HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120807 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, August 7, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 1260 Red Butte Drive, Residential Design Standards
Variance
B. 122 E. Durant, Final Commercial Design Review
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
P1
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Claude Salter,Zoning Officer
RE: 1260 Red Butte Drive- Residential Design Standards Variance,- Public
Hearing
DATE: August 7, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: Subject Property:
John Collett,
1260 Red Butte LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: > :`
Stan Mathis, Stan Mathis : '
Architecture
'
LOCATION:
Lot: 2 Gaylord Subdivision.
T
The property is located off 8 ' - `-
Red Butte Drive. '
CURRENT ZONING: S '
R-30, Low-Density
Residential, with a PUD ;`. r o o 0E02092
overlay '' r'"..tM,•
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests a
variance from the Building
Elements Residential Design
Standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of
the requested Residential
Design Standard Variance.
Page 1 of 6-
P 2 LAND USE REQUESTS:
The Applicant has a single family residence which is currently under construction. The
residence is known as 1260 Red Butte Drive. Staffs worked diligently with the architect to
meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. The
owners are now seeking a variance from the Building Elements requirement, as outlined
below:
® Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section
26.410.020.D, Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section .
26.410.040.D; Building Elements (requiring ...the entry door to face the street and be
no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting a variance from the Building Elements, entry door requirement
for a new single-family home, specifically section 26.410.040.(D)(1)(a) requires, "The entry
door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of
the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight(8) feet."
In September 19, 2007 a building permit was submitted to demolish the existing structure.
The permit was issued on June 5, 2011. The permit to build a new single-family home was
submitted on September 8, 2011. The plans were approved by Zoning in October 11, 2011.
The architect did not request a variance as the plans met the Residential Design Standards.
The project is currently under construction.
The owners are requesting a variance from the requirement which specifies the location of
the front entry door.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES:
All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards
or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410,
Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established
neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each
home...contribute to the streetscape."
Specifically the intent of the Building Elements standard is to, "ensure that each residential
building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to
the façade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions"
The Applicant's approved plan has two front doors. One door which currently meets the RDS
(residential design standards) and one door which does not meet the required standard. The
door closest to the street meets all three standard requirements for entry doors. The standard
states that, "The entry door shall face the street, be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building and shall not be taller than eight (8) feet." The door is street
facing, less than 10 feet back from the front-most wall of the building and the proposed
height is eight feet.
Page 2 of 6
P3
The owner's proposal is to remove the door closest to the street which meets the standard and
keep only the front door, further from the road which does not meet the standard. The door
closest to the street would become a wall. The porch closest to the street would wrap around
the garage but have no entry to the structure.
Figure 1: Front façade
d
.:ESN - -
1.
1 .
Door that meets the Standard
(Closest to street)
2nd Door(further recessed)
Page 3 of 6
Figure 2: close-up door which meets the Standard(door closest to street)
ose-up of I
-4 1
...5,..f 1p Rka0 :� .� �fid.,
"'r ydr
_rw`
.r—. - rer.m.-c_iwn•er. w r.w.rTwn-,.0
•
Ati
try
t .:S
06023020112 (16:0' _
There are two review"standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant
a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D) (2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it
is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as
the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Comments: Staff believes the requested variance does not meet review standard `a' because
the proposed door is not consistent with the locations of doors in adjacent structure and in the
broader vicinity. The recessed door appears to be out of character with the neighborhood. In
addition, the proposed location of the front door further recessed from the street does not meet the
purpose of the standard which is to `provide a human scale to the facade, enhance the walking
experience and reinforce local building traditions".
The Red Butte neighborhood includes assorted building styles, including vintage 70's, ranch style
and contemporary timber/stone veneer. The neighborhood is predominately single family homes.
The proposed entry door does not promote a pattern of development in the neighborhood. The
homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have entry doors which are the closest
element to the street. In many cases the entry door and porch are the first element off the driveway.
The proposed door location,further back from the street is not an appropriate location given the
context of development in this neighborhood nor does the proposed location meet the purpose of
the standard. .
The variance request does not meet the review standard `b'as the site does not have a site-specific
constraint.
Page 4 of 6
Figure 3:photographic representation of adjacent structures in the neighborhood. Subject property =
P5
4 J
G i� 14654` t ,,...r }�t>. ,,
t t r,• �, •/" 1 30 .,�, ` 4 '' , i.-_ ..i,2,1..
.� PIT �'YS 7r 1 '+ 1'�'
gt r' � '•—._ r 2 3 1445 ' .41. ',r ;' _ "
f �.X �` S t
/
.
a i !0 $ , , ,O. 1300
RS
r Slat i 1.�i
KrJI ��-` l• t Y
w�-I1` d
b. �' y s ," f 1340 ^, 4 W
1
1. 1160 - 'M•
f. r � _
1220 ' ' —.1134 1 II. , . ..
13.10
1i
• _ _-. "'Yf15 1100 •. ■ ti . ', ,.1
1: 0371}. 1. '` .,.r •'.'4 0 ., ,' ' ':,1350 - _.i
•'0020 _
Tt0o5 'f,1345 }} 1265 •,�' x 150
L ., i.., `5 . a r 1 1325 f I,y
-1045•w :. .�'y.
1045 P - - 1195 ,2
' .:�
s Rf .2035 fi .Y:r. �„.. ,�R:
'. /1/
i - . _ . .
Ir 11 ---
w
, ,a ,1-X 2..2. 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review
standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances.
Staff recommends denial of the request.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to disapprove the application for a variance Resolution No. , Series of 2012,
disapprove a variance request from the Building Elements requirement of the Residential
Design Standards to have an entry door which is more than ten feet back from the font-most
wall of the building.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit C: Red Butte Drive, Aspen CO
Exhibit D: Site Plan
Page 6 of 6
P7
Resolutio I No._
(SERIES OF 2012)
RES{I1LUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE I:UILTDTNG ELEMENTS RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STAN 11 ARD AT 1260 RED I::UTTE D I YE, SU I:DIVI;1iION; LOT: 2
GAYLO 11) SUBDIVIDION, CITY ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273501316002
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
John Collett,represented by Stan Mathis, Stan Mathis Architecture, requesting Variance approval
from the Entry Door Residential Design Standard at 1260 Red Butte Drive; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. 'Variances, the Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Variance from Residential
Design Standard—Building Elements (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.(D)(1)(a); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No - , (Series of 2012), by a -- to --
(? —?)vote, approving a Residential Design Standard Variance; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE I:;E IT RESOLVED !:.Y THE CITY IT APSEN PLANNING AND
ZONNING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance from the following Residential
Design Standard:
L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.(D)(1)(a), Building Elements — Street oriented entrance and principal
window. (Requiring the entry door face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building. A variance is granted to permit the entry door to be more than ten (10)
feet back from the front-most wall of the building as outlined in exhibit A of this resolution.
P8
The Planning and Zoning Commission has determined the variance request meets the review
criteria outlined in L.U.C. Section 26.410.020(D)(1)(a).
Section 2:
The change order building permit application to develop the above-mentioned residence shall
include a copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. All other requirements
to develop a single family residence shall be met.
Section 3:
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.
Section 4:
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 development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
APP •VE I by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on August 7, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING
COMMISSION:
Jim True, special Counsel LJ Ersparmer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: South Elevation
A. Ee,ct„ , in 14 : _ . 41:14..)-4-1,N . .--leileT-1447:)(1 P9
. c
C
A3.0 A3.i
■iiimiimammumiii■i■ii 11 i numm TWA In amini simm■im°■iii imumnss■i n t-'-mmasr■Ammi ■■11■11111111■11■■■■11 n 113111111111111111111111111111111111111■ ■■■■■■■■■�■■�■■■■■■■■■■ ■ �.Z-.-=-�'" ',
(■111111111111■■ 1111■■■■■1111■■11 ■ 1111■1111■1111 ■■11 ■ 11111111■f■■ 1111■■■■■■■! sI r_
A •�m i■�eiiiiiiiiii�iumm ■1111iri�ii�i=�i� iiii■11 wan i�11i■ii�i11i iiii�an 1
7 IMWOI *� ,1111111.7/011_ /1rrM i��a7 aw�t wlea./1a�ae���MIMM7 4 a�a•=w�r w�rnafrc1- I I 'iiii 11i■11 ■■111111111111\9 I{ 11111 , Lit 'nom i 1u1% �iiu!; ■!l' ,2
--mm ummum www�i� t. .., �z� I��
■.--.�--,, ��� �E� ;� ��� ��3��� rj 1 ins 6r— t ~-R
kw No . A III�IIIIII _gin s ■ i�� t Ulf *Et �t M
_ III 1ii•ii;
-ww wwswww�. +.. �n�ww..rw�.. +�w+n.w'
IIIIIII�_ \._11■■■S■"���1111111111■■'T:lP' �nr/11�IfA�■7■P ■ ■11 ■■ 111111■■ PIE .�..�.......�� ..wrw..�..�w ww
�w�wwwaw.awarwii-Imunm■■■ 11� .11�luma ►� 1�` - e....■■ 11111111■ `11ua■/_� ■11 ■■■■ ssio 1111 ■n 1,
11■■■1111 1111'x,'MINN■11i■ OIMIN. , . dump■■1111 ■11ps►!w www ,nram sw aw numw �u11w •
■■■11v ■1111■ \■!1�\�11■1// r' I %�\*11��11■■' r 1 �t�y'��■■1111■■■1111 1111■111111■
- _ .._11���i.. ii W%c_■_ _.. ■m !/III ■._ , Ei■ `M1��11� MININIii■ =
! OM irga UI 1 11 ., — '.1■� = :Ni.1s.11
i N M I RJR iR, �i , R
I 0 .111 1111 �`�' 1 ( ,
.
w......-7---a..„--I.. . _ 1 i.�. n../� �ww..i mss" = a ° -- mac--•=°"e_
• I REG E5TED FRONT DOOR '°�
•
PER BOA (Ti-II5 DOOR
EXI5 5 AND 15 FERMI ED) CUPJLE T FRONT DOOR
'4\ ,
PER DEIGN GUIDE LINES 1
(THIS DOOR WILL BE
ELIMINAT D)
1 `1
SOUTh ELEVATION '� �°
1260 Red Butte Drive •
•
•
P 1 0
Exhibit A: Staff]Findings
Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: Staff Comments: Staff believes the requested variance does not meet review
standard `a' because the proposed door is not consistent with the locations of doors in adjacent
structure and in the broader vicinity. The recessed door appears to be out of character with the
neighborhood. In addition, the proposed location of the front door further recessed from the
street does not meet the purpose of the standard which is to "provide a human scale to the
façade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions".
The Red Butte neighborhood includes assorted building styles, including vintage 70's, ranch
style and contemporary timber/stone veneer. The neighborhood is predominately single family
homes.
The proposed entry door does not promote a pattern of development in the neighborhood. The
homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have entry doors which are the
closest element to the street. In many cases the entry door and porch are the first element off the
driveway. The proposed door location, further back from the street is not an appropriate
location given the context of development in this neighborhood nor does the proposed location
meet the purpose of the standard.
The variance request does not meet the review standard `b' as the site does not have a site-
specific constraint.
