees and the remaining. fraction`'of employee will be mitigated by cash-in-lieu. The management and operation of the lodge will be done with an existing lodge or with a management company. Haas said a strong architectural statement is important on this corner, right across from a large park. The perceived mass of the stricture is broken up by different forms and modules; changes in exterior building materials, balconies, different window forms and shapes, and stepping the building back. Haas said~they have tried for a classic wedding cake style.building, the structure steps down in height to the west and the southwest comer of the lodge is only 25 feet above grade. The west side of the lodge is 3 stories as is the northwest and northeast corners of the building. The midsection of the building is 4 stories. The S~' story gazebo sits in the center of the building. The building height has been lowered and the mass reduced through P&Z review. Haas told Council the height at the corner of Monarch and Durant is less than 32 feet without the turret. ~, 17 Re~!lar Meeting Asuen City Council June 23, 2003 Haas said the height of the structure varies depending from where it is measured. 1'he fluctuations are a function of the topography of the site. The highest measured height on a public right-of way is at the northwest corner along the alley and it is 39'9"; the southeast corner 31'6" exclusive of the turret. The height is the gazebo is mitigated by using glass, by the stepping back of the surrounding levels and the fact it is setback 27 feet from Durant Avenue. ~ This should not shadow streets or surrounding properties. The Wheeler.Opera House view plane of Aspen mountain would not be compromised by this development. The overall height of Dancing Bear is lower than that of the St. Regis. The Mountain Chalet addition was approved at S2 feet to the midpoint of a pitched roof and allows S stories in that building. Haas said given the site's location and proximity to downtown and the transportation center, there should belittle need for cars. There are 24 on- site parking spaces. The applicant commits to encouraging employees and guests to use alternative transportation. A fleet of bicycles will be kept on site for guests and employees. There will be provision for airport shuttle by the applicant or by contract with another lodge who does airport shuttle. The applicant has committed to keeping a small fleet of hybrid vehicles for use by guests and employees. Haas said. they hope to obtain LEEDS certification, which is a national green building program, and to come as close to possible of the gold level. Haas summarized this is will replace an eyesore, will add hot beds, and will _ , .,,,_ _ revitalize the Durant/Monarch intersection. The applicants hope to set a precedent for green building; they plan of housing 4.5 FTEs on site. There will be over $1 million in direct tax generation in the first 5 years of operation. The project provides community facilities, is self sufficient for parking and storage and the project fixrthers the AACP goals with respect to small lodges, affordable housing, economic sustainability, growth and the environment. David Brown, architect, went over the materials and. the architecture of the proposed building. Brown told Council they went through the guidelines in the fractional timeshare ordinance and have tried to incorporate everything the ordinances envisions. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. 18 Re}*nlar Meetine ~ Aspen City Council ~ June 23.2003 Cliff Weiss said this building is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weiss .said he does not feel this size building will contribute to the community. Roger Hangman, P&Z member, said this project will bring more benefits to the community than the one Council just approved. Hangman said these Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, said he is concerned about the economic viability of the base of Aspen Mountain; however, he is very concerned about the economic sustainability of the Limelite Lodge. Paas said a massive building of this height and bulk vvi.ll negatively affect the ability of the Limelite to rent rooms. Paas. said, this building does not blend with the neighborhood. Paas requested Council only approve 28, foot high~building as allowed by the code. Stan Hajenga, manager Mountain Chalet,,presented aletter from the owners of the Snow Queen Lodge stating they are~against the proposed height, which goes against the~principles of planning in this. area. Hajenga applauded that someone is trying to develop this corner. Hajenga said the city needs to look at a system that allows a building to fall into disrepair for 5 years. Hajenga said the proposed height will affect many neighbors and many businesses. Hajenga said when the Mountain Chalet addition went through the process, they had to meet the view plane requirements. This. building does not meet the view planerequirements. Hajenga said he would like to see this corner redeveloped; however, this proposal is beyond the scale and height called for: Debbie Falender said she reviewed the PUD and other land use code. ordinances. The PUD ordinances say height, mass, parking, and density should respect the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning here is 1:1 and the FAR for this proposed project is 3.25:1.