HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20121002 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, October 2, 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. 122 E. Durant (Hotel Durant) — Commercial Design Review
B. S. Aspen Street Lodge — Conceptual PUD Review
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 17
!� P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: October 2, 2012
RE: 122 E. Durant Ave — Commercial Design Review
SPECIAL NOTE: At the first continuation hearing for this project (August 21, 2012),
Planning and Zoning Commission members voted to again continue the hearing to a future date
in order to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to revise their design plans for the
remodel and expansion of Hotel Durant. Specifically, the Commission asked the Applicant to
examine the project in light of the following issues:
1. He—,-ht• The design presented at the August 21" hearing met the 38' height.limit for a
lodge of the proposed density within the Lodge zone district by introducing a gabled
roof design over the fourth story. Commissioners were divided on the preferred roof
form for the fourth story (flat v. gabled).
2. Stair/Elevator Towers. The Applicant was directed to examine the north and south stair
towers and the western elevator tower with the intent of creating a more integrated
relationship between these elements.
3. Calm the design. The Commission directed the Applicant to revisit the design of the
building with the intent of reducing the number of different roof forms and the number
of different materials used on the building to create a calmer and more cohesive design.
4. Front facade decks. The Commission directed the Applicant to provide a better sense
of relationship between the second and third story room decks on the east and west
sides of the building's south facade to create a more balanced look to the front facade.
5. Trash/Recycling area. The Applicant was instructed to provide plans for the
trash/recycling enclosure area at the rear of the building that is designed in accordance
with the Land Use Code.
In response to direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission the Applicant has
submitted two new design plans for consideration that Staff has reviewed. The variation
between plans focuses solely on the fourth floor roof style. In light of these new design plans,
Staff suggests the following items be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission for
points of discussion with the Applicant at the October 2nd hearing.
1
r►
P2
1. Hecht. Issues with the former design include the height of the stair tower at the front
(south) facade, as well as the fourth story roof. The Applicant has provided a design
that reduces the height of the front stair tower from 38' to 36' 6".
The Applicant has provided two plan options for the roof of the proposed fourth floor.
Option 1 (Figure A) includes a fourth story gabled roof which meets the 38' height
limitation. According to the Code, a roof with a pitch greater than 7:12 is measured to
a point 1/3 the distance from the eave point to the ridge. Therefore, although the roof is
physically taller than 38' in this option, it is in compliance with the Code.
3
;f, �.
41 s f
y. V
fM
ti
a
Figure A: Optionl with fourth floor gabled roof
Option 2 (Figure B) includes a flat fourth story roof, measuring at its highest point at
40'. This option would require the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase the
height limitation to 40' for this design, which may be permitted through Commercial
Design Review.
2
P3
s
j<
�X
Figure B: Option 2 with fourth floor flat roof
2. Roof forms. The consensus between Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission at
the August 21' meeting was that the design presented included a variety of roof forms
that did not relate well to each other within the design, and created a busy feeling to the
building. The Applicant has responded by presenting a design that includes roof forms
which better relate to each other. Slope-style roofs are used on the front stair tower
and cover the balconies on the south, street facing fagade. A sloped roof has been
added above the third floor balconies on the east side of the south facade which
compliments that found over the west side balconies on the same fagade, creating a
more balanced look to the building's front. The pitched roof found over the elevator
tower compliments the slope style roofs used elsewhere. As discussed previously, two
different roof styles are proposed over the fourth story rooms - flat and gabled.
3. Materials. The proposed design has reduced the number of different materials used on
the building's facades. This reduction helps to create a calmer building. Also, the
Applicant has used the same glass material for the guardrail on the front balconies,
creating a sense of balance on the building's front fagade. A light color palette is
maintained in order to help reduce the perceived mass of the building.
3
P4
rsl i_
LTe'!A
N
_ f
Figure C: Materials on front fagade, as seen on Option 2.
4. Trash/Recycling area. The Applicant has proposed a trash/recycling area along the
alley at the north fagade of the building that meets the requirements of the Land Use
Code, measuring 15' long and 8'6" wide, and will accommodate the trash and
recycling needs for the lodge.
STAFF DISCUSSION: Staff feels that there has been marked improvement in the design of
the building as compared with the designs presented at prior hearings. In response to feedback
from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21", the Applicant has created a
design that better reflects the pedestrian scale, is more balanced with its fagade materials and
roof forms, and meets the.criteria as outlined in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives and Guidelines.
The current design includes a front stair tower that is slightly reduced in height, which aids in
creating a more pedestrian friendly scale. The wider entryway and doors to the upper floor
patios on the western side of the building's front fagade help in creating a lighter, airier feel to
the building, which is further enhanced by the use of light colored materials, the glass safety
guards on the balcony, and the open sides of the balconies.
