Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20121002A rV�1J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: South Aspen Street Lodge Conceptual PUD Review—Public Hearing Continued from September 25, 2012 DATE: October 2, 2012 SUMMARY: Tonight's hearing is a continuation of last week's hearing to review the South Aspen Street PUD application. The Commission provided feedback to the applicant last week concerning program, site plan, and massing and provided staff with direction for preparing a resolution. Tonight's meeting will offer the applicant the opportunity to show a few requested graphics. These are for clarification purposes only and are not new concepts. The Commission requested the following: • A cross-section showing sight lines from the Lift One Condos based on the 1) vested townhomes proposal, 2) a worst case zoning scenario (36 and 40 feet high, S feet from prop line), 3) the current proposal, and 4) the current proposal with the lodge building moved south—20 feet. • A cross-section or rendering that shows view impacts from east side of South Aspen Street. • A site plan that includes the planned changes to rights-of-way and cartways of the lift one lodge project. • A cross-section through the middle building showing the building/grade condition next to the affordable housing. (Or other diagram that shows the livability of these units, solar access, etc.) Attached is a draft resolution for the Commission's consideration. It captures the collective opinion of the Commission and provides suggestions for improving the project. The meeting will provide an opportunity to refine the opinion points within the resolution. Staff recommends the Commission receive staff presentation of the draft resolution, receive the applicant's presentation of requested diagrams, solicit public comment, and consider adoption of the proposed resolution. PREVIOUS ATTACHMENTS: A— South Aspen Street PUD Application & Drawings B— Sketch Plan Review meeting minutes. C— Vested Townhomes Project Summary D— COWOP II project summary CURRENT ATTACHMENTS: E—Conceptual PUD Review Standards & Staff Findings Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN LODGE PROJECT LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1,2,AND 3,OF THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-131-39-001 (Parcel 1) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-002 (Parcel 2) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-003 (Parcel 3) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC, represented by David Parker, of Bald Mountain Development, requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval of a mixed-use development consisting of 35 free-market residences, 31 "lock-off' units to be associated with the residences, employee housing in both dormitory and apartment style, and a 73 unit (76 keys) lodge containing a restaurant/bar, accessory retail, various meeting facilities, a spa and fitness facility with indoor and outdoor amenities, underground parking, and various administrative and support function spaces; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is described as Lots 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/Planned Unit Development as described on the subdivision plat thereof recorded as reception number 537080 in Book 83, Page 50, with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.030, Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval may be granted by the City Council after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director and a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission made during a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended, after consultation with the applicant, the Conceptual approval be limited to a review of the proposed program (the types and amounts of various land uses within the project), the site plan (how those uses lay on the land), and massing (how the buildings would appear in 3 dimensions) aspects of the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing and after soliciting public input, has reviewed the program, site plan, and massing aspects of this application and has provided statements concerning conformance with the Planned Unit Development review criteria and suggestions to achieve greater conformance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT: PZ Reso No. Series of 2012. Page 1 of 4 Section 1: Commission Concerns The Commission finds that the application does not conform to the Planned Unit Development criteria for approval as outlined in Section 26.445.050 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The Commission's primary concerns are: • The project is predominantly a free-market residential project. There are more units and more square footage devoted to free-market residential use in this plan than in the entirety of the vested townhomes plan. • The upper two parcels have a "private enclave" feel to them, although this may not be worse than the vested townhomes plan. The Commission is concerned about this having a chilling effect on the area. (Consider striking this last sentence?) • The proposal accommodates only half of the standard affordable housing mitigation as otherwise required. The project generates