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A
69 Shady Lane
0034.. w12 - P6
P11
ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION MAy 1 7 2012
PROJECT:
ik 41a`ri3271 i �rf
Flame: 1g106 F� iv 4 i e rITY I IRI I OP;,'i;
Location: q � � E� � :. 3, -11-4 mg-or,
(Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) 2i-3OIs i
APPLICANT:
Name: Ci + . `i' �r /� /l
Address: '
` LAS 19 }P a S . 0 0,X 14N i `"'A X36 C �f d t9
Phone#: °O °544.'woo
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: GTh1 t ri-it s
Address: 16 1-1i°teu=' a¢ `r�?o �� -I(
Phone#: e ;1-6°6t "
TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply):
GMQS Exemption n Conceptual PUD I Temporary Use
1 I GMQS Allotment n Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) I f Text/Map Amendment
Special Review • ❑ Subdivision H Conceptual SPA
I I ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes I I Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
n Commercial Design Review I I Lot Split I I Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
W- Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment n Other:
Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.)
verima )1(191-00e4 vim NT 5 T rga ton
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:$ 4901 00
°'Pre-Application Conference Summary
[k Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement
416'''Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Fonn
iThsponse to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
1 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 3.5"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.
P12
C ovNit Y Di \ I'l )I'`If \ I 1)1' 1' \It I'M VI'
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen("City')and
Property Phono.: '� +' (�
joHN ®C-eLFesi T Email:
Address of �� �� Billing octo i /E eNr
Property: Address: Rat elox
(subject of '
a 0 61611 (send bills here) f• T�
application) �✓� 1W
I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand
that as the property owner that 1 am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these
flat fees are non-refundable.
$ _ flat fee for _ flat fee for..
flat fee for $ flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and i understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I
understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is
impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable
legally required findings to be made for project consideration,unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not
returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30
days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
$ I6 Q 00 deposit for CP hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit
amount will be billed at$265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner.
C
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director eme:-Sbl ksi Cou_
City Ilse: Title: ¢1,43 Li -617—
Fees Duo:$ Received:$
•,,ll011I',•I. ..01 I ( Ill „I .\,11•,'11 1.111 41.11 ',I 111 i,1 111'!„II.:1),111
•t s(
§1 lP
E
MAY 17 2012
f Vii.-.
P13
ATTACHMEIIT 3
DMI EHS ONA L RE0,111REMENTS FORM
'' ` R v C
Project: � G� fa'DMZ r,�, ��__,
Applicant: (1' (4.
Location: two Rim tJ boT p a aA e.A 9)D01016 leh
Zone District: _F°9,0
Lot Size: le,1
Lot Area: 1/90e&' ei,
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes.Please refer to the
defmition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: / —
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed.•
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed:
Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: 90 Proposed: 6070
• Principal bldg.height: Existing: Allowable: w Proposed: g+1-01
Access.bldg.height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: (U`r
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 6- Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Phic Proposed:
%Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: 30 Proposed:
6
Rear Setback: Existing: Required268 Proposed: 3 p
Combined F/R: Existing: Required: MA Proposed:
s
WICSide Setback: Existing: Required: as I Proposed: a g°I.•
T Side Setback: Existing: Required: eg P Proposed: 20°0 �p
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: WA Proposed:
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: WA
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: MOM
Variations requested: ent MIA ma gel crek
P14
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 429-2739 DATE: 5/2/2012
PROJECT: 1260 Red Butte Drive
REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis
OWNER: 1\'17-;)1 7 2012
REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variance,
DESCRIPTION:
The prospective applicant is preparing to submit an application for a residential design variance. The
home is built with a current front door on the right side of the property, per Residential Design
Standards Section 26.410.040 (D)(1)(a) and (b).
The applicant is requesting a variance from this RDS so that the primary front entrance door may be
removed and replaced with a front door to the left of the current, in the middle of the existing
residence. Staff has determined that this review cannot be handled administratively and requires a
Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission review. P&Z is a public hearing and will require noticing.
The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader
vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
pdf
Land Use Code:
: a:3;pei-li)id-cin co miD e a F-61161 ominun ity--D e 0i)rnen[IP!ann[n g- n d-Zo n 8--
and-Use-Cod
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.306 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.410.040.D.1.a. & b. (entry door setback&
exemption from covered entry porch )
Review by: Community Development for staff recommendation. Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be the final review authority.
Public Hearing: Required (15 days in advance to public hearing)
1260 Red Butte Drive
A QT T T
P15
POarnniirng G=ee: $1,890. This includes six (6) hours of staff time. Additional staff hours, if
needed, will be billed at $315 per hour.
TotaD Davis Et: $11,890.00
To GOGoDy, subrralt the ioDDowing hformatuon:
"Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
"Pre-application Conference Summary.
S' Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant. -
yf•
Er Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
Dotal deposit for review of the application.
Ic r"A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of
how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application.
( Proposed elevations of the development
f,.
la `li 0 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
hAn 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is
based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations
that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P16
May 7,2012
John Collett
1111 Metropolitan Ave,#700
Charlotte,NC 282043424 .
City of Aspen
Aspen Community Development Department
do Sara Nadolny
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen,Colorado 81611
RE: Lot 2,Gaylord Subdivision
1260 Red Butte Drive
Parcel ID. #273501316002
Dear Sara,
I,John Collett,the Applicant to the Aspen Community Development Department
for a Planning and Zoning Commission review of the property referenced above,
authorize Stan Mathis to act on my behalf regarding this application.
Thank you,
`� --
1 .i .y
hn Collett
RECEPTfOhtf: $79=42, 95I12J2 911 at P1 7
11:45:42 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 OF $252.20 Dec Code
WD
Documentary Fee $252.20 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitltin County,CO
WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, made May 12, 2011,
Between RIVER AMERICAN PROPERTIES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
of the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, GRANTOR,
AND JOHN COLLETT, GRANTEE
whose legal address is : 2635 SHERWOOD AVE..CHARLOTTE, NC 28207-2548
of the County of , State of NORTH CAROLINA
WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable
consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted,
bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm
unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any,
situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows:
LOT 2,
GAYLORD SUBDIVISION,according to the Plat thereof recorded July 28, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 20.
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in anywise
appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof,and all the
estate, right, title, interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to
the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the
said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances, unto the grantee,his heirs and
assigns forever.And the Grantor, for its self, its heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant,bargain, and
agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of
these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure,perfect,absolute and
indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law,in fee simple,and has good right,full power and lawful authority
to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid,and that the same are free
and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens,taxes, assessments, encumbrances and
restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit"A"attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER
DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee,his heirs
and assigns,against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The
singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable
to all genders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this deed.
SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2
1
Fi 1.
NO_ f-13.1... 7-7" t.4 n.
51t2/1/ /44/ 1-10/5Z7 57,2/,,
P18 -
SIGNATURE PAGE TO WARRANTY DEED
PAGE 2
RIVER AMERICAN PROPERTIES, LLC,A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY:
TITLE: MANA
_ .
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this la day of MAY,2011.
by FRANK GOLDSMITH. MANAGER OF RIVER AMERICAN PROPERTIES, LLC, A COLORADO
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
WITNESS my hand and official seal • 41111".
my commission expires: 1 Mary Public
(g4 I'..e '
' ". Y
• PCT23099W4 �. '
•
P19
EXHIBIT"A"
1. Taxes for the year 2011 not yet due or payable.
2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to
penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at
Page 5.
3, Easement granted to Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District, recorded July 23, 1970 in Book 249 at Page 601,as it
affects subject property.
4. Easements, setbacks and restrictions as shown on plat of Gaylord Subdivision, recorded July 28, 1976 in Plat
Book 5 at Page 20.
5. Terms, conditions, covenants and obligations as set forth in Subdivision Agreement recorded July 28, 1976 in
Book 314 at Page 775.
6. Those terms,conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as set forth
in Protective Covenants for Gaylord Subdivision recorded July 5, 1977 in Book 331 at Page 377 and Resolution of
Architectural Committee recorded November 29, 1999 as Reception No. 438066, and Resolution of the Lot
Owners recorded April 17, 2008 as Reception No. 548415, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating any
preference, limitation or discrimination based on race,color,religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national
origin.
7. Encroachments of house and wood deck into 25 foot building set back as shown on Improvement Survey
prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, dated 03/01/11 as Job No. 2011-321.001.
• 8. Encroachment of landscape berm from adjoining property as shown on Improvement Survey prepared by
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, dated 03/01/11 as Job No. 2011-321.001.
P20
May 14, 2012
Stan Mathis
7515 Coal Creek Circle
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80911
719.390.6065
719.391.8199 Fax
970.618.6636 Cell
pinbaC dogs(d).gr ail.cci?i
City of Aspen
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
°c/o Sara Nadolny
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lot 2, Gaylord Subdivision
1260 Red Butte Drive
Parcel ID. #273501316002
Dear Commission Members,
The Applicant,John Collett, is requesting a Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variance,
for Residential Design Standards Section 26.410.040 (D) (1)(a) and (b). The home is
under construction at 1260 Red Butte Drive. There are two street facing front doors. The
door that enters the mud room is defined by the design standards as the street facing door
to the home. The practical entry door to the home is in the center of the courtyard, -34'
back from the front-most wall of the building. The maximum distance allowed is 10'.
There is a 7'-3" deep covered porch that extends the width of the courtyard at the font
door. The roof extends 3'-7"at the door. The area of this porch is—125 s.f.
The Applicant is requesting a variance to define the actual entry in the center of the
courtyard as the street facing entry door so that currently defined street facing door can
be eliminated.
The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context
in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard.
In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may
consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures,
the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is
necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
P21
RESPONSE:
In this area of the City, unlike the "West End", the lots are not uniform in shape,
size and alignment. In this area the lots are large and the majority of the homes
along Red Butte Drive do not have street facing doors or meet the definition of a
street facing door.
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints.
RESPONSE:
The lot the house is on is wedge shaped and further constrained by a 25' side
yard set back required by the Gaylord Subdivision. For this reason we have a
wedge shaped floor plan with a welcoming courtyard to greet visitors and by
passers. The courtyard offers more open space to the public.Having the street
facing door in the courtyard would be a more logical location than where it is
required to be under the Residential Design Standards.
Thank you for considering this variance request. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Thank ou,
"*.4 Ot„,2,714CL-1160:4
Stan Mathis
Representative for John Collett
•
map of aspen colorado -Google Maps Page 1 of 2 f 1
P22
To see all the details that are visible on the
screen, use the"Print"link next to the map.
Gok.)( 1':
, C ,
. ,
4, •
,
\.•
A ,
c:-
... - - --- ——--
\
.., ,
..& 7.0
-Y Q- Sik 7C.,
\ „
•4.1 i
• t
I ,
• .,, ,,
1 i• 1 ,,
11260 Red Butte Dr 1
'1. 0,
fh • 52
S1111ict Rd ,,,„,-1 i 1.3 t $: • V
1 A•7,.:L,
1)::
i'
1 1 $ . n
1 1 , 1 ,-•-• - rg
1
,.a.,
, \•-1, Ii.
9 . ...
I _ .,.e 0• I 41r Dr 41; (, .
.r.t. I s 1 •,
_
I
.
.
"te•0,-, 0 1.._ 114-31.mtait;1,-, r,
' .0 R,:.• ,---,, -. •tr.,,,r '.
i' ■ i? - c-is k,
1
1--
. % ..
' • .—
kV.)
I• , 6, •,,. (.,, Red Bute / W•4e.;(1,-,‘[,:.
Rec.cvl ,
, o •-
_,. *4. .. CeMetely - -
, *4 .
