HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.201912031
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
December 3, 2019
4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
IV.A.Minutes 11-19-2019
minutes.apz20191119.pdf
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.Resolution; Mountain Chalet Lodge - Elevator Extension
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
Commercial Design Review
Staff Memo_333 E Durant.pdf
PZ Resolution #____, Series 2019_333E. Durant.docx
Exhibit A Land Use Application.pdf
Exhibit B Review Criteria.pdf
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
VIII.BOARD REPORTS
IX.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation 1
2
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS:
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments
shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues.
Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda
and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting.
Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute
presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the
Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items.
The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is
not designated as a public hearing.
All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public.
Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be
tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated
violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request
the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting.
Revised July 8th, 2019
2
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2019
Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, James Marcus,
Rally Dupps Absent: Don Love, Brittanie Rockhill, Ruth Carver, Ryan Walterscheid
Staff present:
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Kraemer, Interim Deputy Planning Director
Kevin Rayes, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Kraemer went over the P&Z meeting schedule for December. There will be a December 3rd meeting
with one landuse item on it. The meeting on December 17th has been canceled and rescheduled for
December 18th. There will be two public hearings at that meeting. The first meeting in January will be
on the 7th.
Mr. Kraemer asked Mr. McKnight for his consent to add a discussion about the Community
Development Director recruitment to the agenda under Other Business.
Mr. McKnight consented.
Mr. Kraemer asked Ms. Bryan to refresh the commissioners on why they should not “reply all” to emails.
Ms. Bryan stated that when the commissioners get emails that are sent to all of them, they should make
sure not to “reply all” to the email because anytime they communicate with more than one other
member of the commission it's considered a meeting for purposes of Open Meeting laws and they
would have to publicly notice it. If they receive an email from staff or anyone else, they should respond
directly to that person only.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the minutes from October 1, 2019. Mr. Marcus seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Walterscheid had previously recused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest.
PUBLIC HEARING
1140 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for an Alternate Top of Slope Determination
3
Mr. Kraemer introduced the public hearing. He stated that the word “appeal” in the code section is kind
of confusing code language. If someone has a top of slope on their property that’s inconsistent with
where the actual top of slope is, the code calls it an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but
this hearing is not an appeal, it’s a special review. The commissioners are looking at an alternative top
of slope for the subject property. The applicant and owner is Clayton Clark and he is represented by
Forum Phi. He introduced the representatives, Steev Wilson and Andrew Dillon. He stated that this
application is solely for the alternative top of slope at this point so that they can contemplate future
development plans for the property. This is a process that is usually done with a full stream margin
review and RDS review, when there would be a more comprehensive package. If an applicant wants to
break it up like this they certainly can, and then further refine the design of the property.
Mr. Kraemer showed a map of the property on the slide and stated that it’s almost right at the
confluence of the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek. He showed the adopted stream margin maps
and top of slope maps for the City. He showed the parcel boundaries and the footprint of the existing
structure. He showed the hundred year floodplain. He showed the existing top of slope as identified in
the stream margin maps. He stated that this is clearly not accurate and he is not sure how it got
mapped that way. The City hired an engineer/survey company to develop the top of slope maps. As
you can imagine, it’s extremely expensive to do a survey on each individual property in the city of Aspen.
What they did was pick a topo line and ran that on each side of the bank. In some areas of the City, it’s
really accurate. On this property, it’s not correctly identified. Elevation rises out of the river corridor.
He showed the proposal from the applicant on the slide and pointed out the proposed top of bank. The
Engineering Department has been referred on this application, and this correctly reflects what the
proposed top of bank is.