-The PUD ordinance also states that the property shall be clustered to preserve significant open space. Ms. Falender noted that does not mean a building should be built right up to the borders of the property. Ms. Falender said: this is too big for town. ~, Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards said she appreciates all the work that has. been done; however, she cannot approve this plan: Councilwoman Richards noted there is discussion in the infill about creating more view planes and 19 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 23, 2003 one of Shadow Mountain and this will block the view of Shadow Mountain: The building is taller than the surrounding pine trees. Councilwoman Richards agreed she would like to see redevelopment on this lot; however, this is overreaching. Councilwoman Richards said only 9% open space may work for a one story building but it does not work. fora 5 story building. Councilwoman Richards noted part of a PUD process is to look at a greater public benefit. This proposal does not. add any extra affordable housing out of 36,000 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said this site is on the north side of Durant and has transitioned to a different neighborhood from the base of the mountain. Councilwoman Richards noted this building will be higher than the Elk's Club building.: Councilwoman Richards said this is zoned LTR and one could construct 3 residential townhomes on this site, which would not contribute to the community either. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has problems with the height, especially as it would block the view of Shadow Mountain. Mayor Klanderud said the turret makes the building interesting. Mayor Klanderud stated she would consider ~ some height variance; however, this is much too high. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer to see all affordable housing built rather than get cash=in-lieu for housing. Mayor Kianderud said she is concerned there are only 2 parking spaces for affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud agreed it is great something is being planned for this site. It is a critical block in Aspen., Brown said some of the benefits to the community are that this project will provide hot beds and will bring guests to Aspen with'money to spend. Councilman Paulson agreed the structure is took tall. Councilman Paulson said he likes the gazebo. Councilman Paulson said he would like to see the building shrunk. Councilman Paulson asked about the trees on site. Brown said they have met with city.staff, who have identified 2 or 3 significant trees on Durant street that should remain. The applicants will cooperate with the parks to give them what they ask for. Haas told Council the Marge ' conifers are not appropriate for pedestrian traffic as they grow all the way to the ground. The parks department is recommending trees that are more easily walked under. Councilman Paulson asked what will keep a person from buying 6 or 12 months of one unit. City Manager Steve Barwick said that is covered in the city's timeshare ordinance, which he will have to Council at their next 20 Regular Meetina Asuen Citv'Council June 23, 2003 . ,. r ; Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting . • ~ to 1 l p.m:; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #55, SERIES OF 2043 - Obermeyer Temporary Use use request is for a real estate office to be located on the . r property. Bendon said staff does not see any issues wi this Councilwoman seconded by Cc sc ds moved to approve Resolu ncilm Paulson. All. in favor, m//e ~~c can a n~;~nnz _r,r~~~r John Worcester, city attorney, told base. of Smuggler Mountain along owns lots 2 and S,of the Aspen ele city. City Clerk Kathryn Koch rel order. Worcester said there~is l~ Conti with the city and a community of interests exists. The area is~ apable of be integrated within the city. The property hasnot been ~ ~ divided into sep to parcels. 100% of the property owners have. co, ` ented to annexation: ere are no other annexations pending. ~ . Mayor Klanderud ened the public hearing. There wer no comments. Mayor Klandenx `closed the public hearing. Mayor - Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no omments. closed the public hearing. is ' S5, Series of 2003; .`~ n carried. Annexation 1C1 ~ s property is located at the • rc1e. ,The owner, Alain Degrave, subdivision, which are already in~the e posting and publication are in Councilman ~ rnrau moved to adopt Resolution #56, Series of X03; seconded•~`' Councilwoman Richards. ~ ~\~ ~~•. Counei ", Paulson said he would like a neighborhood map for second, read' ~' ~to make sure where this is located in reference to any possible ~~ ma'~ er plan for Smuggler Mountain. .,. r with the exce tion of Councilman Paulson, motion carried. 