more employees than the townhomes plan and the Commission believes this under-mitigation shifts too much housing burden to the public. The Commission questions the validity of such a significant trade-off. Section 2: Supported Revision The Commission supports the applicant's revision to the vehicular circulation plan. The original plan contained a Juan-to-Garmisch traffic pattern for hotel parking and presented too much traffic impact upon the neighborhood to the west. By moving the hotel parking entrance to South Aspen Street, overall traffic impacts are minimized. The Commission believes this amendment is a significant improvement. Section 3: Commission Recommendations The Commission finds that the application could be substantially improved and achieve compliance with the criteria for Planned Unit Development approval. Following are suggested ways to achieve compliance: • The use program could be adjusted to provide more lodging units and fewer free-market residential units. (Note: The free-market residential portion of this project needs to be considered in the context of the vested townhomes plan.) • The free-market portion of the project could function more `lodge-like' — assisting the hotel use and increasing short-term stays. This could be achieved through fractional interests or other mechanisms. In any regard, this needs to be assured through appropriate land use and legal mechanisms that sustain. • The design of rights-of-way along the western extent of the site could be oriented to maximize on-street parking. The City Engineer is encouraged to explore this option. • Massing concerns along the north edge of the hotel could be alleviated by vacating all or part of Juan Street and shifting the lodge building southward. The Commission suggests the applicant explore this option. The Commission also encourages the applicant to explore a tunnel rather than a bridge to connect the buildings. • The applicant is encouraged to explore additional affordable housing options that may decrease the unmitigated employee housing burden of this project. • The applicant is encouraged to explore a larger project that contains more on-site affordable housing units. PZ Reso No._ Series of 2012. Page 2 of 4 • The applicant is encouraged to explore additional off-site affordable housing that could decrease the project's massing. • The applicant should explore partnership options utilizing city-owned properties to achieve a greater amount of affordable housing. Section 3: Requested Clarifications The Commission finds that certain aspects of the application are difficult to understand. The following Images/Diagrams are needed to really understand the project: • A 3-D rendering(s) of the project so that reviewers can fully understand the scale and massing of the project and its visual impacts, especially in comparison with the COWOP II project. • A rights-of-way-plan that depicts the approved Lift One Lodge project changes to South Aspen Street. • A cross-section showing sight lines from the Lift One Condos based on the 1) vested townhomes proposal, 2) a `worst case' zoning scenario, 3) the current proposal, and 4) the current proposal with the lodge building moved south approximately 20 feet. • A cross-section or rendering that shows view impacts from the east side of South Aspen Street near the intersection with Deane Street. • A cross-section through the middle building or other diagram showing the general livability of the affordable housing units on the ground floor of the middle building. Section 4: Limitations Approval of this conceptual development plan does not constitute final approval or permission to proceed with any aspect of the development. Approval of this conceptual development plan authorizes the Applicant to proceed to City Council review for Conceptual PUD. This application is subject to Final Planned Unit Development review, Conditional Use, Special Review, Growth Management Review, Mountain View Plane Review, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Commercial Design Review and 8040 Greenline Review, and a Street Vacation and Right-of-Way Dedication Plat pursuant to the Municipal Code. Additional reviews may be necessary depending on amendments made to the program, site plan, and massing of the project. Application for final review must be in accordance with the City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval. A pre-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. This Conceptual Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission provides guidance to the applicant and to City Council regarding this project's program, site plan, and massing. This Resolution shall not create specific reliance or prohibit the Commission from conducting a full and through review of the application upon final PUD review. The limitations of Section 26.445.030.D apply. Reviews by the referral departments have not been conducted for this Conceptual review and certain aspects of this project may need to be redesigned or reconsidered to achieve compliance with applicable building and development codes. Section 5• PZ Reso No._ Series of 2012. Page 3 of 4 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 6• 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 of the City of Aspen on this day of 32012. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn, LJ Erspamer, Chair Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A — Summary of Program, Site Plan, and Massing PZ Reso No._ Series of 2012. Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT E SO.ASPEN ST.LODGE REVIEW CRITERIA South Aspen Street Lodge Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review Criteria Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF FINDINGS:PUD A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal includes development of a lodge, free market multi-family residential and some on-site affordable housing. The mix of uses can be found within the immediate vicinity inclusive of an approved lodge development across S. Aspen Street (Lift One Lodge) and adjacent multi-family residential (both free-market and affordable) within the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of short-term lodging, full-time free-market housing, full-time affordable housing, part-time free-market housing, and ski area operations. While there has been some building refurbishment activity in the vicinity, the South Aspen Street area has not seen significant reinvestment in many years. The proposal provides a similar mix of uses — lodging, free-market and affordable residential. Staff believes the proposed uses are consistent and compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 1/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the ability for surrounding properties to develop in the future. Basic infrastructure is available to the site and will not affect access by other properties. Roads exist and access, although potentially impacted during the development of the site, will not prohibit future development in the surrounding area. Staff believes this proposal meets this criterion. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposal requires allotments for lodging, free-market residential, affordable housing, and commercial space. Currently allotments are available and will be requested in combination with Final PUD application. Staff finds that this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land sues and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. There are concerns about the massing of the lodge building on the north portion of the site. Further exploration of this should be considered. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 2/9 Exhibit E- Review Criteria and Staff Findings YES. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? There are concerns about the massing of the lodge building on the north portion of the site. Further exploration of this should be considered. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? MAYBE The applicant is proposing 68 parking stalls for 78 hotel rooms as well as the six dorm style affordable housing units and 30 spaces for the Aspen Ski Co. Thirty-seven parking spaces are required for the hotel by code. A total of 31 spaces are provided for the 34 multi-family residential units and 4 affordable housing units on the upper parcel. Although the hotel component meets parking requirements the residential component, which is requires one parking space per dwelling unit falls short. Depending on how the parking is intended to be allocated, this criterion may be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The proposed sites are supported with sufficient utilities and infrastructure to serve the development. As such, the density does not need to be reduced. Staff does not find this standard applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 3/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes the site is suitable for development. Improvements to the area's drainage are necessary and will be part of the Final PUD development proposal. Mud flow will also be reviewed at Final PUD. Staff believes that the proposal conceptually satisfies this criterion. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The development of lodging and short-term occupancy development in this area is a significant community goal. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 4/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The parcels do not have any existing natural or man-made features that are unique and need to be preserved. The lots are vacant and slope from Aspen Street down to Dean. Parts of the lots have been regarded over time and do not provide any visual interest. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The massing of the proposed development is divided into three modules, permitting for views to Shadow Mountain. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES,CONDITIONALLY The massing of the buildings is oriented towards the public streets; further refinement of the exterior architecture at Final PUD review can provide opportunity to engage pedestrians along the streetscape and provide visual interest. Additionally the proposed restaurant/ bar is to be along Aspen and Garmisch streets providing the opportunity for outdoor dining that encourages added street vitality. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I MAYBE A detailed review by emergency agencies and the City Engineer has not been performed. Planning staff expects that the proposed access points and rights-of-way are sufficient for emergency access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES New development is required to be ADA accessible and will be confirmed at building permit review. Sidewalks are proposed along the property boundary for pedestrian mobility. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES As part of Final PUD review, the applicant will need to develop a conceptual drainage plan that complies with city standards. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 5/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The lodge component of the property is being proposed with one building so there are no spaces between buildings; however the building is set back from the property lines and are designed with appropriate uses such as landscaped yards, outdoor dining, and pool/spa uses. Staff finds this criterion met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? TYES,CONDITIONALLY The landscape plan for the parcels includes a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings as well as shrubs, perennials and turf. Final planting approval is contingent on a positive recommendation from the Parks department. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 6/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES,CONDITIONALLY The proposed massing breaks the development into three distinct modules, permitting the structures to read as individual buildings. Breaking the mass into individual modules is an appropriate design solution for the development of the parcels, reflecting a massing of one building per parcel which is similar to existing developments in the neighborhood. Final PUD review will include greater architectural detail and further response the Architectural Character criteria. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: I. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES,CONDITIONALLY The Applicant is required to meet outdoor lighting standards and will be verified at building permit submission. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met. G. Common Park Open Space or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: I. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 7/9 Exhibit E- Review Criteria and Staff Findings STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The development does not propose a common park or open space, Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate public facilities such as sewer, water, and roads are available to serve the development. Some improvements to the infrastructure may be necessary but will be borne by the developer. Staff finds this criterion met. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each parcel is located so that access is from a public street. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant has revised the vehicular access point to the underground parking to be situated along South Aspen Street instead or Garmisch. This is a significant improvement and achieves compliance with this standard. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 8/9 Exhibit E- Review Criteria and Staff Findings 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of adopted specific plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The street system that is being proposed for access to the lots is form the existing public street system. No security gates are proposed and there are no adopted trails that recommend the provision of recreational trails on the site. Staff finds this criterion met. J. Phasiny, of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: I. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE As this is a Conceptual PUD review, this standard is not applicable. S. Aspen Street Lodge Review Page 9/9 Exhibit E - Review Criteria and Staff Findings The two proposals before you this evening will have a significant adverse effect on Lift One, particularly the proposed hotel on Aspen street immediately uphill of our buildings. But also the Hotel Durant which not only seeks to increase its height, but to install a recreation area on its roof just across the street from Lift One. 1. Lift One is a 31 unit condominium that rents out its units when not occupied by owners. The average has been 2500 multi-bedroom rental days per year. Thus Lift One provides the City with beds and supports the City's wish to have hospitality uses in town. Lift One has a lobby and front desk, provides daily maid service, has a pool and hot tub and pays the City the same hotel taxes as these hotels which are petitioning for relief from the established zoning standards. Lift One's operations and contribution to the local economy are indistinguishable from those of a lodge or hotel. Yet when we were refurbishing our complex five years ago at a cost of over four million dollars, you would not allow us one foot of vertical tolerance from our 28 ft height limit, and all we sought was to put some decorative wood on our roof. Now we are being buried beneath the two proposals before you tonight, losing our views and light, all in,,,',, the name of encouraging Aspen lodging. We are also Aspen lodging; we deserve the same respect and accommodation