IlL' i
* [
, 7,-. . •
[ "r+-• , :3
! 0 –
-a(r.4) :
[ i
I ...„.1 , to 02
, Ill P 1
,•‘ 1v I
\• 1 i P,
. . ri ,:_- ,
I
,, C v
1 . ,3; ,- -',
.4 ., '". I.; 1
I ' N. , , . ,
..,•, , W. •
I .Z,•—b . .i,
, ...„
, I
r ■' ' ,..-',) ;
.c. .
1
▪ 4.._ •
' rt.
-.3- , --/ ;..H:i
/ ' -- ./..v.. ,wk. J
m. 4 . 'gam si .,1
e.Fi. e
1260 Red Butte Drive
.,
,4.7 1...' .5 •• el 4- .: '4'bkii
• VICINITY MAP ,.:::_,._,.„,_:—...._-.c;;;,0., ,., .:. .c., z )
u.• ..- ..,
r 1 ti,„
ii ..0..- ,
wit,1
1 i , 2p- ;: ,
6 ' .:,
n.
r ; I. 1
:§: ..., 4' -1 I !..
I'
.,.. .. -*
Mii-data 02012 GocigIe.".:, !
hftp://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS278US278&q=map+of+aspen+colorad... 5/16/2012
N 0
Resolution No. 14 M 0 a PT
(SERIES OF 2012)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING ELEMENTS RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARD AT 1260 RED BUTTE DRIVE, LOT: 2 GAYLORD
SUBDIVISION, CITY ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273501316002
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
John Collett, represented by Stan Mathis, Stan Mathis Architecture, requesting Variance approval
from the Entry Door Residential Design Standard at 1260 Red Butte Drive; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances, the Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Variance from Residential
Design Standard—Building Elements (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.(D)(1)(a); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved this Resolution No 14, (Series of 2012) to deny the variance request
by a five to zero(5 —0)vote.
WHEREAS, the 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 CITY OF APSEN PLANNING AND
ZONNING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies a variance from the following Residential
Design Standard:
L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.(D)(1)(a), Building Elements — Street oriented entrance and principal
window. (Requiring the entry door face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building. A variance is granted to permit the entry door to be more than ten (10)
feet back from the front-most wall of the building as outlined in exhibit A of this resolution.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has determined the variance request meets the review
criteria outlined in L.U.C. Section 26.410.020(D)(1)(a).
Section 2:
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.
Section 3:
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 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on August 7, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING
COMMISSION:
Jim True, special Counsel LJ Ersparmer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: South Elevation
111145 C 1
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Nadolny,Planning Technician
•
THRU: Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: August 7,2012
RE: 122 E.Durant Ave. (Durant Lodge)—Consolidated Conceptual
and Final Commercial Design Reviews
Applicant/Owner: Staff Recommendation:
Hotel Durant LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission continue the commercial design
Representative: review and require the Applicant to revise their
Phillip Ring,RDS Inc. design prior to returning to the Commission.
Ken Adler,KA DesignWorks Inc.
Summary:
Location: The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Hotel Durant, commonly known as 122 E. Zoning Commission approval of the application
Durant Ave.,Aspen CO 81611 for Final Commercial Design Review for the
remodel of the existing building located at 122
Current Zoning&Use E. Durant Ave.
This property is located in the Lodge (L)
zone district. The building is currently used
as a lodge.
•
Proposed Land Use:
The Applicant is proposing to remodel and
expand the existing lodge structure from a
total of 6,904 square feet to 10,642 square
feet. The lodge unit count and use will
remain unchanged.
Figure A:Current image of subject property
1
P2
LAND USE REQUESTAND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Final Commercial Design Review—Mountain Lodge Character Area pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.412.050. An application for Commercial Design Review
requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve,
approve with conditions or disapprove of the application.
BACKGROUND: 122 E. Durant Ave. was developed with a three-story, 20-unit lodge in 1963,
known as the Hotel Durant. A significant remodel of the property took place in 1985, and a
limited remodel occurred in 2005. The lodge is located in the Lodge (L) zone district near the
base of Lift 1A, adjacent to the downtown Commercial Core, between Garinisch St. and Aspen
St. on Durant Ave. The Applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing lodge to increase the
size of the units and provide amenities,without increasing the number of rooms.
h- F. N i yry y 4 r
W"c Y e r ! .' Sig
-i' r / � ,
rya_ .
sf r9!
`4 �'�-; � .+f moo. _ 1 ,m. c�< ...ilir M
5',S µ j,R� .y i -E,ITT .
Ar
V i� r ' s FO1q� ` l
• Fi �+ qe
71.!..J,,15.7,4_
i
. o„ Haan °,`:`c : f,'r„; f
'J AT ' Jean e -,0 X ''*',C
Figure B:Vicinity Map,location of subject property
Existing Conditions
The lot is 6,006 square feet in total size. The existing floor area for Hotel Durant is 6,904 square
feet, with a height of 35' 6” at its highest measuring point (1/3rd point between the eave and the
ridge). This lodge is a three-story building containing 20 lodge units, which range in size from
176 sf to 305 sf.
2
P3
�._•_.'_•\..._2---,--j. i • a. A single parking space exists on-site off of the
L l : ��� _ S'S a9' 4211: alley at the building's rear (northern) facade,
i ::: !• '°.' �..-' ® ° :f° `d with nine additional head-in parking spaces
-_( along Durant Ave. at the building's front
!iI --��� °10.51.,y Y'= '':` façade, within the public right-of-way. The
�I F�R� .� �` p
.:II I t; >
1.,, 6or''I.
— �.�'k *;$ },. site, as exists, contains 2,282 sf(38%) of land
1�� �R, ;j9'' b K�" area that qualifies as public amenity. The
5 �f .
�'f,,. -.�- ....�;�: ' trash/recycling/utility area is located on the
` °; r, ;:,'«->.. K"5 alley that runs along the north side of the
2 t '' <a`' , parcel.
-�' d lI k'C]'> '. Y Yom;• I
w);43,10,....-4`;/::*.*v h z, t �: Proposed Project
;;;;.4: ems `1 a:r: A tire^ i�,
�' � t''; w T,> �— The Applicant is proposing to remodel and
. «....,o` 6` ' expand the existing lodge, maintaining the
O3 t S.'!'": : majority' of the existing lodge building, and
,. I: ,'* t'°''''' .<r5, increasing the building by 3,738 s£ This
) ,....<�l ? . �-,,. ,� G remodel will bring the total size of the lodge
'�°" 5�. building to 10,642 sf. On average, the unit
z I i,< Apo ,,5. ,:
{ y"� r ry sizes will be increased 95 sf,ranging from 291
%�TA?,y�r.
..J S; 4a —0; -' _r sf to 401 sf.
1
IjG�;i, �_�"' i�:'��> � The proposal includes the addition of a fourth
'i"N n; 7, ,,._° 4. .4 story that will contain a fitness room, a hot
Y �.rx>4:5 " .. a p„ss1 1�^` �i tub, an open air deck, and a single lodge unit.
r 5 t t
*> 't v ;° ,%6 a °2° '° , : '�6 5'. The proposal further includes the addition of
i'6.11::":=z1:','t ''J , o �,-s- M,� &:;_{ an elevator along the Western façade and an
� y> ,�v .: `}q F �µw, c. x ,.r;� s' increase in the existing front and rear stairwell
4,r ,,.. k s ;;Y `1"? , ::;� " s:c : �, heights to provide adequate egress for the
' " rR i� b0.06, TF
.. :r-'• JAI fourth floor (specifics to be discussed in the
gat Atli, i a itui, ali i;1i' 1 /mil'�1 Building Height, Mass, and Scale later in this
`I ll�h memo). The Applicant proposes a slight
b i�. 3 m i reduction in the amount of open space from
'4'14130 as �1 2,282 sf(38%)to 2,222 sf(37%).
- �. "'' ` al 2 i iffairi No changes are being proposed to the current
Figure C:Existing site plan depicting property parking, or to the trash/recycling/utility area.
boundaries and public ROW
3
P4
, f
j ar -
It.V, V .,..-fit," g lak
.1 f. ____... s „.... ,,
size ` a,. _____ .2= .,5;
_.,..... .„,.
f t ti r aT- 4 j aI _ .
sum
4 t
Figure D:Current image of lodge Figure E:Proposed image of lodge
The remodel and expansion of the Hotel Durant requires the applicant to meet the policies of the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For this project,
the Applicant proposes the removal of the roof to change from the pitched style roof to generally
flat roofs, the addition of a fourth floor, and the removal of the western wall to build an addition
and increase the square footage of the building. No new units are proposed, but the existing
units will be reconfigured within the floor plan.
As the number of lodge units (or pillows, per the Land Use code) stays the same, no net leasable
space is being added, therefore not requiring mitigation. However, there may be additional
impact fees, such as Parks or Transportation Demand Management fees, as a result of any new
development.
STAFF COMMENTS
Commercial Design Review:
This application is required to undergo review under the Commercial Design standards as the
standards apply to all commercial, lodging, and mixed use development containing a commercial
component within the City of Aspen. The property is located in the Mountain Base Character
Area of the Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.
The location of the Mountain Base Character Area is between the city's commercial center and
the base of the mountain. This area encompasses the most focused concentration of lodge
development within the City. The purpose of design within this area is to create a pedestrian-
friendly street edge and buildings with a sense of human scale that reflect the natural topography
of the mountain base area. Designs should also encourage pedestrian activity by providing an
interconnected circulation system and street level uses, as well as maintaining views to the
mountains and existing natural features.
4
P5
A consolidated conceptual and final review requires an examination of the placement of the
building on the site, the mass of the building, and the building's relationship to streets, alley,
parking and public spaces as well as the appearance of the design and the type and quality of
materials used for the building's remodel.
Overall, Staff's review of the application provides the following recommendations:
• Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code.
• Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one
district.
• Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front façade to
soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale.
• Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway.
Conceptual Review Design Guidelines(Exhibit D of the Staff memo):
Street&Alley System
The lodge is located on E. Durant Ave., and an alleyway is located at the building's rear façade. The
building is situated between two residential multi-family properties; a two-story building to the west,
and a three-story building to the east. The subject site is
17,-1:t.",---n-c -: 7-=_-----m�-
a small lot that maintains city's established grid pattern. L: r+ , ‘ 'E-.42 L ,mod
A sidewalk exists at the property line for the building s., ,r ' .4 - -
located to the east that concludes before the Hotel j;�f -, I 1 °"
Durant. The Applicant proposes to continue this ...1 t i ■ - � —.
sidewalk across the front façade of the lodge building,to l F - IIU '
1
the property's edge. This will serve to enhance g-
ii
1 I 2p
pedestrian circulation and safety throughout this area, as ,,, so,
well as increase opportunities for connectivity and r ` ;
access to the property. The Applicant has also proposed ,� - 6 r-- �l
a paved walkway from the sidewalk to the elevator ' ,-' l r L, -
tower on the western portion of the property. Staff finds ,•I,
these guidelines to be met.
al'u1
.
Parking
•
The lodge has one existing on-site parking space, off of r` Yr
the alley. Nine additional parking spaces can be found • ', - .1 ''2 C'_`.1."
on Durant Ave. in the public right-of-way, which are
available to the general public. There is a current on-site F
deficit of nine parking spaces. The code states that upon 1 _- ,_® .--__l
p g p � I i� �� i
redevelopment of a property any existing deficit in = 1l�l - ;' I
parking spaces is allowed to be maintained. Staff finds
these guidelines to be met. `'
._.