11 m favo . p , 22 ReQUlar Meeting Asaen City Council . June 23, 2003 consideration of this application. Barwick said the city cannot guarantee how a building will be occupied but can guarantee that one person may riot purchase all the weeks. Councilman Semrau pointed out the infill ordinance would only allow 30 feet plus an additional 8 feet with special review and a historic TDR. Councilman Semrau said agreed this is a great project in a great location but it is too big; the height and mass are out of scale for the site. Under the PUD process, the applicant has the responsibility of proving a project is deserving of an exception. Councilman Torre asked what percentage of the total square footage is actual lodge space and what is amenities, parking, storage. Brown said it is 50% net ~Teaseable under the LTR definition of net leasable. Councilman Torre said there seems to be a lot of amenity space built in and there maybe away to lessen that, make the units smaller, and make the project smaller. All the amenities will, make guests stay on property rather than go out in town and spend money. Brown said the intent of the amenities like the game room and movie theatre is to give families things to do. Brown said without the amenities, this is not a competitive project and would be under serious distress. Brown said there is not a square inch that could be removed without impacting the project. . Mayor Klanderud.noted when the Obermeyer project first came to Council, there was an outcry about the height. The design team came back with a project at the height requirement, which won broad support. Brown pointed out applicants are not allowed to talk to Council until the end of the process. It would be better to have a more collaborative process. Brown asked Council what would be the right height, the right mix, the right project. Councilman Semrau said the right use is family type lodging and the amenities are great; however, the mass, scale and height are out of character. Councilman Semrau said he feels 38 feet would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud agreed she could approve 38 feet. Mayor Klanderud said she would also like all employees housed on site. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the commitment to green development. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to July 28; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 21 .. • Reeular Meeting `Aspen City"Coanci2 July 28 2003 she would like. to strike "conversion of lodge rooms" as affordable he mitigation as conversion of lodge rooms has been a problem in Aspe: V -said that has never been part of their solution and he agreed i s bed ~ted. order to facilitate some of the city's larger housing proj ecis Councilwoman Richards sugg sted the applicant look afi buying some B ingame Parcel D units for their ' 'gation. Councilwoman Richards, que 'oned the value of the 8 employee 'ts on site and asked if 8 lodge zoo might be abetter use of that space. V said solving the affordable hou ng issues is a challenging task and ey will take these suggesti ~ ~ s into consideration. Mayor Klanderud said ci 's housing project ,like Burlingame parcel D, are to make up for the deficit. housing, and~:u '' g this housing for mitigation is not going towards the soluti .The app `ants have assumed the responsibility for providing ho said it would be a disservice to s developer... Councilman S-emrau the units that may be located' out stated it is much more. difficul said the 8 units on site are r ac ng ~fo` eix project. Councilman Semrau ~l lingame Parcel D to a.private ' he will only consider cash-in-lieu for de a city limits. Councilman Semrau get its than to get money. ~Woodford~ rnent its and one is not allowed to give payment-in-lieu for hous' replacement its. Councilman Semrau agreed those 8 units should~stav n site. Councilman Torre sa' his concerns are the roo decks, the location, and he would like them oved slope side. Councilor Torre suggested the lodge units.could a smaller than 4,000 square feet, hick would allow more lodge beds 'on ~p perty. ~~ Councilman Torre said he do not want the food and beverage ea used apr~s ski only but should be ye ound. Councilman orre said he is not opposed to cash in lieu he would like to see as man .units in the city limits as possible. :,- Mayor anderud opened the public heating. There were no co ents. Mayo anderud closed the public hearing. Co Gilman Semrau moved to approve Resolution #33, Series of 200 ,with t amendments as presented by staff and changes that the applicant at proval shall demonstrate adequate parking or formulate a plan with the owners of the Little Nell hotel, change apres ski activities to year round ~~ 9 ~~ ~;~,~ 'k~ activities, and delete ference to conversion of Iod ts, and construction management plan in #9; nded. by Coun ' man Richards. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Torre, yes; ,yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. - Code~mendment Infill m'Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #5, ries of 2003, to ;seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in fa~ fir, motion ORDINANCE #29~ SERIES OF 2043 -Dancing Bear PUD James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council at the last public hearing, they stated the proposed project was too large and too tall. The applicant will present a revised design. David Brown, representing ,the applicant, showed Council the current design and told them they have taken off one floor. The first two stories are of stone, stepping back onto a shingled darker floor and above that is a greenhouse, ,gazebo and roof. The setback is 5 feet rather than 2 feet. Brown told Council the corner facing Monarch and Durant is 31 feet to the 3~.floor and 20'6" at the 2nd floor. At the alley for the main part of the building is 38 feet. The gazebo adds another 8 ~to 10 feet, which makes the building 44 feet at the midpoint of the glass shed. The top of the highest :elevator shaft is 46 feet. The building elevations at the street are 34 to 31 to 34 feet. Brown showed the first project as reviewed by P&Z, the recommendation from P&Z and the current iteration. The building is greatly reduced. ' The project is now 9three-bedroom suites with lock offs.for 18 keys. The building, as is has 23 bedrooms; this v~ill be an increase of 3 free market bedrooms. The lower levels have not changed since the last presentation. The 2two-bedroom employee units are .the same as before and are now twice the required mitigation.. All the suites range from '1700 to 2200 square feet, averaging 2,000 square feet. The bar and restaurant is smaller than before. The second floor contains 4 suites and 4 lock offs. The 3rd floor has been stepped back so each unit has its own outdoor deck. The roof has solar collectors, gardens, hot tubs and gazebo. The height of the gazebo varies zo Re~tlar Meetine Aspen City Council July 28.2003 from 43 to 45 at the highest point. Brown showed elevations from different points around the project.. ' Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the gazebo will be set back 17 feet from the Durant avenue facade and 13 feet from Monarch street. Haas excep or the gazebo, which is, transparent and sits in the middle of the building. Haas said this feature is necessary to set this project apart from other-time-share projects.. Haas said the gazebo does not add to the perceived height o~ the building. Haas said the height measure is~not:as important as the •qualitative measurements. The gazebo placed at the comer~of Monarch and Durant would fit within the height limits but it would not be a good design. Haas reminded Council the recently approved Hyatt is 46 feet with. a ground elevation higher than this site. The Mountain Chalet was approved with a 52-foot height limit. Haas stated the applicants will make all efforts to achieve LEEDS certification and the gazebo will provide a perfect place for photovoltaic cells and capture of energy: The glass stairwell on Monarch is another location for passive solar gain for reuse. This corner needs • revitalization.' The,project plans to add to the streetscape with the-restaurant. The applicant plans to provide a hybrid vehicle for use by residents as well as bicycles. The applicant is providing 115% housing for~employees when only 60% is required. Haas said they feel this will be a fiscal benefit to the city. This is aself-sufficient development for parking,• affordable housing, economic sustainability and providing amenities on site. Lindt told Council ~ staff feels this proposal meets community goals in bringing vitality to this location. The' uses appropriate; this site has been tourist accommodations. The applicant' has met their housing requirements. Lindt said this. building is lower than other PUDs in the surrounding area. At the last meeting, Council indicated 3 $ feet would be appropriate on this site. Staff does not recommend asking for removal of the gazebo as it is set back. far enough that it would not be a dominant feature of the building. The gazebo will be constructed out of translucent materials. Council brought up the restaurant space at the last meeting and whether it will remain that use in the future. There is a condition in the ordinance to requixe a PUD amendment if the owners want to convert this space from a restaurant. Lindt reminded Council at the previous meeting they indicated ~ one parking space/affordable unit was too few. The amended ordinance 11 .k ..._ ...~... ... a=~dl~ti Regular Meeting Ashen ~itv Council July 28, 2003 requires two parking spaces per two-bedroom unit. The applicant has requested leasing parking spaces in.the public right-of--way for loading. Staff does-not feel a 9-unit lodge would require loading spaces. The city engineer is opposed to leasing spaces in the public right-of--way. Paul Menter, finance director, pointed out not all tax information is available because the Aspen Manor has not been operating for the past 5 years. Menter said the applicant's fiscal analysis meets the code requirements. Menter told Council the condition on whether a fee is owed levers on the historical occupancy rate of the hotel. The original occupancy rate was estimated at 6I %; the revised application is 51 % as attested by the previous owner. The difference is whether a fee is owed or not. Menter concluded no fee is owed. Brown agreed there appears to be no fiscal impact to the applicant and this should be a cash generator for the community. City Manager Steve Barwick suggested for the future, Council consider a minimum occupancy rate for fiscal analysis amendment to.this code section. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing Susan O'Neal asked about the row of evergreens on Durant. Haas said the one on the corner and one other will be preserved; the parks department has . asked the other trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate street streets. Kathy Petner, 210 East Cooper, commended the applicants for theix design, for stepping the building back, for the green development, for _ the extra affordable housing. Ms. Petner said she is concerned' about the 46- %2 feet and the precedent this will set for future developments in this area. __.... Ms. Petner asked if the gazebo will be used at night and will be lit. Brown said it will be glass and there will be window coverings in order to make this a green project: It will be lit and will be used at night. The gazebo will be used as an exercise room, mechanical equipment and lounge_ Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, said he is very concerned about keeping the scale of the neighborhood. Paas pointed out every time this project has come back for city review, it has been abetter project. Toni Kronberg said she is concerned about the height. Visitors like the view of the mountain. People do not want taller buildings. Ms. Kronberg said this is a special site as it allows views of Shadow Mountain from the malls and from Wagner Park. 12 ~~~ - r ~., Regular Meetins Asnerr City Council July 28, 2003 Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Carol Saunders-White, Jim Scull,, and one from Andrea Clark all concerned with the height of the project as well, as Light from the gazebo'at night. Haas said condition #21 requires a PM10'mitigation plan to be reviewed by committed to the in the application are more. than adequate and should be accepted as he PM10 mitigation plan. These measures are a fleet of bicycles, hydroelectric vehicles, airport shuttle, employee bus passes, and marketing the location. -These are all representations of the application.. Lindt told Council environmental health staff feels the applicant has gone above and beyond~PM10 mitigation.:~Lindt suggested the condition be amended that the applicant meets the representations of their application. Mayor Klanderud requested these representations be listed in the condition. The applicant, agreed. Haas brought up condition #31, the 4 parking spaces for affordable housing, and requested only 2 spaces be required. Haas said the applicants feel they are being penalized for providing more housing than necessary. Haas noted the memorandum states that cash-in-lieu of school dedication is not attributable to the time-share units but is for. the affordable housing units. ,Herb Klein, representing the .applicant, said they do not have a problem with the city finance department conducting an annual audit, but does have a problem that if the. city finds there is a shortfall, that they be obligated to pay some impact. fee. as determined by Council. Klein stated there is no provision in the code for this requirement: There are no standards for this requirement and this should have some study and legislation. Menter said what staff is most inteFested- in is collection information. Barwick suggested adding language. that this condition would only apply if the city adopts code amendment within the next year. Mayor Klanderud stated she does not have a problem deleting conditions #40. Councilmembers agreed. Klein requested a change in condition #41 about a "substantial" change to the restaurant; let the community development department decide whether this is a major or minor PUD amendment. Council agreed.. Mayor Klanderud said when Council has required fewer on site parking spaces because employees will not use theirRcars has not worked. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Councilman Semrau said in this 13 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council Jul 28 2403 neighborhood, it would be a great service to have 4 parking spaces. Council agreed to require the applicant provide 4 parking spaces for the affordable housing. Councilwoman Richards said the city should not lease any spaces in the right-of--way on Monarch to this project. Councilwoman Richards pointed out this project is only providing 9% open space. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about reflections off the gazebo. Councilwoman Richards said she cannot accept the 4te floor. Where the gazebo is placed does not meet what the Council intended when they said 38 feet at the highest. 'Councilwoman Richards said she. does like the changes in massing and in material. Councilwoman Richards stated she sees a separation between the north and south side of Durant and this structure would be setting a precedent for the south side. Councilman Torre said he is concerned that the on-site amenities will keep the guests on site rather than getting out into the community. Councilman Torre said the gazebo raises the heights beyond what Council envisioned. Councilman Torre said the project could have a hot tub and rooftop garden without the gazebo structure. Councilman Tone said he feels the .applicants have worked hard on this iteration. Councilman Semrau agreed this is an improvement and an interesting design. Councilman Semrau agreed about not leasing parking in the public right-of--way. Councilman Semrau does non support a 4~' floor but does support an architectural element that makes this an extraordinary building. Eliminating the gazebo would make it a more boring building. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the gazebo and whether it is appropriate in this location. The light and reflection are major concerns. Mayor Klanderud questioned the excavation of 3 floors below grade. Mayor Klanderud asked if this would be in tl}e proposed Shadow Mountain view plane. Lindt said this would probably be located within the view plane; however, it has not been drafted. Mayor Klanderud said she would rather see the hybrid vehicles eliminated. Brown said the~gazebo is located away from the northwest comer because of concerns of the neighbor. The building is 38 feet at this corner and is 31 feet on the street side. Brown said the applicants feel the `gazebo will make this space very special and could be used by the community for special events 14 Regular Meeting ..Aspen City Council July 28, 2003 and fund raisers. Brown said the sunlight reflection will be brief.. The gazebo could be wrapped in fabric to cut down on this reflection or use non- reflective glass. Councilman Semrau suggested the size of the gazebo be reduced to 1 S00 square feet square feet. e district is 28 feet and going up to 3'8 feet is a significant variation. Going up another 8 feet is too much; the gazebo makes it appear as a 4`~ floor. Councilwoman Richards said she would not disapprove of uses on the roof but without the structure. Mayor Klanderud saidthis is a creative design with a good way to hide the mechanical :equipment; however, she is concerned about.the height. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #29, Series of 2003, to August 11; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carved: ORDINANCE #32, SERIES ~OF ~2~03 -South Aspen Street P RDINANCE #33 SERIES OF 2003 -South Aspen Alley acation Coun 'man Semrau recused himself based on owning d within 300 feet of this a lication. James Lindt, community develo ent department, told Council thi ~ al PUD review is for an applicato from Aspen Land Fund II to construct ~ free, market and 17 .affordabl ousing units on 3 parcels of land near the rote ction of South Aspen Juan streets: .Sunny Vann, representi Aspen Lan and II, reminded Council Savanah Limited partnership receiv the o ' al.conceptual approval for this piece of property in 2001. Vann sai submitted a final application in 2002. The property has been for sal a applicants asked staff to hold the final review until final dispositi of the pr erty. Vann told Council Aspen Land Fund II acquired s property Dec .~ er 2002, notified the community development dep nt and asked them to c fete the final application. Vann told Coun 'this application is identical to conceptual application except for r changes made in response to neighb ood concerns. Council oman Richards asked about the reference to the app is wanting to bu~ a hotel. Vann said Aspen Land Fund II purchased the pro rty to bu' tourist accomrnodarions at the base of the mountain. The applic is 15 Regular Meetia~ Asaen City Councii July 28, 2043 need to complete this approval process in order to satisfy the lenders. Vann told Council there is no other application pending on this parcel. The applicants would Like to explore doing a more intensive tourist project at this site. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Milton Zale, representing Lift One condominium, said they appreciate that the developers have lowered the height of the building from 28 to 25 i~eet. Zale asked how far off Aspen street to the west will the building be set back. Za1e asked how far south of the property Line will the construction be. Zale said there is an issue where the garbage will be located and.how it will be collected. ~ ' Vann said .the changes made were made at the request of Lift One and~the most significant was the reduction in height below that allowed in the zone district. The applicants also agreed to move the trash area from the west side of the parking lotto the east side near the street. Vann pointed out the closest dimension from the property to the garage is 34 feet. Lift One also asked for extensive landscaping, which has been added to the plan. Za1e said the, critical dimension is to. move the building to the west, which would open up views for Lift One owners. Vann said the applicants negotiated with the homeowners association, extensive site lines were done, and roof lines were changed. Vann noted it was never mentioned that the building should bemoved to the west. Vann .... _.. said they have no room to move the building to the west.. Vann pointed out this area requires a 5-yard setback; this proposal has 8 feet. The request is to add another 15 feet to that setback, which would eliminate one of their units. Vann told Council this project is within all setback requirements, is within allowable FAR, within allowable density, and has more than the required . open, space and meets the parking requirements. The applicants asked for no variations in dimensional requirements. Larry, Saliterman, building at 603 S. Garmisch, commended the developers and the city for listening to the neighbors and for coming up with a good plan. Zale said although he recognizes what the applicants have done to change the plan, if they do not~move the buildings, this will create problems for the owners. Vann reminded Council the negotiarions with adjacent property owners were done at conceptual review. The applicants revised 16 p 1- '~~' . J..:'~. .nS. '.. .e. ..