as the new proposals as well as the protection from the Council and that reasonably anticipated from the zoning ordinances. There is no need to so severely impose on us. The hotel component of the development to our south (uphill of us) does not need to be at the bottom of the development, only 10" from our lot line and, at 50 feet, about 25-30 feet higher and a full 20' higher than current zoning allows-- a 60% expansion on permitted zoning. The Lift One Lodge on the east side of Aspen street is at the top of the street, apparently not finding a contrary need in hotel operators. Our own researches indicate that location at the bottom is not only not necessary, but not the most desired. And COWOP 2, through which the entire community voiced its opinion, located the hotel above Juan Street and at a lesser height. Also, the need/desire for a hotel comes from the Council. The developer has indicated that a hotel use is a losing proposition and seeks accommodation on various fronts to offset. Thus the Council has the ability to balance its desire for additional beds against the damage that will be inflicted upon Lift One. For example, the Council could accept fewer rooms, less density and a lower height. We encourage you to keep us in mind when reviewing these two proposals, and to protect us. Thank you. LOT 1 .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._._.._.. u DOLIIN EK 12,_0„ RESIDENCE I I "... ! 50,_0„ - I I I POOL HOUSE EXISTING PAVEMENT I EXISTING LIFT 1A TO BE REMOVED I LIFT ONE LODGE I RELOCATE EXISTING . EXISTING ' - j LIFT TOWE -- SKIER'S CHALET LODGE I I - I I ! LIFT TOWER - - "' � ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY � '- - SKI MUSEUM 125'-0" ._.., .._..L _...T...-__.,� LIFT ONE PARK j LOT 1 SOUTH POINT j _ ASPEN SKIING COMPANY CONDOMINIUMS f, I - -F LINE OF LOT 3-7 ' �LOT4 - - I I BUILDINGABOVE `G ! - -] APPROVED SURFAC - r T=O" IG LIFT CORRIDOR LLOT1� L _ _.._._ ._.._.. _. _ -- j EXISTING WILLOUGHBY PARK (DASHED LINE) - j •y 1 __ RETAINING WALL EXISTING STAIRS HISTORIC LIFT 1 -� LIFT ONE I BUILDING ABOVE"'- EXISTING LODGE I MOUNTAIN ACCESS LIFT ONE LODGE ,�,,� 1,,,,t;t;� HISTORIC R.O.W.LINE LOT 2� _.._..�. `_ _ .._ _.._.._.._.._.._..� ----- ----------- SKIER'S CHALET 30'-0" .r. 10'-T STEAKHOUSE q'_ — �"` 75.3' 1 5'0" .._.._.._ , SOUTH ASPEN j SOUTH ASPEN STREET 37.65' JUAN 28'-0 �„ r STREET R.O.W. TO FACE R.O.W. STREET O CURB PARKINGACCESS SOUTH ASPEN STREETS _—_ SHADOW MOUNTAIN' CONDOMINIUM AC ESS TI rye} py � / .i.�• �f t S •T', _._ :.. S - t .r .'Y„t {r'; C.a I SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS �. ( � - tt { 1 F r i• r may, •�^p 7 { f ♦�' - (�f.1. ' L•. c91, 'I I °,4 i�SSt. a Vii! -All } j 4.1. ILL- jr ITS �. Q` ty d rt dhsr b .4 v 1 t ,,ti rl �t`� i'' 1 �.; u' x � /e--Te^•� Q- � #: �, a>,i� � f' Lr v^.,.�.¢ ° l .k�.zf � -�- r. � `6 -{ S �` ( u; c.t1• .�, Ll `e' �`" '` _' 3 ' 4�,A� d r� � e"`.-y }. ;'• kV w4R ,r+ c i a Y. X l , � V 7 Poss A RCHITECTURE+PLANINiINU SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION / PUD INTERIOR DESIGN ASPEN,COLORADO 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,CO$1611 211 TAIT N61N 6T6EET 0 SOUTH ASPEN STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT c6Ne6NOA16, co L 00 61622 I I�I�rt SEPTEMBER 27,2012 IT)610/682 6520 0 16 A 60 M 610/662 6522 NORTH x_ 1;J `J ✓ J 4 S vv t I � ' 230 7-PROPOSED HOTEL ' LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT P SST RCHiTECTURE COLORADO CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : PROPOSED HOTEL 10' SETBACK 0 2012 W- 1,M6,� September 28,2012 .S 17)9101925 4755 (1)910/920 2050 r ' 9]9: " E t Y., n n i 1 r7. J 3l0 \\--PROPOSED HOTEL 20'-0" LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROPOSED HOTEL 20' SETBACK pQ$$ CHiTEC , September 28,2012 DS EAST „SIN STREET •6YE9, LOlDRA00 9,9„ 171 9101939 9155 (I)97D/930 2 950 4 -- 6 3 t VAPPROVED TOWNHOMES ' LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT p0$$^STftCHiTECTURE OePLANNiNG ©CONCEPTUAL DES I G N : APPROVED TOWNHOME 2012 WWM ,W. September 28,2012 I7)".,925 4755 ",910/825 2930 I I 1......................... —, 190 _. .�„9,� PROPOSED TOWNHOME LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT p � RRGNITECTURE+PLANdVdNG CONCEPTUAL DESIGN : PROPOSED TOWNHOME 999 asr ■9u I STREET 9sU E+PL N ©2012 W ,a September 28,2012 (7)979/939 4755 (T)9707920 2950 i F r 0 r ,f r �t 4 P U CS O � __--��wni�nrvoa�roa I ... T.0.ROOF --- ------ — — EL.36'-0' Inn ALLOWED ENVELOPE T 5t-p" LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PUS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING C O N C E P T U A L D E S I G N : ALLOWABLE HEIGHT & SETBACK©2012MMEM.= September 28,2012 EAST M410 STREET ■4090, CO/00400 01011 IT,070/040 0T00 (91070/040 4060 i it ���,, � �; � ,.• 1 by a 1 ':. T.0.ROOF -------------------------------------------------- ,T ALLOWED ENVELOPE �-5'-0" /I LIFT ONE LODGE GRADE SOUTH ASPEN STREET REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL DES IG N : ALLOWABLE HEIGHT & SETBACK 020,2 a•, � September 28,2012 PRSS .RCHITECTURE+PLANNING 606 FAST MAIN 9192[1 ASPEN, CoL09A90 9161( It)9101926 4755 (F)9701920 2960 -W CD COO) 0 0 z 0 rn -0 cn cn M m PO o OC N tt JUAN EET 1AFFORDABLE ROUSING PRO CT m P-4 rn 4m am ■ rn