The design has been calmed by the reduction in the number of materials used on the facades as
well as the roof forms. The perceived linear massing of the front stair tower was a major
4
P5
The design has been calmed by the reduction in the number of materials used on the facades as
well as the roof forms. The perceived linear massing of the front stair tower was a major
concern of Staff's during previous iterations of the design, and has been alleviated by. the
reduction in height of the current design as well as the facade treatment.
Staff is concerned with one aspect of _
how the materials are used on the
building. The quality of the exterior
materials and detailing should be
consistent around the facades of the
building that are visible from the
street.
Staff is concerned that the stone
veneer that is proposed for the front
facade of the lodge terminates too
abruptly as it turns the corner to the
east facade. To maintain the quality
of how the materials are applied to
the building, we recommend that it :
be extended further back along the
sides of the building and a stronger
concept for transitioning to a stucco
material be developed in order to
present the stone as a substantial Figure D: Stone material wraps front building's front to east side. .
building material rather than a thin
applique.
Staff feels overall that the improvements in the design serve to create a lodge that better
reflects the goals of the Mountain Base Character Area, adds to the City's lodge base, and
compliments the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff supports the design, and is making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to approve Option 2, with the flat roof style over the fourth floor. Although this
design will necessitate the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an additional two feet of
height for the design, Staff finds this roof form to be preferred over the gabled roof as it is a
more integrated design and better compliments the slope styled roofs found at the building's
front facade, and is less visible from the across the street. Furthermore, Staff finds the gabled
fourth floor roof option to add height and mass to the building. Due to the way the gable-style
roof is measured, this design meets the Code's height limitation for the Lodge zone district.
However, it measures at just below 45' at its apex. The flat-style roof in Option 2 measures at
40'; however the flat roof minimizes height and mass created by the fourth story.
5
P6
71 7
ep
n
r r.
♦ �fr
7
t
•t, t L�t�yy5..'.. r
Figure E: Option 1 (left) and Option 2 (right), side-by-side comparison. Staff prefers Option 2 with the flat fourth story roof form
that is not visible from the street.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends the
Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application for Commercial Design Review, and
recommends approval of Option 2, with the flat-style fourth story roof.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
approval for the request, 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."
I
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 Addendum, 9/27/2012
6
P7
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 and
expansion 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 October 2, 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 Applicant appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a
hearing regarding commercial design review initially on August 7, 2012, and during a
continuation hearing on August 21, 2012.
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.
Sectionl•
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 building will be increased by a total of 3,738 s£ The unit count will remain unchanged at 20
units. The building shall be compliant with the dimensional standards of the underlying zone
district.
1
P8
Section 3: Building Height
The building is approved with an additional two-foot height allowance, bringing the total height
from 38' to 40'. This allowance is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission per Section
26.710.190(D)(8)(d)Maximum Height for the Lodge zone district in the Land Use Code.
Section 4: Public Amenity Space
The approved public amenity space shall comprise 1,905 sf, or 31% 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 5: Trash/Recycling
The trash/recycling area exists off of the north facade 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 6: Building
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements when a building permit is
submitted.
Section 7: 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 issuance of building
permit.
Section 8: 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
issuance of an encroachment license.
Section 10: 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.
2
P9
Section 11: Fire Mitiization
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 12: 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
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 13: 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 14: 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 15: Liahtin
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 16: 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.
SectionV:
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.
Section18:
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.
3
P10
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on October 2,
2012.
LJ Erspamer, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A—Site Plan
Exhibit B—Elevations
4
pil
Resolution Exhibit A
Site Plan
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N
G— w I Alley +E
& fi, A/C C-d-�f.
Remain-N. Me A
A.
r 'p
Proposed along Allay
0
IF dd
Re cifnql
F 'ft. Area-
Du 'te'
5�
4 -id,
j
e'A
F7
V\j
c"
ROOFAB
W11 01-t
4.SY.r y H.t,1
22 E.0—t'Ar f
9F
1.
............
'v
-7,77--
4,
+
O,rb&G.tf,.r
...........
C—w Skj'..)k
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/- - - - - - - - - -
lix[stingGwrel Awn i lf
-b,f� �,j Alph.
a la nwlA Sheet Per 0. -
pnmg D'pr
F-xfsiinq,II-i InIel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
East Durant Ave.