+ ~ . EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: V i [lame: l~„ :~;~C.i!l3 ~ ~~'s~~`i ~~N L1L Location: ~-((l S . Itit ov~~~l.~~ J±~-~~~; (Indicate street address, lot & block n tuber, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) '~~~~- j $L - (5 bcrz APPLICANT: Name: ~ ~ ~ • ~~ ~ ~' LLL - Address: ~{ j ~ S ~ 1~ vN.42i- l~+S ~ ~~ . .Phone #: ~ ~-a ~ Z S - ~3 ~~ REPRESENTATIVE: - Name: ~ ~_~ t ~~C<r{~ - ~z:.tl ~~~ ~S- ~:Q.c.-~,-, Address: '!~ j . ~n~u JJ Co ~ l till Phone#: - ~IfiD `t2~ ~~d TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ^ GMQS Exemption ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Temporary Use ^ GMQS Allotment ~ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Text/Nlap Amendment ^ Special Review ~ ^ Subdivision ^ Conceptual SPA ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ^ Commercial Design Review ' ^ Lot Split ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ ~ Expansion ^ Residential Design Vari~ce ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Other: ^ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDTITONSt (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ~r~~. ~ L~ ~?c e ~t -~n .'~I U l~ ~-. ~~ ~~1 a.-~, v cam, ~.~F ~.G 'ROPOSAL: (description of p`rpoposed buildings/,~u~ses, modifications, etc.) 'll .F~ ~ p ~ t( ~~V ~ fJ c tiC.. V" L t-~ :ave you attached the following? ~ FEES DUE: ~ I~_~7~~ ~- Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ^ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. RESOLUTION No. _ (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCLOSING THE -~tiI LOCATED AT 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET, LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 77, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number 2737-182-19-002 WHEREAS, Eben P. Clazk of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Land, LLC, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request, a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment dated September 23, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 411 S. Monarch Street, Aspen, the parcel is identified as parcel number 273718219002, 'and the'` legal description of the property is: THE DANCING BEAR LODGE ACCORDING Tb THE FINAL PUD PLAN AND PLAT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2004 IN PLAT BOOK 69 AT PAGE 80 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 498443, IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO and also known as Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council in 2003 by Ordinance No. 29 Series of 2003, and the Dancing Beaz Lodge Final PUD,PIan and Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69 Page 80, Reception No. 498443: (the "PUD"); and ,~ ; WHEREAS, the current request is to receive approval for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment to amend the PUD to pernut the enclosure of the spa mechanical equipment on the rooftop. e WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment pursuant to Code section 26.445.100 (B) (PUD Other Amendments); and Commercial Design Review -Substantial amendment pursuant to Code section 26.412.080.B (Review Procedures) under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed. and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 2008; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED _ BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1• The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. A Planned Unit Development Other Amendment, and Commercial Design Review - Substantial Amendment application was initiated by: Eben P. Clark of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC located at 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Dancing Bear Lodge, 210 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. B. Notice of the proposed Planned Unit Development Other amendment, and Commercial Design Review -Substantial Amendment has been provided to surrounding property z owners in accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. Section 2• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby .approves the Planned. Unit .Development Other request for the property. The approval granted herein is conditioned on the following: A. The applicant shall meet all of the cond"itons of Ordinance No. 29. of Series 2003; however the applicant has approval to enclose the spa mechanical equipment on the top floor. The enclosure shall have the same facade materials as the rest of the building. B. A change order shall be required to the existing building permit. Section3• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall"be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6• The rights granted by the approval of this site-specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved"development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 411 S. Monarch Street., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Resolution No. _ Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council Section 8• The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 18, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FROM: COMMISSION: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNIG AND ZONING LJ Erspamer, Chairperson EXHIBIT A -Approved site plan and elevations .