He stated that P&Z approved an alternative top of bank for 1130 Black Birch, the property to the south,
about a year ago. This top of bank is consistent with that 1130 application that was approved. With
that top of bank, there’s also a 15 foot setback that gets established. He showed that on the slide. The
resolution reflects this top of bank. He stated that he wanted to point out the delineation of the
hundred year floodplain. He showed the location on a map on the slide. This is this line was delineated
in a 1987 FEMA floodplain map which were the previously adopted maps. The Engineering Department
has adopted new floodplain maps, which are actually more restrictive. He would like to put the
applicant on notice that there is an alternative hundred year floodplain for this property and that the
floodplain should be correctly identified on this map. Staff plan to attach this to the resolution and then
that will be used going forward for design. Staff have a couple of conditions in the resolution. There is
further review required, should the property get redeveloped. There will be a residential design
standard review and full stream margin review. Given that the City has adopted new floodplain maps
and there is a more restrictive floodplain on the property, staff also request that they correctly identify
that on this map. That map will get changed and attached to the P&Z resolution when it’s ready to be
signed. Staff recommend approval. With that, he turned the presentation over to commissioner
questions.
Mr. Dupps asked Hailey Gugliamo, a staff member from the Engineering Department in the public
seating, to talk about how the new floodplain maps relate to the 1987 maps.
Ms. Gugliamo stated that there’s better topography and better hydraulic modeling. For this particular
property, it’s quite impactful. The floodplain goes from about where Mr. Kraemer had it shown
4
previously to just about the entire parcel. It would have greater consequences for the property than
just the top of slope.
Mr. Dupps asked if those maps are on the website.
Ms. Gugliamo stated that she is trying to get it on the Map Aspen and GIS portal. If you go to the FEMA
website, you can look at it.
Mr. Kraemer asked if there are paper maps available.
Ms. Gugliamo stated that she has them if anyone wants one.
Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the
hearing over to the applicant presentation.
Mr. Wilson stated that this property has very similar floodplain issues to the 1130 Black Birch property.
The applicants are also working on that project, and they stated that they were able to do a letter of
map adjustment (LOMA) to kind of alleviate the issues in that area. That’s through FEMA. They’ve done
that on this other property to get the existing development out. In the future, they can look at the base
flood elevations and how that all works when dealing with the floodplain. He showed where their
proposed top of bank would be on a rendering on the slide. He showed photographs taken of the
proposed top of bank at the site. The applicants agree with and accept staff’s conditions.
Mr. McKnight asked if there are questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to
public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Mr. McKnight stated that this seems straightforward.
Mr. Dupps stated that, as the Commission goes forward with the new floodplain maps, it will be
interesting to see how that plays out.
Mr. Dupps moved to approve the next resolution in the series as proposed by staff. Ms. McGovern
seconded. Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dockless mobility outreach
Mr. Rayes introduced himself. He stated that he is a member of the dockless mobility working group,
which is being driven by the Transportation Department. He defined dockless mobility as systems of
electric or manual bicycles and/or scooters that are available for short term rentals. These devices may
be locked and are unlocked using a smartphone app without the requirement of a bicycle rack or any
other docking station. These have become popular in larger cities. This model brings mix of challenges
and benefits. One of the benefits is that it provides alternative transportation choice. The challenge is
where people park them, sometimes on the sidewalk, sometimes they throw them into bodies of water.
A lot of communities are trying to grapple with this new thing showing up overnight. This past summer,
5
City Council was concerned about dockless mobility coming into town and not having any regulation.
They voted to pause the issuance of any encroachment licenses to allow dockless mobility in town,
which would be more or less the mechanism that the City would have at its disposal to permit this. They
asked staff to do some outreach to the public and to commissions and boards to see other points. Mr.
Rayes is talking to the Historic Preservation Commission as well. Though both boards are primarily
concerned with private property and this issue is more about rights of way, the commissioners are more
or less all in the development community and have vested interest. He asked commissioners to let him
know their opinions either now, via email, or by taking the survey at Aspen Community Voice. On
December 4th, there will be two open houses at the Limelight Hotel on this topic. Those will both be
open to the general public. The feedback staff is seeking is how people feel about dockless mobility. Is
it something they want to see in Aspen? If people do want to see it, how do they think it should be
regulated? Do they want designated parking spaces? Or no regulation?
Mr. Marcoux asked if there is a high demand. Are the people asking for it?
Mr. Rayes stated that the way this business model has worked in other cities is just put it out and see
what happens. Build it and they will come. It’s hard to say how it would play out in Aspen.
Mr. Marcoux asked how other cities have dealt with the issue of private property.