P13
Resolution Exhibit B- 1
South Elevation
FI FVATOR TOWFR FX(-:FFF)5
HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 10' NOTE: SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE
BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ALL PRIMARY MASSES
40'A.BOVE GRADEAS MEASURED @ FRO NIT
FLANE OF BLDG.—APPLICABLE FUR 30'
������������������i���i��ii���
T.O.. ROOF DE( KAOSk
' u -
�� .,:�.. mot•:
I � i
T.O.FIN.. FLR THIRD LEVEL
�(L-1 117 2„
s � -
- 8'-7
J
n _ T. FIN. FLR,-SECQNID LEVEL
a
.1.0. - - -108'-7'
�+ , -,
I - -
_ T.G. FIN. FLR._LOBBY LEV'E
IN
�� .. : :
�yrri���rrihrrr�� �r���rrr��vr
_ _ _ _ - - _ - — - _ - - _ _ T.Q_FIIJ.FL_R. B/!SEMEPI
EXISTING GRADE AS MEASURED �FRONT PLANE OF BLDG.TO
REMAIIN- INDICATES MOST RESTRICTIVE GRADE
P14
Resolution Exhibit B-2
North Elevation
-
�
T.O. ROO F DECK
r� y 126' pal
, �:,
�R,
T.O. FIN. rLR.—TI IIRD LEVEL
117!-2"MW
�t 8,_r„
wX
y.
T.O. FIN. FLR.— U_ECOND_LEVEL�
108' P
nt.*r i y,
{ 8'-7'7
"
T.O. FIN. FLR._LOBBY_LEVEL
100'-0'-0"��,,77
1A IA- vr11ACvv�r
Z,i
Resolution Exhibit B-3 P15
West Elevation
HEIGHT AS MEASURED @ FRONT PLANE OF BLDG
DOW EP.S CN -AST&WEST ROO F EXCLUDED APPLICABLE FOR 30'FROM FRONT
HEIGHT OF ELEVATOR TOWER-MEASURED FROM HE GHT CALCULATIONS AS FOO-PR NT 33
TIC HALFWAY POIfJ-OF ENJE-ALLOWED TO— OF DORMER IS LESSTI-AN 501/c,OF ROOF
EXC---C HGT LIMIT BY LESSTHAN 10' PLANE& R DGE IS NOT -4IGH-R THAN P.00F
HEIGHT OF STAIRTOW'ER ' 40'ABOVE MOST HEIGHT OF S AIR-OIA+ER
ME?SJRED TO HALFWAY PO NT OF 12, 12 P.ESTR CTIVE GRADE MEASURED TO HALFWAY PO NT
EAVE-ALLOWEC-0 EXCEED HGT. 1 4� �4 ;OF EA,VE-ALLOVdEQTO EXCEED
L110IT BY LESS THAn 10' HGT.LIMI-BY LESS THAN 6'
I -.odd 12 1
It 11 -1 T.D. OOF CEC
1 _—
T.C.FIN FLR-T IRD LEVEL
T �
5 /I6' - - - - - - - _ - -_ - - - - - - - - '
L —�
- - 117-2'
c•9'-31/2' - -- 39 1
3i16" 8,_711
r
EISHT 0= -- -- — -
ROOFTOP
T_4,FIN.F R SECOND LEVEL
— - - - -
MEA UREDTO - _ 08W
TOP D F PAR AP=-T
$'-71
=N. LR.-LOBBY LEVEL
T.0.
L -
'-1 - --
ti
IZIF jr
It
7��//i \ISTM— GRADE TO
REM IN-
�\ //i i vi%ri f\vyiip i y yii . r
INDICATES MCST RESTRICTIVE GRADE
/i " /i N-v v �i Y��e f M / , iy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T.O.FIN,FLR.-BASEtVENT
P16
Resolution Exhibit B-4
East Elevation
12 1?
NOTE:SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE � �4
BUILD ING HE IGHTS OF ALL P PIMAPY MASSES
12
12 `�4
0 4`
— - — — - — - - - — T.O.R0OF_DECK1t
126'=Q"
g
0� 7
T.O. =1N, FLR.—_TH RD V.L
C i = — — — — - — — - — - - �=7L
-
8'-7"
— _ — --0.=1Pl.FLF_SECO(�D_-V= V
F
— - — — — — — — — = OBBY
,n
T.O..0. FIV. LR
i 3
/ Yip vii
\Y/
��Yii���Yi
a
- - — - — - - - — - - - — - - - — - — - — - — — - - - - - —f- — - — —f- - — - - / — — TO.FIN. FLR —EASEMEN�
gI Q
P17
Exhibit A
Section 26.412.050
Commercial Design Review
Commercial Design Review
Sec. 26.412.050.Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based
on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the 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 proposed development meets the requirements of chapter 26.412.060 of
the Land Use Code. The development includes an appropriately designed public amenity space
that will contribute to an attractive pedestrian atmosphere. The trash/recycling area has been
redesigned to meet the standards found in the Land Use Code, requiring 1 S-linear feet of space
for trash and recycling. The development will include signage and lighting that will respect the
Suggested Design Elements, as found in chapter 26.412.070 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds
this criterion 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 fagade 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. Stafffinds 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 determined 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 finds the proposed design meets the Design Guidelines for the Mountain
Base Character Area. The design provides a sense of human scale that is aided by the reduced
height of the southern stair tower, the relationship between the decks on either side of this
front stair tower, the location of the elevator on the second half of the western faVade, and the
openings on the side of the westernmost balconies, which help to create a lighter feeling. The
1
P18
Applicant has created a relationship with the use of materials and roof forms between the
decks that is complimentary and creates a sense of balance for the building. Furthermore, the
reduction of the front stair tower by nearly two feet reduces the linear mass of this portion of
the building. The front entryway door and the doors to the second and third story rooms from
the decks on the west side of the front faVade have been widened which creates a lighter, airier
feeling to the building.