Topography O. ..
The building's proposed design largely depends on the
existing lodge structure, with a significant expansion Figure F;Yellow=on-site parking space.
on the western side of the property. This planned Green=proposed public amenity space.
5
P6
expansion does not significantly alter the site's topography. The building is designed to face Durant
Ave. and the landscaped front lawn. The materials are compatible with the character area and the
surrounding natural landscape. Staff fmds these guidelines to be met.
Public Amenity Space
The proposed public amenity space will be in the form of ; { - -fi—
green space that begins at the property's edge of the Durant Ind
Ave. facade and extends to both sides of the building (see
Figure F above). This public amenity space will comprise ; ' j It + I'
2,222 sf, or 37% of the total property, and will exceed the J�, ) }
25% that is required by the code. It is proposed at street X ° ;i '��.
level, visually apparent, unenclosed, and the portion that is _ ; Ii
located on the front southern façade of the building will
receive the maximum amount of solar gain. The public
amenity is proposed to be landscaped lawn and will contain i _
an area for bench seating and a table. Staff finds these
guidelines to be met.
nia
I Pi
Building Placement -?
The Applicant proposes to meet or exceed all required j
setbacks for the Lodge zone district. The western side yard - 1 L flL
will meet the required setback of 5'. The existing eastern ' t K
side yard setback of 10' 6"exceeds the 5' side yard setback i1-= I -
requirement and is not changing with this application. The
i I
existing front yard setback of 10' is maintained and allows L p
,:a
for green space and landscaping. The rear setback will
remain unchanged at 6'11". r
The building's primary entrance is re-oriented toward E.
Durant Ave. and has been enhanced to create a more ---
entryway to the building. Staff finds these
guidelines t0 be met. Figure G:Orange indicates the area of increased
building footprint
Building Height,Mass& Scale
The building is being proposed at a height of 39' 6" at the building's highest roofline. The Lodge
zone district allows up to 38' in height by right for a lodge with one or more lodge units per 500
sf of Gross Lot Area, which may be increased to 40' through approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission during commercial design review. As the building is proposed, the
Applicant is requesting the Planning&Zoning Commission consider and approve this additional
two foot request. This variation is requested to allow the fourth story. The floor to ceiling plate
height of the fourth floor is 8' 6 %". The two foot increase in height will enable the inclusion of
the fourth floor lodging unit and fitness room.
The Design Guidelines provide five circumstances to aid in determining if an additional height
request should be permitted. To summarize,these include the following:
6
P7
• To achieve at least two foot variation in height with an adjacent building.
o Staff fmds there is more than a two-foot variation already in existence between
the adjacent buildings on either side of the proposed remodel. Staff fmds this
project does not meet this criterion.
• The primary function of the building is civic.
o This building will maintain its use as a lodge, and does not qualify as a civic use
building. Staff fmds this project does not meet this criterion.
• Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a
historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may
be appropriate.
o Staff notes there are no such conditions that affect this property. Staff fmds this
project does not meet this criterion.
• To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
o This building is not proposed with any affordable housing units. Staff finds this
project does not meet this criterion.
• To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
buildings overall energy efficiency,for instance by providing improved day-lighting.
o The Applicant is suggesting that the primary reason for the height increase and
raised stairwell roof at on the Durant Ave. façade is to allow for efficiency in
regards to the heating and cooling of the building. At the time of this memo,this
has yet to be verified by the Building Dept. as a reason for the height increase.
Staff does not support the Applicant's request for the additional two foot height allowance. At
this time the Applicant has not met any of the standards for receiving this variance. Furthermore,
the inclusion of a fourth floor will add additional height to the building due to the required means
of egress. Per chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c)Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land
Use Code, the stair tower on the front façade is allowed to exceed the height limit by 5', and the
side elevator and rear stair tower by 10'. Although the design does not fully take advantage of
these heights,these egress elements will create an even greater height on nearly every side of this
building.
It is a goal of the character area to maintain views to natural features, and these views through
the property will be compromised by this height increase. Staff fmds this guideline to not be
met.
7
P8
-
_s._� _ -40' height line
I III I ( �
jriTi 1 4 ,
°!;I -� � i , --,- Height of stair tower 43 (as
1, I _ measured to halfway point
- I I 1 Ti I �] f �—,� - — of eave)
�� ti -- ? ', a
_ _ E , I1I tl i , ii11 Ill..„......
. - r � . ` ® ,i,,.,,n,TI r
111116-2 111111kl =t== I '1 1001111 :1111111 -
■ �� Figure H(left):South façade with heights
—f !:! `� 11 depicted.
...c.r1 ..ipa I.t 2 �c'� � i
- ----v—r-x---- 127/S%"*/ N//7* (6\'',/ ,/ **// • 7Z,
, ‘,%///4/,‘\y/oie 4 /4 /4 ,. .‹,/ ,./NAT
‘,.,,/,:/.4.,./:•,,./0. „4 4 ,,,,v41./. ...,,4. ;,.4..,(\4/7, ...A, ( z.,
Figure I(below):Western façade with
heights depicted.
Height of stair tower 41'11" Height of elevator 44'2"(as
(as measured to halfway measured to halfway point _
point of eave) of eave)
rl jj T I.i ;
I
1
___ 1 i H IIR _ 11 ij_ili 11 _1 h' _ 33181131
' IE � ' 1F IE e it
ii II
eE
40' height l i
line ! W
I, F $9$9 ill
II0I e�
rt in
`• ^� : • /r��� 4 J r'fi ' v/•� .f`et. r� Y:tr 4`!,'h\ ;msisr, .c��Y -/ >>';.<ti's::ti:I1, \; 7•:: i (�} \,, ,-.(' ? "
P9
Staff has further concerns regarding the design relating to the perceived mass of the building.
The original application depicts a front balconied area for the second and third story rooms that
cantilevers over the front entrance. Staff finds this shadow box style balcony with its decks, and
the railing on the stairway below, adds mass to the building that feels out of context with.the rest
of the design. The Applicant has worked with Staff to develop an alternative that allows the
balconies and style of entryway to remain, but with a lighter feel. Staff supports the alternative
design to this front entryway and balcony with its lighter balconied areas and open entryway to
the building. Staff finds the alternative design(Figure K)to meet the guidelines.
ellill.11111111..----'. --
i
I it
_ I I ` (lip III["';;.+ .
'�'UI IIIIII �.�
-1, I[1 1,11(1 ^ F .1
',.! 111!!! ' Le2-..---z—',_'----__,::c=-,:4412, ,i'iL. '.—L., --,..-,,,,“- 1 - ( t:,..!*--'.. ,1:::4
■ II, , .;.�
,� _ '
,i 0,...
... ,
____,,
�/
Figure J:Originally proposed design Figure K:Alternative proposed design
Final Review Design Guidelines(Exhibit E of the Staff memo):
Building Design&Articulation:
The building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge, as the Applicant is
maintaining many of the existing features, such as the front facade stairwell. Staff feels the
Applicant should explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid in reducing the perceived
scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower's front face presents as an entire
row of windows. This glazing creates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After meeting
with Staff, the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reduces the amount of glazing on
9
13 1 0
glazing on the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staff does not support this
alternative design as a remedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower
creates a sense of even more floors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part
of the front façade does not assist in creating a feeling of reduced scale. Staff recommends the
Applicant re-examine the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the
perceived scale of the building, and creating a more human scale. Staff finds these guidelines
to not be met.
ft
I,
;;I:11i1Y a —,•
1
14.i ".. ,`,.------ - irek-----' , ' ,\-1 _
_,-.;-_,--__-_-_ _ ,
____,-,___ ,,,.,,-
.,_. . t.-,. - „..„,..5,
Figure L:Originally proposed stair tower,south facade Figure Al: Alternative proposed stair tower,south facade
Architectural materials are varied on both the building's facades as well as the roofs, which are
proposed as a mix of metal and green roofmg. All mechanical units proposed for the roof will
be grouped and screened from view. Staff finds these guidelines to be met.
The roof styles, however, lack variation in profile, in that they are of flat style as opposed to
the gabled roof that currently exists. The flat roofs add a greater mass to the building. Staff
finds this guideline to not be met.
According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the
building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating
the feeling that the first floor is the most prominent. The floor to floor heights do not meet the
design guidelines of a minimum 11' for the first floor or the 9' floor to ceiling height on all
10
P11
floors, as this is a remodel and expansion project. Staff finds these guidelines to be not
applicable.
SIDING MATERIALS ROOFING MATERIALS
Architectural Materials:
The Applicant is proposing to THrISET SIMS VEMEE7 STI.GC0 S?ANEIN35EA IA 4LETAL IACRIiG
employ high quality and
durable materials in this ' ° '' r,4
design.. These include: -. •
• Thinset stone veneer
stucco
• Wood rainscreen
• CV grain vertical cedar
siding
• Standing seam metal 4' .
roofing 4
• Liveroof modular green r.,
roof system
r\CC O RANSCSEGI CV GRANT V_FfCAL CECAASIfiWG LtJERGOFS!X113AF.R GREEN NCC:F SYSfED
i
Figure N:Proposed materials
Staff finds these materials to be appropriate and to convey the quality and range of materials
used in the design of the existing buildings in the character area.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department Staff recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission continue the requests for Commercial Design Review, with
the following recommended changes.
• Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code.
• Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one
district.
• Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front facade to
soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale.
• Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to
approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave."; however, Staff
recommends continuation of the hearing to a date certain.
11
P12
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Commercial Design Review
Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards
Exhibit C - Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area
Exhibit D - Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines
Exhibit E - Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines
Exhibit F - Application
Exhibit G - Department Review Memos
Exhibit H - Letters from Neighbors
12
P13
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN FOR LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 70, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND FRACTIONAL LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 2 OF THE
EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS HOTEL DURANT, 122 E. DURANT AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID:
2735-131-04-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Hotel Durant LLC (Applicant), represented by Phillip Ring, RDS Inc, requesting the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Commercial Design for a remodel of Hotel
Durant; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.412 of the Land Use Code, commercial design
review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 7, 2012 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended
approval of the consolidated final commercial design with the findings and conditions listed
hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for
Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review have been met, as long as certain conditions
are implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves
the Commercial Design Review, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, for the Hotel Durant building, subject to the conditions listed below.
Section 1:
Approval of the consolidated Final Commercial Design does not preclude meeting other
requirements of the Municipal Code, such as Engineering and Parks standards. Drawings
illustrating the approved design are attached as exhibits to this Resolution.
Section 2:
The Planning and Zoning Commission grants the Applicant approval to vary the height of the
Hotel Durant remodel and expansion from 38' to 40'. The building will be increased by a total
of 3,738 sf. The unit count will remain unchanged at 20 units. The building shall be compliant
with the underlying zone district's dimensional standards.
1
P14
Section 3: Public Amenity Space
The approved public amenity space shall comprise 2,222 sf, or 37% of the total requirement, to
be maintained on-site. The public amenity space will consist of a landscaped green area at the
front and sides of the property, with a table and bench seating.
Section 4: Trash/Recycling
The trash/recycling area exists off of the north façade alleyway. This area will be improved to
meet the standards of the code as a space that is a minimum of 15 linear feet and can
accommodate one trash dumpster and at least four recycling collection bins.
Section 5: Building
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements when a building permit is
submitted.