Mr. Rayes stated that some cities have made designated parking areas. One of the recent innovations
has been “angels.” If someone were to leave a bike flipped over on the sidewalk, someone else gets
paid to pick it up and move it somewhere better. He is not sure any cities have fully fixed the problem.
Another issue is that cities are trying to figure out how to tax them.
Mr. Marcoux asked Mr. Rayes to repeat the information about the open house.
Mr. Rayes stated that there are two open houses and they are both on December 4th. The first session is
from 11:30 to 1:30 and the second session goes from 4 pm to 6 pm.
Ms. McGovern stated that the times are different on the Community Voice website.
Mr. Rayes stated that he will confirm with the Transportation Director.
Mr. McKnight stated that they are fun to ride around in Denver, but do not want them anywhere near
Aspen.
Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees.
Mr. McKnight stated that Aspen, unlike Denver, is mostly tourists who can hardly figure out how to cross
the street. This will also disenfranchise the local bike shops that rent out scooters and bikes. He is a
hard “no” on this.
Mr. Marcus stated that he’s been very interested in this business model and how it’s going across the
country. The feedback that he’s gotten from residents of cities that have this business model is that it’s
been a huge mess. He thinks that it’s a good idea but it wasn’t fully thought through. Aspen is a small
city, these are unnecessary.
6
Ms. McGovern stated that the bike paths in Aspen don’t allow motorized anything.
Mr. Dupps stated that, in London, they don’t know what to do with them. People are taking them on
the sidewalks. It’s a safety concern.
Mr. Marcus stated that he’s surprised more people haven’t seriously injured themselves.
Ms. McGovern stated that the streets of Aspen are not good for these things.
Mr. Rayes asked if the general sentiment with P&Z is “not in Aspen.”
The commissioners agreed.
Mr. Kraemer stated that he wanted to clarify that there is nothing the City can do to prevent dockless
mobility from happening on private property. Encroachment licensing can prevent them from being
allowed in the public right-of-way. An example is that the W Hotel has some scooters for their
customers at the hotel to use. The customers at the hotel will be able to use the scooters on Aspen
streets and sidewalks regardless of the City laws they adopt.
Mr. Rayes stated that there’s no enforcement mechanism if someone wants to lock their bike to a
telephone pole in town. But this business model is on a much larger scale, so it’s something the City
wants to try to address.
Mr. McKnight asked if staff are saying that they can stop companies from coming in and using the public
right-of-way, but they can’t stop the W Hotel.
Mr. Kraemer stated that the distinction that they are trying to make is a dockless scooter company
parking their vehicles on the sidewalks and then charging locals and tourists to use them. That is
separate and distinct from private property that wants to have those vehicles available to their clients or
customers.
Mr. Bryan asked if the scooters that the W Hotel provides have to be returned the hotel and are not left
in the right-of-way.
Mr. Kramer stated that that’s right. He wants the commissioners to know that they may still see them in
Aspen, they just won’t be left in the right-of-way.
Ms. McGovern asked if there is a way to ban them with a business license. The City could say they won’t
grant business licenses to dockless scooter companies.
Mr. Kraemer stated that he’s not sure staff have the forethought on that.
Ms. Bryan stated that there have been several discussions about the best mechanism if people did want
to truly prevent the dockless scooters from coming to town. That’s still a little bit of a question.
Mr. Marcus asked if she’s saying that the right-of-way thing wouldn’t really completely block it.
7
Ms. Bryan stated that it would be a matter of whether the City can just not issue encroachment licenses
at all for these. She is not sure exactly how that’s going to look.
Mr. Marcus stated that the W hotel model bothers him less. It’s monitored by people who are local
instead of monitored offsite by a dockless mobility company in San Francisco or wherever.
Mr. Rayes stated that they’ve done a lot of outreach to the bike shops in town. A lot of them are
concerned about the same things that came up tonight.
Community Development Director Recruitment
Mr. Kraemer stated that City Manager Sara Ott sent an email requesting Planning and Zoning
participation in the search for a new Community Development Director. Onsite interviewing for the
final candidates will be December 5th and she would love all commissioners to attend that meeting. The
City Manager is also looking for a representative to serve on the panel in an all-day closed session
Thursday 12/5. He asked who would be interested.