The proposed design continues to meet the Mountain Base Character Area criterion for public
amenity space, building setbacks and orientation, street level character, and materials.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2
P19
Exhibit B
Section 26.412.060
Commercial Design Standards
Sec. 26.412.060.Commercial design standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design
objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development:
A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive,
exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment
atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-
of-way or private property within commercial 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 open space,
representing 38% of the total parcel. This has not been officially designated as public
amenity space. The Applicant has proposed a designated public amenity space of 1,905 sf,
which represents 31% of the total parcel. The majority of the proposed public amenity
space will be located along the Durant St facade. This area 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 fagade, 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
3
P20
characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
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 a lawn space and paved pathway 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. The Applicant has responded by providing an expanded trash/recycling area
that measures 15'x 8.6'. Staff finds this criterion to 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 on the northwest corner of the property, along the alleyway. On July S, 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.
4
P21
Staff Response: The hotel receives laundry service bi-weekly. Delivery trucks park along the
alleyway for this purpose. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation,
street shall be vented through the roof. The
exhaust equipment shall be located as fa y from
Staff Response: All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end
of the building. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
ly within the
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall,
the extent intern
recessed behind a
building and/or located on the roof, minimiz ed to
parapet wall or other screening device such for lventlation and
at a pedestrian level. New buildings s hall reserve
ducting needs. (Ord.No. 13, 2007, §1)
Staff Response: All mechanical ventilation T/ze existing ncondelnsationcun is will aemainwithin
in their
building and ventilated through the roof.
current locations 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
P22
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 more 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 finds the current design provides a sense of human scale. The stair
tower at the southern faVade has been reduced to the minimum height that will allow access to
the fourth floor. This reduction in the head space for the front stair tower greatly assists the
human scale of the design. Furthermore,the Applicant has provided a more balanced design
by reducing the amount of different materials used on the favade, using complimenting
materials between the balconies on the front fafade, and providing larger openings for the
front entryway and entrances to the decks on the west side of the front favade. These
improvements help to create a lighter feeling for the building, which also compliments the
sense of human scale. Staff finds this criterion to 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
P23
erty on the Durant St faVade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment in
p ro P
this district. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features.
Staff Response: The proposed building has been designed to�matinnt the fourth fr000g t hand
property and to the mountains to extent nminimized to reduce�e sense of linear mass and to _
stair/elevator tower elements have been mds this criterion to be met.
provide the most unobstructed views possible. Sta ff f
7
P24
Exhibit D
Mountain Base Character Area
Conceptual Review Design Guidelines
I. Street& Alley System
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant Ave favade
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.S spaces per lodge unit in t t.
he Lodge (L)zone distric
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.
Stafffinds 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 si gnificant im act on
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 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.
Stafffinds the following criterion to be met.
4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape.
8
P25
4. Public Amenity Space ro osed to be located primarily on the south end
The public amenity space is p p
Staff Response: en to
sidewalk that will be adjacent t eDurant le to the public,extending o
of the property, abutting the proposed p p rade, is act
a ode. This space is proposed at grade,
by a trail that will extend from
either side of the front f Access is further g
the sky, and is visible from the public way.
Since it is located in the front yard area
the sidewalk to the elevator on the
e s ont facade, the public amenity space will receive the
west he lodg of fre building. area for public use
on the south end t the property, a
lk extension is proposed at the E. Durant Ave.
'mum amount of solar gain. It is proposed to include a table and parcel.
Staff
maxi
_ along the property's western facade. A sidewalk
ti ew
property line, which existing sidewalk that currently ends to east of this p
finds this criterion to be met.
Staff f nds the following criteria to be met.
4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently he public seway and takes
4.7
Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is visible from the
advantage of solar potential for outdoo�activities convenient access.hotels* or
4.8 provide pedestrian ways that accommo ace adjacent
Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates,on
dining space
4.9 Pr public way.
close to and directly visible from the p
Placement and any proposed additions do not
5. Building the building is pre-existing,
Staff Response: The majority structure. The building is setback 9.8' on the E. Durant lAe e.
change the placement of the c ante to the lodge is
d rve structure.
front setback. The west facade meets the required f
facade, exceeding the require f f The primary
he ont facade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the
side setback, whereas the east fad
ode exceeds this at 10 .
oriented toward E. Durant Ave nds this criterion to be met.
pedestrian environment. Staff f
ollowing criteria to be met: public access and accommodate
Staff Ends the f scale,enhance p
4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building adjacent
to the street.