Section 6: Engineering
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department. The design must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
requirements. A construction management plan shall be submitted prior to obtaining a building
permit.
Section 7: Sidewalk Curb and Gutter
All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A
final grading plan depicting the improvements in the right-of-way must be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to building permit issuance.
Section 9: Parking
Parking that is within the public right-of-way will not be dedicated to the Hotel Durant without
an easement.
Section 8: Parks
Landscaping in the public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way
requirement, Chapter 21.20, of the Municipal Code. There shall be no plantings within the City
right-of-way which are not approved by the City Parks and Engineering departments. Per
Municipal Code 13.20, an approved tree permit will be required prior to any tree removal or
development within the drip line of the tree. All tree permits must be approved prior to approval of
building permits.
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 10: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
2
P15
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Section 12: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Section 13: Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 14: Impact Fees
Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development
fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees, as applicable. The
amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the
calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time.the Applicant submits a Building
Permit.
Section 15:
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.
Section 16:
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.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on August 7, 2012.
LJ Erspamer,Chairman
3
P16
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A—Site Plan
Exhibit B—Elevations
4
P17
• Resolution Exhibit A
Site Plan
N
OratN hltey
W *I E
— S
■ \--��� O,F ,��• —_—_® .F pu pad 10
1 - IM— —''' —I
l e � s�° :C �5�m I i
a►
p ���.iii���.yyy,,,�
I. i• II Ai 0 2:•�*..,
429 Sq k H ilk 6O O ( r
I-- 1 I r--� I I Wog
11 i;,,Foi I 0,4.
I' 1 I �bhfiv
. 1 1 i f
i
'
�^ '
N
\• Ho21DUre]1
...,..._—= .7S S for Ro§1
111 P.Eurm156rd Fo,1yp11
Is I®
•
I �1
• ...
1 � _ 1116, . �1 1•
-1 I111J 6 I 5•.
I H
ACyrt.Ceac
Olrb L q.tk r ...
\ Sr Cen°rzte Adew°:k
\t■■ \ 41*I\•\ 11111 ' \
1
•+ ` \ \
) . a �' � i > O Proposed SitePlan
East Durant Ave.
5
CO
I—
1 Cl-
CO
s O
w r� ,
C >
O CU
w
o -i-J
au O
cc v) _
.4`
'le 1...±,-11.� o
w t
liL J w o w
Lu ,i, °1 0 zW
°
J W co p N W � 1JI-' -I LL JI- - WI I Z I
o O t
• O 1 0_ l I mU O -o U O C - LL J 1 1 O1 1. O 0 I �u._~ W H H u_ I zI
IL So �Z C LL I I Q I I I 4.o_ Z:1 �1 I
w I I rnO u O 'o 1 I I � OI 1
g�� i liow
1_ I -p{_y1{lti lfiRflYiR• Sitlsf6{t11i1111ti1{9l'A`X11!_lt6►*flfiRllLf�A1RL11Yf7tA'J
" ■1 .c..� \\\
• x+F
J
_i_ i!T! = I)):<
�, i I1 i �e QWH
°11. "''"1 g, ss.r, I:1 'iii 41 z
R r�r*n o
N 1 I, , TI1 j 1dW
h r— r, f.r ; .s rjr:
r k /\•
W
<YW —I �, ; _' 1 � � J' 1c sz
J 4
W U — = s w_a—IR/W11111,101101,!. ,- - ,..., ,j,._ ,,-r.. -- . .- r
2 — 11 I IT,lQa �`i I I� I_', I 1 -�•1�4 �'� I W
W I [ " '!J 0 O ; i ' ��i �i �� i i ==1-' �' I O
W 2 4 W I , :. ,`j lDi ,ti' t 10 1111 II !I1_ L. UULI ■1 I,I 1t■ W
<a I , 1 iliffsialif \
b l: -I 1 ' . ri.: ' 4 11 LlrilL iriCilill"Alit- 11Ull—' 0-11-110 \ \ 1 I--
o 1- a z I ,errmiriiurmrsr saamrrrrliUruntimrruunnurfWI l�1■dI1 �I�f II\< .smaaaassol pit( mi, -I
W W W
ce J I ,n,_ 4 ®�-, F ice\
J
I Il—I ® 1i1 I' I.
I-I
U M r Ifl:'�y,'� I! MINE lEIL lgpLMS j'EL7,1''!9'1:95 +'EN111211311'11,.,�. co p Q� 'i 441
isi' WI' . 100 001)0 001`-'4:
I � ¢ 1
1
Oc o I w
I- - 7
0ODQ �
I- d
(3' W J
`}
W _
T
•
•
• -v
• j
Co•
1 I ! I 1
•
• I 1 I I 1 •
vii
\jib I
•
\
I
IP\ 1
r - --
I� ,
. 11. I 1 1 I �. 1 �1 �i,:. 1 I j - : 1 .
Mil &,,''
I F , i ! I — g, I - 1
I
1 1 � X 1 1 1 , 11 I 'I 1 , � , , , , I I ,,,�
I 1• 1 I 1 , I 1I 1; I ,
., 1 IC II i j ,•4
I II_..- ...r.2--_. 'I ..' �c ..:Li LL im ' f [L_ ' yap d\ , 111
a47ie$S2 8&l�df ( 'f
4 a da'1. is fi - t� � rl
2p
I I I 67 J v ' AI 2 t r ,r t i vA 'ri; kT �'
\IP Ia o� �R„.� , �, _ r , It i" -�-r-,
v , �r �� s�rraai+QU��Prru
-
IP
ausimissima
I 1!'
,__,..• i ..,,,
4 ,
_...„.„:„.„..„..,..„,,...4.„, ,,Y•r",-„.•4 ....2.-...M.W-;:-::-,•:•_A.7E3 ,: -r.F.,.4'_,ITATAF,"44.glf,:”.. 7024".4t. , k. ..-.. . ......• • , r. +.• 1
4 1 r\ - — --
II
1 / .
1 IH I I
•
•
H o H -1
o -., p 10
• Iz I• I I>
7J
r
r
7:1
i . - Ir m
I-<r
o T
C) C rn or Irn o
z
i�r C
� r R
C! rn� to O 11 D
co
°orn o
rn�IIr
w rn C`=
. z O,-.%
D
Ix)
p
r O
°°
111 0) co co
D
'die 1
rD o
< =
. 9;- m
•
o n-
•
CO MEM
. N
o d
M N 0 r La> w
d I d:zJp
CO j n-QlOD= ` III
w j O�O O <
� =(AI I-- CL
ID w
R
: C - -
X 1 %' W
W - M - z 1-
-( w * �+
Zo CO W W
`J C rn
>
O J Jg J O r1' 11.-0` 4 1) L.1 d� 0I�, , w I_r, W I_� W F-�✓ W cp r- o0 o O to
wlty OIL Wlr Wio Wlo Qp wl�
O O >-i
N Ii >-
l I � rn
I 0 I O m c?� I~ 0
( I I I U I I I I
co - _
/7 1 0,_, ~I C c ., O w
1 WI= z
LLB QI I ?I I z r I I
OEri
w
I^ .1 1
H l
o
U) 1 I I
W
u LugF I \‹ I
II<.,i ,��,.,Imdlu�i a1_,,i(�GcJuawA,,,,I ,(i..,,I L L I .1L. 11(;j i,
\\
O �i
F- ' rT iq 'v i` JI I
o I N" �r�— —__ - —_—� ti 1°1
III LI I�I�1lIJ. \9r►\\\ .
0 u_ \o z ®� j l I' I �- )\\� I o \losokik.tij CC LU J CC} — - — ' 1 qi �I�i`sii a l am� I
m
m I • I I I i'4�1 �V/ ?
W J O I_ U`k _ - kll �I 'I III! '2 I
a _ )
a.Z W-U l III , 1 I I I I i, \
I
_ \_I , I I I I 1
W W 2 V I I
I I
I II I
i
I
i 1
I
opI
- a 1� L _-1___
�i. r �r/ z- ' \�
—
/�
Q
d F w ice-- . i� Dom'
H- m C k ®siar•wriurnnuieo1MINII .aina■I®fir t: ifj�,'\
Qw R
Jr ow I h -
I I I Q r _E` __ �_. -I - \\�
W
Q 0 m , w a®IwtA miaiLIiiIII IAe�l�W I®®.ICI -Lx,z m 71111 ■N\t<Lri 1._-11 uA 7 II r ji Jit�wft • I
-r 1rAN1 ■ a I t \ \` ��
o w \ \`
z= —
\\\ I
11;
N Ir fir-`' _,,,1 'g
t F x timraaraearoieeeaeS►\
4 v
1 d LL LL J I 400
O-O p LL c , Off-LL III r
`« _ (A$
F- D W Z_ICI
E<LL <3 0rn0-
V` W d=d-
2 n I O
-v
• N
j
•
s\\'!L��llifaLl .
\`� \\
...�.... .... I............. is=:aeeacv:,a F,...amta�. .......bfdn... !7ij 1 ��, 1
I I I !!it ;:-•
_ : i7'I-
'P‘s .
* i;g121'I'.ft1i1iiIb I t H• o
1 1° IIr__ ..I r
\ :11 m
cn
I \Y Z
u ..
»
pus —
I 1
m
m
- I•L
- l P .
j
i m
p
z
•
•
rte\, — r ,. ...,....;•....-.....-;;s.[J . t _:
III,
I \\ I‘'.•
,-=''
I ' I
e��I ighw�I1I� .
— I1�`I X I 0
� — 1 I I I rn
I� I tr, LA
lO O HI Iz Iz,II- Im 1 I O =W-III- -,1 I- �I r 1 r I-
[U '-) I I I V I I I � I I I N � W I 1 1
m p C CO C -J .� 4? m W
O O P jJ r N' r Q X -P r
:i.--: CO
I
•
P22
Exhibit A
Section 26.412.050
Commercial Design Review
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 particular 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.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed a public amenity space that exceeds the required
25% of the lot size, and contributes to a pleasant pedestrian atmosphere. It will include
landscaping and a table and bench seating area. The Applicant has also proposed to continue
the sidewalk that exists at the east end of the property across the length of the property's
Durant Ave.facade. According to review of the City's Environmental Health Dept, the trash
and utility area, as currently exists, do not meet the standards for the development, as it falls
short of the required 15 linear feet. Utility service pedestals for the lodge are located along the
alleyway of the property. Delivery service areas are also incorporated along the alley.
Mechanical equipment is proposed to be vented through the roof, and it set back from the
street. This equipment is recessed behind a parapet wall so that it is not readily visible from the
public right of way. Due to the need to update the trash and recycling area, Staff finds this
criterion not to be met.
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 façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section.
Staff Response: The proposal does not include the conversion of an existing structure to a
commercial use. It exists currently as a lodge, and the additions will not change the use of the
property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Objectives and Guidelines as detennined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines
set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are 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 may
be 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)
Staff Response: Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the proposal meets the Design
Guidelines for the Mountain Base character area. Two of the key design objectives of this area
are to provide a sense of human scale and to maintain views to the mountains and other
natural features. Staff finds the proposed height of 39' 6"to be out of scale with the character
of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the fourth floor element creates a need for additional
1
P23
egress by way of two stair towers and one elevator tower. These towers are permitted by
chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c)Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code to
extend 5' above the height of the building when located on the front facade, and up to 10'
above the height of the building when located at least 15'front the building's front façade.