Mr. McKnight asked what the responsibility of the panel would be.
Mr. Kraemer stated that he doesn’t really have any information on that. It’s an interview panel, unlike
the other session which will be more open.
Mr. Dupps asked if Ms. Phelan is a candidate.
Mr. Kraemer stated that he can’t comment on who the candidates are.
Mr. Dupps stated that he would be interested.
Mr. McKnight stated that he would love to do it, but there are probably people on P&Z who are more
qualified.
Ms. McGovern stated that she would be interested in doing it but that it’s difficult to get the full day off
of work for it. She would like to know what the format for the interview is.
Mr. Kraemer stated that Ms. McGovern should check with work and let him know if she is a yes or no. If
she can’t do it, P&Z will send Mr. Dupps.
ADJOURN
Mr. Dupps motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:06 PM. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
Jeannine Stickle
Records Manager
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner II
THROUGH: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
MEMO DATE: November 28, 2019
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2019
RE: 333 E. Durant Ave.; Mountain Chalet Lodge Elevator
Applicant: Norman Bacheldor,
President; Mountain Chalet
Enterprises
Representative: Scott Smith, AIA
Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA)
Location: 333 E. Durant Avenue;
Mountain Chalet Lodge
Current Zoning: Underlying Lodge
(L) Zone District, with a Lodge
Preservation and Planned
Development overlays (LP-PD)
(Mountain Chalet P.U.D., Ordinance
23, Series of 2001.
Summary: In 2001, Mountain Chalet
Lodge received approval for a
Planned Development (PD) that
allowed for the expansion of the
lodge. The existing elevator did not
allow direct access to the new top
most level of the lodge, which includes
a public lounge area. This application
proposes the extension of the elevator
tower and mechanism to provide
direct access to this top most level of
the lodge.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends
approval of an Insubstantial Amendment of a
Planned Development and Commercial
Design Review for the extension of an
elevator tower.
Figure 1. Location of Mountain Chalet Lodge
9
Page 2 of 4
Mountain Chalet – Elevator Extension
Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting approval for the following Land Use Reviews:
• Planned Development; Insubstantial Amendment – 26.445.110.A
Mountain Chalet Lodge is subject to a Planned Development Overlay, approved
by Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2001.
• Commercial Design Review (combined Conceptual and Final) – 26.412
Mountain Chalet Lodge has not previously received Commercial Design Review
and as such, requires P&Z approval for any exterior changes of significance.
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for these approvals.
However, the approval is subject to call-up by City Council. If Council requests call-up,
Council may remand the decision back to the P&Z Commission for reconsideration.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
Mountain Chalet Lodge received approval for a significant expansion in 2001, that
included the addition of a lounge area on what was essentially a new 5th floor to the lodge.
At the time, the existing elevator was not modified to provide direct access to this level.
Providing accessibility to this new area requires visitors to get off on the 4th floor, navigate
a corridor to a stairwell or lift to the next level, and then navigate back to the lounge on
the 5th level.
As currently configured, this awkward route to the lounge area creates confusion for
visitors, and unnecessary difficulty for those with mobility issues. To resolve this issue,
the Applicant is proposing an extension of the existing elevator to provide more direct
access to the lounge area. The project would involve extending the elevator mechanism
and the existing tower structure that contains the elevator. The addition will match the
existing form and materials of the existing elevator structure.
Existing Proposed Figure 2.
South Elevation
Proposed v.
Existing conditions
10
Page 3 of 4
Mountain Chalet – Elevator Extension
Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF EVALUATION:
Staff has identified five areas of the Land Use Code and Planned Development Approvals
that are involved with this project and were considered by the application:
Floor Area
While not something the Planning and Zoning Commission would be asked to evaluate,
staff has confirmed that any additional floor area created by the extension of the elevator
(likely, very minimal) could be accommodated by the allowable floor area established by
the planned development. Any changes to floor area will be verified during building permit
review.