landscaping where appropriate. en space
4.11
Orient a primary entrance to face the street or an area of op P
6. Building Height,Mass& Scale mass and
osed design appropriately reflects the height,
Staff Response: Staff believes the prop Applicant has worked with Staff to address
e Character Area. The App a ade
scale of the Mountain Base Lodg pushing the elevator tower on the western f � ont
g
the issue of and by reducing the height of the stair tower at the building's
excess height and linear mass by p the perceived size
towards the rear of the building, increasing the size of the
Applicant has proposed light colored materials building's mass by increasing the
facade. The App improvements are made to the ade; these result m
Further imp ont fad
of the building. a and balconies on the west side of the fy' enin o the balconies when
openings at the front entryw Y further aided by the op g f
building have a lighter and more airier feeling,f
9
P26
viewed from the buildings westernfa�ade. The design provides variation i
across the building s fourth story. Staff believes the desi re in height and roofprofile
building height of the Mountain Base Character Area. Sta
gn Elects the range and variation in
fffrnds this criterion to be met.
Staff finds the following criteria to be met:
4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a develo
414 Provide variation in building height and roof profile through o meat.
' Vary the heights for different sections of the development,one or more of t/1e following:
• Vary the setbacks
4 12 Anew building and wall planes of d fferent building components.
. or addition Should reflect the range g and variation Mountain Base Area n in building height of the
10
P27
Exhibit E
Mountain Base Character Area
Final Review Design Guidelines
1, Building Design and Articulation ont stairwell e
building is largely dependent on themthe fr existing lodge as
Staff Response: The proposed o the existing features. This includes
the Applicant is maintaining many f Option versus
a ade. The Applicant has proposed a design that
sloped roof linear mass o
the building's front f
ed. The design is further aided by the removal h f oor rooms
this feature by reducing the height of the stair tower and returnm
the gabled roof previously discuss The ou fl
s west fagade closer to the rear of the building. f fro ile and
tower on the-building' e building fr f
et om the 's ont a�ade, which serves to create The materials used on the -
begin 32.1 fe rovide
neighboring buildings within the character area, aed mass of
provide a fourth story open air deck space at the front of the bui ing' Cel
building reflect those found on the netg
and visual interest. All of these design elements aid in reducing the per
variation
the building and respecting the human scale.
Staff f nds the following criteria toa s o met:
building, the design shall respect the natural setting and
4.1 S To reduce the perceived m f
reflect the human scale and character of the city.
e area to create a
2. Street Level Character the existing sidewalk, which
Staff esponse: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge
� pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation of _
visually inviting area to p
his parcel. Any addition to this building is r is there any retail proposed,
currently ends before t p
floor height of the existing structure. The
this review structure is not new, no
therefore not all criteria is relevant
Staff finds the following criteria to be met: tin g to p edestrians.
4.16 Develop the street edge to be visually interes
ollowing criteria to be not applicable:
Staff f nds the following ture of be designed to maintain the sta traditional street level retail
4.17 A new building should oor to ceiling on
frontage. g eet rom fl
4.1s Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 f f
all floors.
4.19 The retail entrance shouted bemto the plan for lall new structures.
4.20. Incorporate an airlock e y
11
P28
3. Roofscape
Staff Response: The proposed design includes green roofs, solar panels a
Variation in the roofprofiles are achieved throughout the building's desi
set backfrom the and sloped roofs.
front facade 32.1 feet,providing view. Staff
efourth story roof is
building. At this time, mechanical units an open air deck space at the f°nt fac
are expected to be located at the r ear of the building.
However, should any be located on the rooftop, they will be ade of the
finds this criterion to be met. grouped and screened
front
Staff fnds the following criteria to be met.
4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention
elevations of the building. as the secondary
4.22 Variation in roof profiles should be reflected in both the widtlr and
roofscape of the buildings) the depth of the
4. Architectural Materials
Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ hi h
design that reflect the quality and range of those found within this quality and der able materials in this
Proposed materials to reflect those found throughout the Mountain Base Character
area. Staff fnds the
Area.
Staff fnds the following criteria to be met:
4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed 4.24 Building materials should have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of
• Reduce the p erceived scale of the building ls sen historically.
the faVade, and enhance visual interest of
• Convey human scale.
• Have proven durabili
ty and we characteristics within this climate.
5. Paving and Landscaping
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the Property particularly along the Durant St a ade. p p ty with native vegetation,
A green buffer is proposed to be created between the on-
streetparking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the buildin
further proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently concludes at t
Property along the Durant St a ade, g The Applicant
f A pathway will also be created from the sidewalk to the
of the
elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance.