This additional height will have impacts on the design objective of maintaining views to the
mountains (looking north), as well as creating a building that does not respect the human scale
of the area. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
2
P24
Exhibit B
Section 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 areas.
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, 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 future potential tenants and uses.
Staff Response: As the current lodge exists, there is 2,282 sf of on-site public amenity space,
representing approximately 38% of the total parcel. The Applicant has proposed a designated
public amenity space of 2,202 sf, which represents approximately 37% of the total parcel. The
public amenity space will be found along the Durant St facade and will extend to both side
yards of the building. It will contain a bench and table seating, and will be landscaped with
native vegetation. The Applicant further proposes to install a new sidewalk along the Durant
St façade, continuing the existing sidewalk to the east, and ending at the property's western
edge. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 are encouraged.
• Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to contain public seating and a table.
The majority of the space will face south, which will serve to maximize solar gain, and will
have a view of Shadow Mountain to the west. It will be directly accessible with an at-grade
relationship to the street and proposed sidewalk extension. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-
way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the public amenity space, which will
receive maximum solar gain for the area, and is directly accessible by way of Durant St. The
Applicant further plans to include a bench and table seating in this space. These
characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
3
P25
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.
Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate any existing pedestrian space. It is
proposed as completely on-site landscaped lawn with a seating area to the west side of the
property. The proposed public amenity does not detract from the pedestrian environment, but
rather enhances the environment by the provision of landscaping,public seating and a large
buffer of green space between the building and the street. To further promote a successful
pedestrian environment, the Applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along this property
that currently exists to the east. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F.,promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
Staff Response: No variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity is
sought. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
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.
Staff Response: The current trash/recycle area is located on the north side of the property,
along the existing alleyway. According to the City's Environmental Health Dept staff, the
existing area measures 10'x10. Chapter 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycling service areas, of
the Land Use Code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. Environmental
Health Staff further recommends the Applicant provide at least four bins to collect recycling in
addition to a dumpster for trash. Staff recommends this deficiency be remedied during the
hotel's remodel. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
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.
Staff Response: The location of all utility service pedestals will remain in their current
location, which is the on the northwest corner of the property, along the alleyway. On July 5,
1979 a Multipurpose Easement was recorded for this purpose (B372P80, Rec# 216075) and
will continue to be utilized. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be
an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Response: The hotel receives laundry service biweekly. Delivery trucks park along the
alleyway for this purpose. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4
P26
•
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The
exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
Staff Response: All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end
of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 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)
Staff Response: All mechanical ventilation equipment will be ducted internally within the
building and ventilated through the roof. The existing condensation units will remain in their
current location on the roof, recessed behind the parapet wall and not visible from the public
right-of-way. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
•
5
P27
Exhibit C
Design Objectives of the
Mountain Base Character Area
Design Objectives:These are key design objectives for the Mountain Base area. The City must find that
any new work will help to meet them:
1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly street edge.
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension that will enhance the
pedestrian friendly street edge. The Applicant is further relocating the building's primary
entrance to directly face Durant St, and is enhancing the environment with landscaping. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Provide a sense of human scale.
Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the project provides an accurate sense of human
scale. Staff finds the proposed height of 39' 6" to be out of scale with the character of the
neighborhood, which contains two and three story buildings. Furthermore, the fourth floor
element creates a need for additional egress by way of two stair towers and one elevator tower.
These towers are permitted by chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height
Limitations of the Land Use Code to extend 5' above the height of the building when located
on the front façade, and up to 10' above the height of the building when located at least 15'
front the building's front façade. This additional height will have impacts on the design
objective of creating a building that does not respect the human scale of the area. Staff finds
this criterion to not be met.
3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level.
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing landscaping and a table with bench seating at the
street level. However, this is a small lodge, with no restaurant or retail proposed for this space.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Reflect the natural topography.
Staff Response: The proposed project is a remodel of the existing building,and does not
significantly alter the existing grade. The current design reflects the area's natural
topography, and the remodel will do the same. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Provide interconnected pedestrian circulation system.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed an extension of the existing sidewalk that
currently concludes on the eastern edge of the subject property, to run the length of the
6
P28
property on the Durant St facade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment in
this district.Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features.
Staff Response: The proposed development will impact views to the north, due to the addition
of the fourth floor, which has the potential to interrupt the views to the northern natural
features such as Red Mountain,as seen from the upper level of the Lift One Lodge directly
across the street from this development. This may be further compromised by the caps that are
proposed for the two stairwells and elevator shaft, which are allowed to extend between 5'past
the building's allowed height if located on the front facade, and 10'past the building's allowed
height, if located at least 15'back from the front facade. Although this proposed design does
not take advantage of the full 5-10', the caps do add mass and height to the building by rising
to 42'for the front stairwell; 43'for the western side elevator,and 41'for the rear stairwell.
The proposal does not interrupt any protected view planes. Staff finds this criterion to not be
met.
•
•
•
7
P29
Exhibit D
Mountain Base Character Area
Conceptual Review Design Guidelines
1. Street&Alley System
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant St fagade
which will increase pedestrian access to the property and circulation in the neighborhood,
increase pedestrian safety, and will serve as an extension of the sidewalk that currently exists
along the neighboring property's front facade to the east. The Applicant further proposes a paved
trail which will connect the sidewalk to the elevator tower on the property's west side. Both the
sidewalk and the trail will meet ADA accessibility requirement. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will connect to public sidewalks and
trails.
2. Parking
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing no changes to the current parking. Chapter
26.515.020 of the Land Use Code requires 0.5 spaces per lodge unit in the Lodge(L)zone
district. The property currently has one single parking space on-site, located off the rear alley of
the property, and nine additional parking spaces off-site, along E. Durant Ave. Counting the off-
site parking spaces, there is a deficit of one parking space for the 20 lodge units. According to
chapter 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking space, of the Land Use Code, this
deficit is allowed to be maintained so long as the number of lodge units does not increase. This
application does not propose any increases to the number of lodge units, therefore no additional
parking is required to be provided by the Applicant.
Staff finds the following criterion to be met:
4.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
Staff finds the following criteria to be not applicable:
4.3 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street.
3. Topography
Staff Response: The proposed expansion of the building will have no significant impact on or
changes to the site's topography. The Applicant proposes to use a natural color palette and
materials that will serve to blend the development with the natural landscape.
Staff finds the following criterion to be met:
4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape.
Staff finds the following criterion to be not applicable:
4.4 A building on a sloping site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass and scale
and reflect the natural slope of the site.
P30
4. Public Amenity Space
Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to be located primarily on the south end
of the property, abutting the proposed sidewalk that will be adjacent to Durant Ave, and
extending to either side of the front facade. This space is proposed at grade, is accessible to the
public, open to the sky, and is visible from the public way. Access is further granted by a trail
that will extend from the sidewalk to the elevator on the west side of the building. Since it is
located in the front yard area on the south end of the property, at the lodge's front facade, the
public amenity space will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. It is proposed to include a
table and seating area for public use along the property's western facade. A sidewalk extension
is proposed at the E. Durant Ave.property line, which will adjoin the existing sidewalk that
currently ends to east of this parcel.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met.
4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible.
4.7 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is visible from the public way and takes
advantage of solar potential for outdoor activities related to hotels.
4.8 Provide pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access.
Staff finds the following criterion to be not-applicable.
4.9 . Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or
close to and directly visible from the public way.
5. Building Placement
Staff Response: The majority of the building is pre-existing, and any proposed additions do not
change the placement of the current structure. The building is setback 9.8'on'the E. Durant Ave.
facade, exceeding the required five foot front setback. The west facade meets the required five
foot side setback, whereas the east facade exceeds this at 10'. The primary entrance to the lodge
is oriented toward E. Durant Ave. The front facade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the
pedestrian environment.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale, enhance public access and accommodate
landscaping where appropriate.
4.11 Orient a primary entrance to face the street or an area of open space adjacent to the street.
6. Building Height,Mass&Scale
Staff Response: At its highest point, the building is proposed at 39'6". This exceeds the 38'
height limit that is provided by right to a lodge unit of this density within the Lodge zone district.
The Applicant is requesting an increase to 40',per Land Use Code chapter 26.710.190(D)(8)(e), .
which states that this height may be increased to 40'through commercial design review. This
does not take into account the elevator and stairwell caps that are permitted to exceed the
indicated zone district height by 5-10'depending on location within the development, as per Land
Use Code chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c)Measuring Building Heights. The tallest point on the
9
P31
front façade is the stairwell cap that measures to a height of 42', on the western façade the
elevator shaft that measures to a height of 43.', and the northern façade, with a stairwell cap that
measures at a height of 41'.
Due to this project being a remodel rather than a completely new development, none of the floor
to ceiling heights meet the minimum 9 foot. requirement. The ceiling heights range from 8'7"at
the first and second levels to 8'10"at the third level. The fourth level is proposed at a height of
8'6Y4".
The Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base Character Area lists a number of reasons a request
for height increase may be granted within this area. The majority of these do not apply to this
project. However, the Applicant does present that this height increase will serve to make a
demonstrable contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency.
Variations within the proposed development are achieved in the height and profile of the
building's design. The fourth floor enclosed element is set back from the front façade by
approximately 25; and achieves its highest point of 39'6".
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a development.
4.14 Provide variation in building height and roof profile through one or more of the following:
• Vary the heights for different sections of the development.
• Vary the setbacks and wall planes of different building components.
Staff finds the following criteria to not be met:
4.12 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the
Mountain Base Area.
•
10
P32
Exhibit E
Mountain Base Character Area
Final Review Design Guidelines
1. Building Design and Articulation
Staff Response: The proposed building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge, as
the Applicant is maintaining many of the existing features. This includes the front stairwell on
the building's south facade. Staff feels the massing of the front stairwell could be significantly
reduced by way of reduction in or size of the proposed glazing, and/or the materials that are
proposed to be used.
The proposed roof is lacks variation in providing an articulated facade, as the proposed roofs are
flat, thereby adding to the mass of the building. Variation is seen in the proposed use of
materials found throughout the design of the building. A green roof is proposed for portions of
the third story and fourth story roofs.
According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the
building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating the
feeling that the first floor is the most prominent, although the highest floor to ceiling ratio exists
at the third floor level. The floor to floor heights do not meet the design guidelines of a minimum
11'for the first floor or the 9'floor to ceiling height on all floors; however; the Applicant is
reusing the existing building, and is not proposing any changes to the existing floor to floor
heights for the basement through third floor levels. Staff feels the Applicant should be exempt
from this design guideline.
The primary entrance is not located at sidewalk level, rather access may be gained by a flight of
stairs or by use of the elevator on the western portion of the property. No airlock entryway is
proposed.
Staff is concerned that the pronounced height of the building does not reflect the human scale and
character of the area. The building's significant height is not in context with the surrounding
area
Staff finds the following criteria to not be met:
4.15 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design shall respect the natural setting
and reflect the human scale and character of the city.
2. Street Level Character
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge area to create a
visually inviting area to pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation of the existing sidewalk
which currently ends before this parcel. Any addition to this building is proposed to match the
floor-to-floor height of the existing structure. The structure is not new, nor is there any retail
proposed, therefore not all criteria is relevant to this review.
11
P33
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.16 Develop the street edge to be visually interesting to pedestrians.
Staff finds the following criteria to be not applicable:
4.17 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level
retail frontage.
4.18 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to
ceiling on all floors.
4.19 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level.