Maximum Height
The PD establishes the maximum height at 51 feet. The height of the proposed elevator
extension – as measured from the finished grade from the sidewalk on Dean Street is 44
feet. The Land Use Code additionally allows elevator enclosures to extend five fe et above
the maximum height. The proposed height of the extended tower is below both of these
thresholds and visually is even with the highest roof structure of the primary mass of the
lodge. Height will be verified during building permit review.
Mountain View Planes
Mountain Chalet Lodge is located within the Wheeler view plane and infringes on the view
plane. However, the lodge is located in the “midground” of the view plane and therefore
is eligible to be considered for exemptions for specified building features. In the
midground, elevators can be exempted if they comply with height requirements identified
Figure 3. Renderings from southwest and east. Existing v. Proposed conditions.
11
Page 4 of 4
Mountain Chalet – Elevator Extension
Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission
by LUC section 26.575.020 and they are setback more than 20 feet from the lot line
closest to the origin point of the view plane. Staff has confirmed both of these conditions,
and therefore the project is exempt from Mountain View Plane Review. Additionally, the
applicant has provided an exhibit (Exhibit 8) to the application that neither the Mountain
Chalet Lodge, nor the elevator extension specifically, are visible from the Wheeler origin
point.
Insubstantial Amendment to the Planned Development
Because the Planned Development approvals include recorded elevations and floor plans
of the lodge, even minor changes need to be reviewed, and documented if approved.
See Exhibit B for a detailed description of the review criteria and staff findings. Staff finds
that the proposed change is insubstantial in nature and is consistent with the original
intent and the specific approvals of the planned development.
Commercial Design Review
Mountain Chalet Lodge is subject to both the General and Mountain Base Character Area
Standards and Guidelines. See Exhibit B for detail on the specific standards and
guidelines that apply and staff’s findings. Primarily these are related to materiality and
architectural types. Staff finds that the Standards and Guidelines are met . While the
change to the elevator tower is relatively minor, due to the location of the elevator tower
as the front most feature on the Dean Street façade of the building and directly across
from the entry to the St. Regis, staff felt that is was important to receive board approval
for the expansion of this feature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the reviews for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Planned
Development and Commercial Design Review, allowing for the extension of the elevator
at the Mountain Chalet Lodge.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution No. XX, Series of 2019, granting approval for the extension
of the elevator at the Mountain Chalet Lodge.”
EXHIBITS:
A – Application
B – Review Criteria and Staff Findings
12
RESOLUTION NO. ______
(SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING COMBINED COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW AND AN
INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS E, F, G, H, AND I, BLOCK 84 AND A
PORTION OF VACATED DEAN STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE MOUNTAIN CHALET LODGE, 333 E. DURANT AVENUE.
Parcel No.2737-182-45-002
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application fromScott
Smith, AIA of Charles Cunniffe Architects (Representative), on behalf of Norman Bacheldor,
President of Mountain Chalet Enterprises (Property Owner and Applicant), requesting approval
for Commercial Design Review and an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development to
extend an existing elevator tower for the property at 333 E. Durant Avenue, also know as the
Mountain Chalet Lodge; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance 23, Series of 2001 granted rezoning of the property to what is
today known as the Lodge (L) Zone District and approved Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned
Development (PD) overlays for the property;
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the Planned Development and applicable review standards in the Land Use Code
and; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approvalof Commercial Design Review and
an Insubstantial Amendment to the Planned Development to the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and,
WHEREAS,the Mountain Chalet Lodge is located in the mid-ground of the Wheeler
Mountain View Plane and Community Development staff has evaluated the proposed project per
26.435.050, and determined that the project qualifies as exempt from View Plane Review; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment ata duly noticed public hearing on December
3, 2019; and,
13
WHEREAS,the City of AspenPlanning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution _____, Series of
2019, by a _____ to ______ (_____ - _____) vote, granting approval of Commercial Design
Review and an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the extension of the existing elevator tower
subject to the elevations recorded as Exhibit A. The height of the elevator is limited to the
maximum height established by the Planned Development (51 feet) and the exceptions to height
for elevators as described in 26.575.020.F.4.c. Height shall be measured from the finished grade
at the Dean Street sidewalk and will be confirmed during building permit review. Materials used
on the exterior of the extension of the elevator tower shall match existing materials – as depicted
in Exhibit A.