„ - ._.. _ N w...... ._._ ._.~.,~____ _ .,._,. r~,.-~ _ _ --- - ~., .xr~rer...+.e: d N Wm h w^~ U N°~ o W F~ i~ u~i $E .~ N = = C ~ s _iC ~' ~' V ~ U o ~-- o z o^, ~ W -. d '~ ~Nv a ~( lam-- :~ i c l~il~ ~ A ~ a~+ J F O m ~ a-.4- W b Z !~ W C m m na n .~~~~ Q r ~ V GU7 ~ o U ~„ ~ ~ ~ _ _1 v Q fn 0 L~ ^ H _, rn ~ m ~> o tm «y m¢ Vim= o Z D a~oa ro° m m w Z v aEi ~v d~ o m =Qna ~ u W U ~ oU W aaviv ocUUmomoaooccm `m~~ c v v~ W U E7p7~ EtnOU caa c ~ a 3 5 ~ Z ry+ ~ C ~ c c mN ~5,~'~'m 'a19oa ° v i~oe 8 o n LJ~ </j p_ [n o 0 o~~d ~v m o ccc~ooo tm - ~ m o Q T N c~Ua`aUao.n.mlL~LLmUUm ~ ~ ~ mob a ~, ~ J W ~¢ oooorooooooo`oooo1O ~C 1 (7 o~~pL .`s m F ~ Ll. 0 0 0 0 O O i _ /~/~ S p p O ~ m _ ~" LLI ~ ~ Obi ^ N p ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~10 $O`V N ~ } a0-- ate' o ~ ~ O ~~~ Q m O p\ p Q Q~ r ~' Q Q. _ n N ~ W p c~ cn .o 'v co `m o ~ ~ a m v m m o ~~ O ~-_ „> ¢° ® a ~ .-oooo o.-~ooo`c3ooo ` ~ ' i i I (/~I`~) (~~7 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 11919 Oovaoi0a'N3dS~! ~ d 1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ '1S Ha21~d'NOW H1f10S llt- ~~ ~a ~~8~ ~~~~ Z d ~ ~~ a~ ~~ d~~$~ ~~~ ~ 3~Ja0~ ZId~38 ~NI~N'~a ,~ 3 ~ ~ ~' ~ $ sai3 <~ vII 1 ,~~ R ~ I Ta ' I 1? I t R I I ~ I L ,I I L I I ;.I I I I _ I I i I l 1 I I { i l I I 4 ~ 1 55 I ~ 8 I ~ @ I I ~ I~ I I I I I ~I ~ y II ~ 9~p I I I I p ~ `e g 3 I €. a>s I~ I I I 3 II ~i $ A~ ~ I I a l_ _ I a@ I I I ~ -- 3 3 I I I - -- -- -~ --- ' ~ ;~,'r ~ I l I -9 -- - r 11 - - - - ~I l -I-- - I I.. ----a-------~- W = b _ - -_ _- __ ~ © ~ iI~ I I ;;I ~j-i III l -_ ~ _ _ _ I`__ _ - II-_ I _ __-I _-__-_1- I ~~ °z ~ _ III I I(I ~ :: - 01 I i jl I I III ~~' I ~ ~ I :I~ Illi Ili it ~~`. I !j II I I I I -- L ~ ~ -- I i (III ~' I I .!.III I ' !.i i; , ' ~I - C~ I ~ I I '~, , ~~ ~'-- !i - ---'-------1- i I . 1 I I ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~~ i ~I~ ~~ I` j ~ I ili; II I ; ! !i !i I I I i - r,. l l .I ~ - , _ o . i ~ i I I - I l~~ - -ii-- - ---1-------I- rt ~ i l l l i -~ I~ ~ j I - i - -- I-------'- - -- m r I I I I III I =-I ~ i ~1 - i I ~ ~1.-; !i I I I ~'` I l ; I I I I ~' i i r !i I I I I i III I P ' ! - I jl j i I iii II i' ~~ ~I I I ~ li II'I ; I i 1 ~ ~. I III' I;IV I l i I I ~ (~ ~ II j ~I I i I I I ,I Ii l ~li; I :I ~. - - - I I I I I ii I 'I i ` ~- li I i ~O ~~; i I' L' I j~ .~ I I, 'I I I~, !I r I I -- :- ~- - - --- ---, ------i- ~ Y Ir ~~' t- ~ I - ~ I ~ ~`I I O ' I I; ! ~ I I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ (I - ~ I I ii; l ~ I I~ ~ I Zp ~I¢UU~ I I I I - I it _ _ I Asa I I ._ _- __ at - ~ ------ ---I-------~- - I ' i ~ O I~ ' 3€ ~I I I W I ;~ I I i I ~ , I ~ 'll I I - ~I I I I i I I ' II o I I -- I I - - III, I I ,; I - ~_ ~,• ~ - I - I I i I I ) Iii I I Il .-... . I _~ li ~ p i I I t I I ,',III I I j I ' ~ I ~ p Il d l a ~; ' I I _ _ i I'~ ~''.i Ili I I I - I i I ~I I I I I I ~ -, I __ I ; I I ---- ~ I I --- I -. I ~~ I ~~I z I P L I I !_ _'- _ __ J_.___ li. ~I __-.J.___-.__-~_ I I I I I I I I" I I I I I I I t II ~I ~I I I I I I 1 ~I , ~ ~ ~~ 11918 oavaoio~'N3dsv ~ ~ N u M ~d ~ ~~ ~'~~~^ ~~~~ '1S H,bVNOW H1f10S lli- ~ ~ ~ ~ Q z p & F ~ ,~' a~ z ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ 3JC]Ul 21'd38 JNI~N'b~a ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ W U -- R 'f R 'P '~ 'P 'P ;I I ! I I I !~ ! i 1 '] 'I i I l I I I I I ,i I i J I i i! ~ I i i i ~ I I ii ~ ~ Ij ~~~ I I ~f ~ i~ ~ ~E ~ ~~ L~~~ I I -----I -----1' -- - 1------ 1------I P I II I I I I I II I I _. I I II I I I i ii ,i _ i r I ------I T" J. r .J -----~ -----~ .- :-- -a - ~ I- - - I ~ __ I TILO. I~ ~J I e I ., ~ _- II I I I - - I " '~. - .. I ... I I . __ -- --I- - ~ - - '-•---T-- -~----- I '~ ~I~I 1 li i i ail ~ l I I' I I 'I I 'hl I I I - U ~ I I III -["sl i iv _.'. V,:,. I ~ I I I VIII i iI I I I ~. j III'~~I'(a~.,~~ I I _.III I - ':II Iii ~i ~i - - I - =~ a'-- - _ i I - ~ I ~j i t 'I l III ( I ~ I,~ ~ I L~ ~ I I' ,II ,. I ..• t, I I , II _ . o III II°~, "cn, ; I ;i . _.~L, - l i it ; , ' 1 ' I I ( ; 't=.~ l i ill,l I ~ .I I l i i, ~I~, ~ I I t ~o I I i t i~ li I ---- I - - - it '~ I I i I _ } ~ :, I _ ili I ~) I ~ ~ i - i III ~'I ~I ' I ~ ~ .-~ --- Q I I I ~! 'lay I I ~' I III ~ I -" I ~ I: ~' Q y~ i III IIII i ~I I I j I i 11 - -~ _ ~ ~ I~ I ~~ ~ ~ , I '~_ ll I~il (il ~ I 'I I I~ I I ~ - ~ ; ~ -{-i i I ~ ~ ~ I ( I `_ I, I I i ,I 1~~II 'F ~I: _ -- - I- -- - -~ -- -I i. I l, i i i l i I I I I I I l `~ ~ ~, Iir I I j~~~I Tn ~ I~.,~, III i I I T ? 4 ~ Ii I, I 1 I i I _l 1 1 I I I II I I i; ~I I I s® II I I f~ II I I II I I - ~I-----.--t------ F:- II I I' II I I jl I I' jl I I - ii- --~ ------~- -j~-------~------ I - II I I - I~-------t------ ~-- II I I II I I - ----t- -----I-- ~I I I II I I' it I I ~I I I jl I I' I I I'. - ------- ~------ I - il I I ;I I I' ii i I li I i II I I I I - ----- ~----- I - II I I' II I I' II I I' ~I I I II~_ @ p I I --353 a' i~ --- ~ I - L5=3~ I------ I ~I I I: I I I II I I' ,~ ~ I ,~ ~ I. - -----I-------I-- i I ii I I ; I I'! ii I I' --~!-------+-------1-- --J'-----_ i i_' - ----- - I _ -__1 _. _. _,. ii I I I! I I o a J e W ! w ~ r '~ -R ~I 3 ml