Staff fnds 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.,
12
P29
Re ular Ci Plannin & Zoning
Meetin —Minutes September 18 2012
2
2
Comments 2
Conflicts of Interest GM OS Review 4
1450 Cr stal Lake Rd— PUP Review
South As en Street Lod e —
1
P30
—&-illyular Ci Plannin
& Zonin Meetin —Minutes Se tember 18
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting o f 2012
in Sister Cities Meeting the Planning and Zoning
Walterscheid, Bert g Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Commission
Myrin, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine T Ryan
Stan and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia did not attend.
Quinn, Assistant City Staff in attendance, Debbie
Deputy Development; Reed Patterson, Municipal Clerk and Jackie y
p y City Clerk.
Lothian,
Comments
Bert asked if the AVH site visit has been de
replied that she wasn't sure but Jennifer would b for the 30t�'
how City or the 6th. Jessica
y Council is followin e back on Monday. Bert asked
code amendments from o g up on the check list. Jessica said that was on the
City Council.
Minutes
MOTION.• Bert Myrin moved to a
September 4th seconded by Stan Gibbprove the minutes from August 21St a
all In favor, APPROVED. nd
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Ryan stated that in disclosure that he previous
presenting both projects but he never worked on the
In was se
n cond employee of Poss who is
the first project he helped with the LEAD certification project.
Ryan said if something comes a that ertification before it was chayan said on
Debbie Quinn stated that she hasreviewed the of he can recuse himself
and spoke to Ryan about it, e application and memo for tonight
Keith said that he had been an employee of the g
Cliff said he was on the COWOP for the club.
the Club. LJ said he did Physical p ysical therapy at
Public Hearing:
1450 Cr stal Lake Rd — GM S
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 14
proof of legal notice. Debbie Quinn 0 Crystal Lake Rd.
and received someone uinn reviewed both affidavits and t hey areeinf°r
found the questioning the prop lines which Jessica reviewed order
y were correct. erty
wed and
Jessica Garrow introduced herself and this
Associates for a 6 lot below growth was a request by Sunny g wth management allotments to add 3 n Wand
bedrooms to the Aspen Club timeshare. Jess'
received final a Jessica stated in 2010 the Aspen Club
units and i revamping al for a PM, SPA and Timeshare that included
p g of Club facilities, new parking and things like 20 timeshare
2 g that. As the
P31
Re ular City Plannin & Zonin Meetin —Minutes Se tember 18 2012
they
applicant has gone forward working towards construction level documents of which
have m l
had some internal changes that they are interested pursuing; p
is adding 3 new bedrooms; each bedroom is considered to have ec Jessica that With the
the 3 new bedrooms they need 6 lodge pillow s in the Aspen Club to 3
request was to change 2 of the previously approved units
bedroom units and to add 1 new studio unit that would not osed acts all u e d as a
timeshare until a future point in time e internal o�extrnal space of the building.
sales office. There is no change in
APCHA has reviewed the request and the applicant is going at to use the original di approm
affordable housing that was part.of the oerglnd they created a credit of 8.4
over-mitigated for the employees that w generated;
ition to what was required. Staff was in favor of the change.
FTEs that were in add
Bert asked about page 5 which is page 2 of the resolution. Jessica share lodge unit
is a new unit one bedroom but they will be th essica said with this approval
sales and then it will be converted to a 1 edroom
changes from 20 units to 21 units.
LJ asked on page 13 of the packet and asked if it was C sAP H'sendation and
recommendation. Jessica replied that it was part o governs how
has not been included in the Resolution because thin OOrdinance ntal and forg ale ; if they
the affordable housing units were dealt with in ter
are not in compliance they transition into for sale units. LJ said there
of those e some
requirements from Engineering and APCHA. Jessica said y
requirements have not been triggered yet because ir vesting p g period and meeting all the
building permit though they are within the
requirements to date and need to do those going forward.
Sunny Vann stated that he didn't have much to add and the building was
proceeding toward its permits position.
Bert said your application has 107 pages why is that. Sunny replied that he
included the original application and approval so that everything could be found in
one simple place for everything that was done.
LJ said on the application number 3 those amendments do not incre se ra fic and
was it a daily study or more; he only found the that we can 'August rease trip travel
answered that they have a condition of approval
into the club. LJ asked if there was a method of monitoring that. Sunny replied
that it was incorporated in the TDM and in the Council Conditions of Final
3
P32
_Regular Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes Uc IC 1U C1 10
212
Approval. U said the proposed amendment does not involve changes that are
inconsistent with the condition or representation of the project's original approval.
U asked if this was a change from the original approval 20. Sunny replied yes;
this is a threshold for an insubstantial amendment otherwise it gets kicked up to
P&Z for approval so the staff has exercised latitude historically as to whether it is
so far out of the approval that it has to come back to P&Z.
No public comments.
Cliff opposed this project and will not support it.
U said now we are going back to add another unit and U felt it was too big to start
with. Sunny responded that had we built it smaller we wouldn't be here asking for
the change.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 16 approving the Growth
Management Review for the Aspen Club project; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll
call vote: Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Bert Myrin,
yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; LJErspamer, no. APPROVED 5-2.