4.20 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
3. Roofscape
Staff Response: A 1,149 sf green roof has been proposed for
the building's upper roof. The roof deck below is proposed u y vv
I
with a 793 sf deck containing a hot tub and lower 55 sf green '
roof. See Figure A, right. I •
3rd floor
l! Green roof
Variation in the roof profiles are achieved as this remains 0?'
open for the first 25'(used as deck space), then increases to a E.
•
height of 38'feet until approximately 48'from the front
facade where the roof reaches its highest point of 39'6",
and then recedes back to a point ofjust below 39'at the ° 4cnffoorcreenRbaf
building's rear. 111 ,-,.. 111
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design o
•
attention as the secondary elevations of the building. •
4.22 Variation in roof profiles should be reflected in both 0 ; . ..
the width and the depth of the roofscape of the o i-
building(s) •
H
o
Figure A:Green roofs
6. Architectural Materials
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ high quality and durable materials in this
design that reflect the quality and range of those found within this character area. Stafffeels the
Applicant should explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid in reducing the perceived
scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower's front face presents as an entire
row of windows. This glazing creates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After meeting
with Staff, the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reducing the amount of glazing on
the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staff does not support this alternative design
as a remedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower creates a sense of
even more floors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part of the front façade
does not assist in creating a feeling of reduced scale. Staff recommends the Applicant re-examine
12
P34
the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the perceived scale of the
building, and creating a more human scale.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed.
Staff finds the following criteria to be fully met:
4.24 Building materials should have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically.
• Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest
of the facade.
• Convey human scale.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this
climate.
7. Paving and Landscaping
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the property with native vegetation,
particularly along the Durant St facade. A green buffer is proposed to be created between the
on-street parking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the building. The
,Applicant further proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently concludes at the
eastern edge of the property along the Durant St façade. A pathway will also be created from the
sidewalk to the elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.25 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics:
• Enhance the street scene.
• Integrate the development with its setting.
• Reflect the quality of the architectural materials.
4.26 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk.
•
13
P35
Exhibit F
Application
•
12
P36
Exhibit G
Department Review Comments
Inventory:
• Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer, Engineering Dept.
• Ashley Cantrell, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, Environmental Health Dept.
• Brian Flynn, Open Space & Special Projects Manager, Parks Dept.
•
13
P37
Date: August 1, 2012
Project: Hotel Durant
City of Aspen
Engineering Department DRC Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:
General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these
requirements. A compliant drainage report and plan must be completed prior to final plat.
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat. This includes detaining
and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses FIL, it can only be
applied to existing impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at historic.rates.
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet the Drainage
Principals:
1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process
2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
7.Use a treatment train approach.
8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as
outlined in Title 21. This includes the following:
• The curb and gutter proposed in the plan does not show if there will be positive
drainage. Engineering is concerned that a low point will be created just to the
west of the site.
• Not sure if the curb and gutter meets the minimum slope requirements (.75%)
• Minimum sidewalk width for multifamily is 6 feet not sure if plan meets this.
• Sidewalk is required to be placed on the property line. Plans do not depict this.
As a result a final grading plan showing the improvements in the ROW must be approved
by the engineering department prior to final plan.
•
Utilities P 3 8
All above ground utilities must be located on the property,instead of the alley. Plans do
not show that there are any of these types of facilities. Not sure if this was
overlooked or that indeed there are no above ground utilities.
Parking
The plans show configuration of proposed parking. Since this parking is within the
ROW it will not be dedicated to the Hotel. Additionally the configuration will be
determined by City's parking dept.
Construction Management Engineering is concerned about the Construction
Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to
Building permit.
Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in
Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of
the Municipal Code.
P39
Sara Nadolny
From: Ashley Cantrell
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:39 AM
To: Sara Nadolny
Subject: RE: Hotel Durant Redevelopment
Hi Sara,
After visiting the site and reviewing the plans for the Hotel Durant Redevelopment, the Environmental Health
Department recommends the existing trash area be expanded.The only existing trash area that I saw was a 10 ft. x 10 ft.
concrete pad, adjacent to the alleyway.This is only large enough to contain the existing dumpster.Two recycling bins
were placed in the alleyway in front of the existing AC units. In the future, the Hotel Durant should provide at least four
bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. It is unclear to me if the new plans will allow for the recycling
to remain in the alleyway.
I recommend expanding the concrete pad that is currently used for trash to accommodate all necessary recycling bins as
well. The land use code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. The existing concrete pad does not meet
these standards.
Ashley
(970) 429-1798
From: Sara Nadolny
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Ashley Cantrell
Subject: Hotel Durant Redevelopment
Good afternoon Ashley-
I am wondering if I can get your comments on the redevelopment project for Hotel Durant. This is a redevelopment of
an,existing lodge building, with substantial additions being proposed. The four-story building's floor area is planned to
be increased in size by 3,738 sf; however,this update to the lodge primarily involves the increase in unit size, and no
new units will be added (there are 20). Also,the lodge does not contain a restaurant or kitchen. The trash/recycling
area is proposed to remain the same as currently exists. Staff would like to ensure that this will be adequate to serve
the redevelopment,and also if there are any issues with this currently that these will be rectified during the
redevelopment process.
This project is scheduled to go before the Planning &Zoning Commission on August 7th. Therefore, I will need any
comments you may have by Tuesday,July 31St, to ensure my memo is complete.
I just realized that I do not have an electronic version of this plan set, so I will run a copy down to you in an interoffice
envelope.
Please let me know if you have any questions—
Thanks!
Sara M. Nadolny
Planner Technician
970.429.2739
sara.nadolny @ci.aspen.co.us
130 S. Galena St
•
Aspen, CO 81611
1
P40
Memorandum
Date: July 23, 2012
To: Sara Nadolny, City of Aspen Planning
From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department
Re: Hotel Durant, 122 E Durant St
Landscaping within the Public Right of Way:
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department.
For planting specifications within the streetscape, please refer to www.aspenpitkin.com on
the Natural Resource page/tree care.
Tree Permit:
Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or
impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be
approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks
Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural
Resource page, click on the 2012 tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash
in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape
plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
P41
Exhibit H
Letters from Neighbors
•
Inventory:
• Anthony Imhof, Lift One Condominium Board of Managers
• Larry Mages, Lift One Condominium Association
• Arlene Nelson, 119 E. Cooper#6
14
Lift One Condominiums P42
131 East Durant Avenue • Aspen, CO • 81611
970-925-1670 • fax 970-925-1152
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
July 22, 2012
Attn: Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate
Re: Hotel Durant Proposed Expansion
As the across the street neighbor to the Hotel Durant, Lift One Condominiums
appreciates their desire to update their physical plant. We are also mindful of the `fitting
in the neighborhood character' dynamic as we have been involved with the `up the hill'
proposed developments on South Aspen St. for the past ten years. Lift One also managed
a complete exterior renovation on our buildings five years ago without expanding our
external envelope by one square foot. Several of us attended the Hotel Durant
presentation of their expansion plans and have examined their Land Use application. We
feel that to classify their proposed additions as"a minor lodge expansion" is an
inaccurate representation of the proposed addition. Our problems with their proposal are
as follow.
• Although "Attachment 3"to the pre-application summary states no change to the
west setback,the proposal actually is adding an 8 ft extension(16 ft at the
elevator) 54 ft long and four and a half stories high- replacing what is currently
only decks and a hot tub.
• The same attachment also claims a height increase from 35.5 ft to 39.9 ft when in
fact they are comparing the peak roof height on their existing stair tower to the
flat roof level of an additional floor. The true comparable heights to the new stair
tower and proposed elevator tower are about 45 ft.
• There is nothing else in that entire square block that is higher than three stories
and the adjacent Aspen Townhouse Central complex immediately to the west
along Durant Street is only two stories tall (see attached photo-diagram). The
Durant's proposed adjacent slab-sided west-facing elevation is four and a half
stories.
• Although the"Mountain Base Character" area outline does jog north to
encompass this block(the only block north of Durant Ave to be included in
such?) this is basically a flat block and height differences between adjacent
buildings are important. They should not be exempt from basic good planning
practices as spelled out in the Aspen"Small Lodges Character Area"—Building
1-800-543-8001 • www.liftone.com • Iiftone @rof.net
P43 Lift One Condominiums
131 East Durant Avenue • Aspen, CO • 81611
970-925-1670 • fax 970-925-1152
• Height Mass and Scale. We would prefer if it better reflected the human scale and
character of the city
As neighbors, we have no particular problem with their expansion of the building
horizontally to the west other than the cliff like transition created with the adjacent
property. The fourth floor addition is our major concern(four and a half stories counting
their half basement) which is out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The
proposed fourth floor addition is quite monolithic compared to the adjacent properties
whether looking at the west, east or south elevations.
We therefore oppose the granting of any additional mass and height leeway in pursuit of
this additional story. Their proposal only adds one hotel unit in this vertical addition plus
a `recreation room' which given its exposure, could seriously disturb the neighboring
residences. We think that their renovation can be successful without this upward
expansion. This last unit could be accommodated within the expanded three story
envelope without economic necessity for, or hardship derived from the refusal of,the
requested commercial review variance.
We look forward to a continuing dialog concerning this project. Please keep us apprised
of the process.
Lift One Condominiums Board of Managers
/1.."
Anthony Imhof, Vice President
131 East Durant
Aspen CO 81611
CC:
Planning and Zoning Commission:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
Stan Gibbs, Vice Chair
Jasmine Tygre
Jim DeFrancia
Cliff Weiss
Bert Myrin
Keith Goode
Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate
1-800-543-8001 • www.liftone.com • liftone @rof.net
l'illiSio a)
:IV ,a A4
{ , iii
a Tc 1.4 - L
_ C _
1 aY`
y
1
a. , sa!
,y•a
L ,
fI 4.
it 0
I
'_' .
0
0
• •
yy j
ID F
i. y4y J
CI
' ., 4 . ., { 'i , ; I1
INS
1A" W
E
k R
NC
.4-, •iia., •- I. - S".. L' - It Armitir . L.C
.0 - .` r
t h r ■
I. , I:' C
as
tip.
't, i
}
P45
Sara Nadolny
From: Larry Mages [LMages @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Sara Nadolny
Subject: Hotel Durant--Glass Deck Enclosure
Attachments: CIMG3908.jpg; CIMG3909.jpg; CIMG3910.jpg; CIMG3911.jpg; CIMG3912.jpg;
CIMG3913.jpg; CIMG3914.jpg; CIMG3915.jpg; CIMG3916.jpg
Ms. Naldony,
Thank you again for meeting with me to discuss the proposed expansion of the Hotel Durant.
It was very helpful.
As you know I am the president of the Lift One Condominium Association. We are located
directly across Durant street from the Hotel Durant and will be one of the properties most
affected by the expansion proposal.
In a separate letter, we have expressed our opposition to the mass, size, height and related
matters of the project. We are also concerned about the proposed glass enclosure of the
proposed roof deck. We hope that the City will require some other enclosure.
Although one might think that glass, being generally thought of as transparent, would be the
least intrusive of enclosures, this is not the case for several reasons:
1. The remainder of Hotel Durant (particularly their balcony
enclosures), in fact most of the buildings in town and their roofs, are of wood and/or dark
metal. The glass, being so different, is
very noticeable, distracting actually. It is out of character with the
neighborhood and the town. The glass enclosure on the top of the Dancing Bear illustrates
this.
2. The glass is really not transparent. This particularly true when
the sun hits it at various times of day. I have attached photos of the Dancing Bear glass
enclosure taken in the morning and
late afternoon/evening. As you will see the glass becomes not just opaque, but
highly reflective; one really cannot look directly at it.
Reflection from a glass enclosure directly across the street
from Lift One will be a significant intrusion -- people will not be able to look
across the street and up at Red Mountain; and the brightness of the reflection or refracted
sunlight will be similar to a
very large, bright light outside one's window.
We hope that you will not permit the request for additional height, and that you will require
a::different roof enclosure, one more consistent with the surrounding and not intrusive on the
neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Larry Mages
President, Lift One Condominium Association
•
• 1
P46
•
,
l s
ft
•
I
ik5
et
• i ',',
.„
,,,,..
i.
, ,,,,,,4.ftr.
:b. r
!X:
1
C
Y
1 _
v
INN
•1 }4 r
L *p
•
' • P48
i
a
1 ..Y
r-a-'1 s
all 4'
Y
•a
4,M
r
°y 4t5 i
;.ro
4 1.Y� i• •
` °
*NT
2 �
{„, v
d it . 11!•• S” ?' #� �.
II• VI viii
P49
Sara Nadolny
From: Arlene [970arlene @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Sara Nadolny
Subject: RE: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant
I LIVE AT WINFIELD ARMS AND MY PATIO FACES HOTEL DURANT, ARLENE NELSON 119 E COOPER#6
I HAVE SOME DEEP CONCERNS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW:
LARGE PINE TREES CUT DOWN IN ALLEY AND ON THE SIDE OF BULDING
NOISE AND PRIVACY TO OUR PATIOS IF THERE IS A HOT TUP AND PARTY ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR
LOSS OF VIEW TO ASPEN MTN. IF AN ELEVATOR IS PUT IN
MORE ALLEY TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN THE ALLEY DUE TO AN UNPAVED ALLEY, IF OUR ALLEY WAS PAVED IT WOULD CUT
DOWN ON SOME OF THE NOISE
THIS;IS A RESIDENTIONAL AREA AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CONCERN
I hope these concerns will be addressed as I will be out of town. As nothing was ever done about the noise in the alley
from their air conditioning fans which make a tremendous amount of noise when they go on and off..
From: Sara Nadolny [mailto:Sara.NadolnyPci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:50 PM
To: 970arlene(agmail.com
Subject: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant
Good afternoon Arlene—I just received your voicemail message. I will call you in just a couple of quick minutes, but
thought I'd shoot you an email to get things started. Sorry I haven't received your earlier sent email message. Please let
me know if you receive this one.
Sincerely,
•
Sara M. Nadolny
Planner Technician
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2739
sra.nadolny @ci.aspen.co.us
Email secured by Check Point
1
P50
Sara Nadolny
From: Arlene[970arlene @gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Sara Nadolny
Subject: RE: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant
I LIVE AT WINFIELD ARMS AND MY PATIO FACES HOTEL DURANT,ARLENE NELSON 119 E COOPER#6
I HAVE SOME DEEP CONCERNS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW:
LARGE PINE TREES CUT DOWN IN ALLEY AND ON THE SIDE OF BULDING
NOISE AND PRIVACY TO OUR PATIOS IF THERE IS A HOT TUP AND PARTY ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR
LOSS OF VIEW TO ASPEN MTN. IF AN ELEVATOR IS PUT IN
MORE ALLEY TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN THE ALLEY DUE TO AN UNPAVED ALLEY, IF OUR ALLEY WAS PAVED IT WOULD CUT
DOWN ON SOME OF THE NOISE
THIS IS A RESIDENTIONAL AREA AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CONCERN
I-hope these concerns will be addressed as I will be out of town. As nothing was ever done about the noise in the alley
from their air conditioning fans which make a tremendous amount of noise when they go on and off..
From: Sara Nadolny [mailto:Sara.Nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:50 PM
To: 970arlene@gmail.com
Subject: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant
Good afternoon Arlene—I just received your voicemail message. I will call you in just a couple of quick minutes, but
thought I'd shoot you an email to get things started. Sorry I haven't received your earlier sent email message. Please let
me know if you receive this one.
Sincerely,
Sara M. Nadolny
Planner Technician
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2739
sara.nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us
Email secured by Check Point
1
fri
City of Aspen August 7, 2012
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Final Commercial Design Approval
Hotel Durant
Commissioners:
As an adjacent property owner, I would support the staff's recommendation to continue
this review until a future date certain with consideration at that time of the applicant's
response to staff comments. It is very likely that granting the additional height requested
above the rights by use of 38' would impair the view of the natural surroundings, such as
Aspen/Shadow Mountains.
Should the additional development be contained within the height and set-backs
prescribed as rights by use, I would have no basis for objection. I also understand that
elevator chases and stairwells receive some additional height allowances. Should
consideration of additional height variance continue, I would request that "story poles" or
some form of skeletal benchmark be placed upon the existing building so that one may
truly judge the impact of such variance on adjacent view planes.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Purvis
Winfield Arms Unit #27
119 E. Hopkins St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970-618-3795
L
Sara Nadolny
From: Josh Rice
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:29 AM
To: Phillip M Ring (phillip @rds-aspen.com); Kenneth Adler, AIA(ken @ka-designworks.com); Sara
Nadolny
Subject: Hotel Durant
Phil, Ken and Sara:
Phil and Ken came by the office today to clarify the Engineering Department's concerns and requirements prior to the
P&Z meeting. Sara, for background you should know that there is currently a low point along Durant between the Pines
and the Hotel Durant. There is also a manhole along the Hotel Durant's western property line that drains stormwater
via a 12" pipe to the 24" storm sewer in Durant. The system does not drain the low spot. In Trish's 8/1/12 Memo, she
stated that the Engineering Department was concerned that the curb and gutter improvements could potential create a
low point to the west of the property. That is, Trish is concerned that the construction of curb and gutter in front of the
Hotel will create a drainage situation similar to the one that exists today(low spot), only further west. The Engineering
Department will require that the drainage issue is alleviated to the City of Aspen Engineering Standards. One potential
solution that Phil, Ken and I have discussed is to 1) construct an inlet along the curb and gutter and 2) connect it to the
existing manhole located in front of the Hotel Durant. The project's civil engineer may also have other viable solutions.
I hope this clarifies the Department's position.
Thanks,
Josh Rice, P.E.
Development Engineer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)429-2750
We are interested in your opinion. Please fill out the survey below and tell us how we are doing:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2012EngSvcs
"The mission of the Engineering Department is to
enrich Aspen's distinctive character so that it remains
one of the world's premier mountain communities
by protecting the natural environment,
improving water quality,
enhancing the pedestrian experience
and minimizing construction impacts for the
enjoyment of residents and guests alike."
1
My
`1.. -
•
i
•1{.,.'.. ;p - 4:-M' .:T _ -r y♦y- dd t �� ym'_IF�iR� a
` �: mil_ /� � ���111��� Y
s
'1 s ?t.... s� O F A,/,eWr ti, t w O 1 s?�V''` 4 I S T? ' `''w'
j k
� �fifi.,.:*-t„•04:.71 4.4.+'4.0'3ev:. _ *4--•.'*e a. �e 7i�V s.. '� '�. R�»'4�' `� i�'�` �Ag q a s -
F` F eE :g,d . cA�b � t r( b t 1!f YV y „
_
firms ,, „�Fa - f'. ° o c
iir
,z ♦ `` �u . syA " `-,0• `° w,ti ;^t. Y ` `5,•ax : .� s t,y Y 4 #
Y,,Y 3 .rBR Ir_•S.1 L -..Y 'SC �'.. *s' '°A
__
.40"...,
t- ..,.j. �!ar;: 4%? Yy. � �!+4 i l' �'•a.
Y' s r.] �¢ ;j i..g 1 a4 .1Jf �:•. ✓ ,7'-.'F' x 3.' rfi e� :;, y. S'p�.+ .�z § 't ' ,.i �' ',+ ✓ .+f, ,d. ''W i� ,qty-too e-"a M1 .' r es !_- 7... 'z,(T`i •Q- -�""
w
•tom ,401111111704- C N
3('`1(f — a N
'7V
N N
0
6 cc
0 '''---.',,V74 ;A 5
'✓ma `i, rO i y , N,.x ..� a a . 'O sl a "! f'p g +s. - - 104, a
m
CL n II
, , ,
._ ... .of.
I sY'
!
1
r;<
s7J(�
ii
i _
y _
e om- -�
` W 4 F �3 '4 -t- C�+ ! _ Cl)a
® _I
". __ '. � ` I 'fit •��� }
4 C C ti.
arridilwmom. -�!'- ..,��"L. „' . • t. :t ` "'s' 1 .- ,!'.:r Y.J —•
..�_. __;-- n;�... .. ,y L, " r' . _`emu f A i PITKIN'^MESA _ - r
y
CD
-
j
�. m. i+.. F� r.'. -�4. a `-✓.... �" � � �;f++,.. ^o, .lrc .. f«,i,,,P
} Yr•
,.! yr •k � a 4-,,,.;,,,,'.44,01, s x t EL '+
.
? .-„.1,0;416,4, -,...2= I y _
ti .0 AV.3tSp .� �� 7..t,'0'�t ye` ' M1'4 +t a
iii t+ i fi1 3tit � � -'•• 'AIL ^Y a°. Q %_ � n, %. .4 R T "An w l , ' u.5 .£ . s .., ,.4 it r i r .T-+,: i.• \ •'v 4 Iw't 3$',,1+. r+ i a �;, ''2*.J,' .!1.,,f-e.-''... & . � w fn. dk \` s .* i 3` , . R t x,YT i ,:-- • 4.
Ty
W0'lIV1110H§S9000V9Wd(MI 661916£•611(0)5909'06£'6lL
Oat110100'N3dSd 11609 00'S0NIHdS 00VH0103'310810)133801V00 SIS1 o
9Al2�a aline coH 093� ONINNb1d J°IjJIj k, _ __
_ AL
oz
° \IPIr
z
-J
CL
T
t F-
a
0
Z
mEa
U o rn LJ
'E C
c 5
\ JD O I tLI
/,:. \\
/
/ . \ \\
\
/ /W \\ h
/ 5' , i
\ O
•/ / � \\ \
/ NW
/ �\ \\ /^PL
/ II / h i \ \\ CL
'se `r 0 • •\\ \
/c Q r✓ �.w \. W
2
/ ' \
.�l a �`
/ a.;# \,,,. .. '• <, ..,1 :.'",s,. ,
W
/ / Ff, /,7. k • ',, : a 'i ',...... ; ' • ' /l."..'.
CO
\0:VI 2,.\I'*,,S 1 iL%) V) \r'■.-4 • . .'.V . , . • • . ‹..
t.
\ \ / i tu 0 - ....fr..° ../. /'
\ \ \ \ �. / .T /
floe)
\\ \\ \ N / a \ k•`1 /°/ ♦/� 1 0
N �'£ \
\ / ,ii,;.
\ \\ \\ F / :9-x1 / 1. v.
o V
\ \
0 W
S /
\ \ ti \ o / m,
\ Z V)W�
/5 ..�
\ \\ �a6 \\ V ry v . 1 a
\ \ \ / / .. .9 ." .Aa
\ \ \ / I.
. • ,1, �v
\ \
\ \ \ / / • •.• . n,
\ \
\\\\\\ // Y ��
\ . y j�
N' v
\\ F
\ o
•\ • o
a