Publ earing:
South en Street Lodge— TISLReview
U Erspame ened the public hear or South Aspen Street Lodge PUD
Review. Chris don presented the of i .t of notice. Debbie Quinn reviewed
the affidavit of noti or posting and mailing there was an information
outreach meeting of a s tch plan with all of the req ents for that meeting was
et.
Chris id this property was kno as lots 1, 2, and 3 of the South Aspen et
Subdivis , south of Dean and no of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. It
has been kn as the Lodge at Aspen untain property in various reiterations
over the last dec or so. Chris gave a brie 'story of the property with an
approval granted in 3 known as the Townho approval for 14 free market
units and 17 affordable ' s and is a vested approva the property; subsequent
to that there was much disc u 'on about zoning being un nate that was the
basis for that approval and there s a neighborhood master p initiated in 2008
that is also referred to as COWOP 1. e neighborhood master p involved this
property and the property across the stre ift One Lodge, propertie the east
were Ski Company properties and properties ned by'the City of Aspen
included into a master plan process; that plan w of approved. The various
4
Y 1•, `
' 1. � ' I•• , ��
MEN
MEN �r
MEN + >
A�"+` � Y1�1 r are'` _■ ._'• x �ti e r
°, ` ry• Y >f�?1. k�, �r "3 Y,6'r by ■ , �z g. s
ONEeft
Ar MEN V7
PON
op
- ii4�," as-r 7'sir� �Y. ��t �.��'��� ' �t.. _ - � ■ � �f T �.
y ♦ r�y r
i 1'
oil wo y
Ir
����,� ��� � �o moo:� ,�` ._. .. �' ! ,> r:>- ~ � � _• �I� �,a
ML '�
:h /y�J�digOC •
y.• � �. _�+.� ,• r � ,� • , . << • Ham` � - ��;'..�' '
• - Y � ,f�, ?„ 1r6, �aT e �4ayy�� ` 1'i' � r * �,
_ ' ��. k y: �'i!"":� ;-mow"' .y- � � •'�; F'
?r--� •+ �, ,y-. ` t �• to ' ��8+w�;(V.A`r.; y� _vy .t"-.
SEA
1°
PROPOSED VIEW- FROM ON OPTIONS
HOTELDURANT
122 EAST DURANT
COLORADO:
r -
4+t. ( �^
Y t �.•^if
` - ' � �� � ,� .-`,� . . ; ,�,:�„�� ;,�� �� •
�i
ol
op--s`
Ae
ad
r
Yl
.. .. � ♦ ray,'
r
,_ i �� � ,tip? �'�� �� '�.� •r ,��
• — �+ air y�, � � +� ;��., ��r � F�
�+-►t-..„+---+,,,. � —•. _ /, III I I I ,,���:�
At
WK�
a : 73
a
-.--• •
pop
ZSS
mo — — �■�--- � ■�-r ;.-�
o,' �—���� �u �� � � te
'rilli 11111
■
Iwllll III11 � �� 1�����,���• ���`��_
MIN —
%` lad` ll 1 0�`
.Wood
soon 1012
Lim MISSION`
ILL
I� 1
_ r
—11 nun inus -- �■ �� --��� i .�I
P7
ellll. Illll,tilllll �� 1��� ���■ ■��
MW IIIIIIIIIIIII
Aw
own
or
SO
is � �_� � _ ������—���■MOM
.���WIN*; � -
ELEVATOR TOWER EXCEEDS
NOTE:HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 10' • OR ACCURATE
BUILDING HEIGHTS OF
12 12 38'ABOVE GRADE ■ @ FRONT
PLANE OF BLDG.-APPLICABLE FOR 30'
■i II■I
T.O. -..
C:3 T.O. FIN.FLR.-SECOND-LEVELPlk
W ■.■
_■ ■
�
OEM-�
- .
GRADE EXISTING ■ @ FRONT OF ■ TO
r
INDICATES • GRADE
HOTELDURANT
122 EAST DURANT
COLORADO
F,ESIGNWORKS 9/17/12
ELEVATOR TOWER EXCEEDS
NOTE:HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 10' • OR ACCURATE
BUILDING HEIGHTS OF
40'ABOVE GRADE ■ @ FRONT
PLANE OF ■ •-
■■■�®�@wi■�li■
■ .r -- - T.O.ROOF DECK
T.O. -■ LEVEL
TO.FIN. FLR.-SECOND�LEVEI-m
10. FIN. FLR.-LOBBY LEVEL
EXISTING■ �:��
GRADE ■ @ FRONT OF ■ TO
INDICATES • GRADE
HOTELDURANT
122 EAST DURANT
COLORADO:
DESIGNWORKS 9/17/12
oil,
mi M"Mmwo�"
i
.:p- 111111-
No-
N MMP
- MIW-
MOMMMI���!
-�M
MMMMM
� MMMMMI���
-' � t
ME
MMOMMI
���.� � '� � lip. • •: �
MMMM ■_='��
.•- �.� �— '' __ � �I��IIIIIIIIII��IIII�
���� � 1 IIII11�. 11 1 •
else
pp .II
NOTE:SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE
BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ALL PRIMARY MASSES 12 12
8 8
T.O. ROOF DEC�
126'-0"
8'-10"
T.O. FIN.FLR.-THIRD LEVEL
11 T-2"
8'-7"
.•j
-T.O.FIN. FLR.-SECOND_LEV-
- - - - - - 108'-7"
8'-7"
T.O. FIN. FLR.-LOBBY LEVEL
100'-0"
� North Elevation- Rendered
HOTEL DURANT
122 EAST DURANT
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
KA ,
DESIGNWOFKS 9/17/12
/12
INC.
NOTE:SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE
BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ALL PRIMARY MASSES
T.O.ROOF DEC�
126'-0"
8'-10"
T.O. FIN. FLR.-THIRD LEV�
— – – –117'-2"
8'-7"
T.O. FIN. FLR.-SECOND_LEVEL
— – – LEVEL
8'-7"
T.O.FIN. FLR._LOBBY LEVEL
100'-0"
North Elevation- Rendered
HOTEL DURANT
OA 122 EAST DURANT
n ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
ES IG N W ORKS
9/17/12
INC
r
-- i
r
9b c
loop-
Akk
SKETCHUP IMAGERY- OPTION 1
HOTEL DURANT
�_ 122 EAST DURANT
(A ' ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
)[6IGHWOpKS 9/17/12
INC.
fry
SKETCHUP IMAGERY- OPTION 2
HOTEL DURANT
122 EAST DURANT
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
DE516NWORKS 9/17/12
INC.
f �
i
r
mod
SKETCHUP IMAGERY- OPTION
HOTEL DURANT
122 EAST DURANT
41 Me ftAl ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
DIESIG14WCPRKS 9/17/12
' tl
r�
all-
� e
SKETCHUP IMAGERY- OPTION 2
HOTELDURANT
(;N 122 EAST DURANT
Alj All ASPEN, . .-..O8
'ESIONWO KS 9/17/12
(�7
AM
VIP--
IL
OF
Sol
.�, 01 r`
AIX
M'
IME`
s
Image 1111:lerraMrtnrc
020,oGoo Ie
Image I15DA Farm 5enrce Ayrnn
I•n fl,rrr- v ) rll l !D 1999 W 39190165 Ion Wb 82114; ele- .7918 ft
• , � tt
F
r
■
-
� �
,. o ■ ■
LA
ii JIM
— _ Imarye 701 2 TrrraMetncv
02010 0o Ie
Image WsDA Farm Service Agrncv
rr,,-r-•� �.rr `� :3,2011 !1999 lat N 190165 Inn P4,822147,822147 elev 7918 ft Eve alt '9S7 ft (�
[
SIDING MATERIALS ROOFING MATERIALS
0
0
THINSET STONE VENEER STUCCO STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
S
;mot
Ra
f
1
t � f
0
s
} J
WOOD RAINSCREEN CV GRAIN VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING LIVEROOFO MODULAR GREEN ROOF SYSTEM
y y HOTEL DURANT
122 EAST DURANT
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
DEEIGNWORKS 9/26/12
INC.
Sara Nadolny ? ��
From: Lawrence Mages <lawrence.mages @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Sara Nadolny
Subject: Hotel Durant
Sara,
I hope that you will recall that we met in mid-July and communicated by e-mail about the use of glass on the
proposed Hotel Durant modifications.
Others will express themselves about the height and mass, and also about the intrusion created by a rooftop hot
tub and recreation deck directly across from us.
I am writing about the use of glass. The Staff is approving of the use of glass on the balconies, whereas we
sought the elimination of its use from the roof. We pointed out the problems emanating from reflection. But
we sought the use of wood and wrought iron on the roof as was shown on the balconies in the original
submission, not the addition of glass on the balconies
The glass is completely out of character with the neighborhood which has none except for the rooftop of the
Bear(which is an intrusion). And the Bear relates much more to the center of town, overlooking the field, the
Regis and its companion building on the south side of Durant. It is not part of Lift One's neighborhood.
The substitution of non-reflective glass and, particularly, the addition of it to the balconies, is even more
discordant. It creates a mass look closer to the front, whereas wood and wrought iron will serve to break up the
mass and add depth.
Glass is really not see through. Even if non-reflective, it will be opaque when the sun hits it. But it is the
consistency with the neighbors and the overall aesthetics which are at the core of our request for elimination of
the glass.
I hope that you can present this to the Committee, and that you can get some reconsideration by the Staff.
Thanks, as always.
Larry Mages
Lift One
Email secured by Check Point
i