Section 2:
This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or
any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant
must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes
prior to any development on site.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 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.
14
Section 5:
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 Commission at its meeting on December 3
rd, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
__________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Assistant City Clerk
EXHIBIT A: Approved Materials and Elevations
15
Exhibit A –Approved Materials and Elevations
16
17
18
October 1, 2019
Ms. Jennifer Phelan
Planning Deputy Director
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Planning and Review Commission Review Submittal for 333 East Durant Ave.
Dear Jennifer;
Please consider this and the accompanying drawings as a formal submittal for Planning and Zoning
Commission Review for an addition to the existing Mountain Chalet property located at 333 East Durant
Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. This property is legally described as Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 84, City and Townsite
of Aspen. Parcel ID: 2737-182-45-002.
Sincerely,
Scott Smith, AIA
Senior Project Architect
Exhibit A - Land Use Application
19
333 East Durant Ave. Land Use Review
Aspen, Colorado November xx, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
▪Exhibit 1 - Project Overview
▪Exhibit 2 - Land Use Application Form
▪Exhibit 3 - General Summary prepared by Jennifer Phelan
▪Exhibit 4 -Vicinity Map
▪Exhibit 5 - Proof of Applicant’s Ownership
▪Exhibit 6 - Letter of Authorization
•Exhibit 7 - Commercial Design Standards Review: Combined Conceptual and Final
▪Exhibit 8 - View Plane Review: Administrative Review (No Survey Required)
•Exhibit 9 - Existing Approval Documents for prior P.U.D. Approval (Ordinance NO. 23,
Series of 2001) including Dimensional Drawings (Site Plan, Survey, Floor Plans, Elevations).
•Exhibit 10 - Insubstantial Amendment (To the Original P.U.D.)
•Exhibit 11 – HOA Compliance Form
•Exhibit 12 - Application Fee Agreement
•Exhibit 13 – Materials Representation
•Exhibit 14 – Site Improvement Survey
•Exhibit 15 - Architectural Drawings (Site Plan; Floor Plans; Elevations; Roof Plan);
Neighborhood Context Drawing
•Exhibit 16 – Previously approved Plat Drawing A0.0: Area Calculations, Dimensional
Requirements
20
EXHIBIT 1
Date: October 1, 2019
Project: 333 East Durant Avenue. Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description: Lots E, F, G, H and I , Block 84, and a portion of vacated Dean Street,
City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
(Parcel Identification Number: 2737-182-45-002)
Project Description:
Adding a new elevator stop to an existing elevator for ADA access to the top floor of
the existing Mountain Chalet Lodge building and the public meeting room. Currently,
the existing elevator only extends to the floor below the meeting room (A small platform
lift, which is approximately 75’ away from the existing elevator is currently the only other
accessible route to the top floor). The only new space being added is that which is
required for the extension of the existing elevator shaft to the top floor.
The new elevator shaft extension will visually match the existing building with exterior
stucco walls, wood trim fascia, and a gabled, asphalt shingle roof. The visual impact of
the addition will not be visible from View Plane locations, as it is located on the rear
(south) side of the existing upper level building massing. Story poles were placed at the
proposed addition location on September 24, and reviewed by Mt. Chalet ownership
and CCA, as well as a representative from the adjacent neighbor, The St. Regis. The St.
Regis took no exception to the proposed addition. Photos from the Wheeler View Plane
are included in Exhibit 8.
21
22
1
PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2789 DATE: July 6, 2018
PROJECT: 333 Durant Ave, Mountain Chalet
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Smith, Charles Cunniffe Architects
DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant is interested in adding a new stop to the existing elevator to gain access to the top floor
meeting room. Currently, the elevator stops one floor short of the gathering room and a lift is required
for access to the final floor. The property appears to be within the ’background’ Wheeler View plane
(and may be outside the Main Street view plane due to the increased height of the view plane at the
subject location), which will need to be verified by the applicant. The extension of the elevator may
be exempt from view plane review if located in the background and if the design meets section
26.435.050 D.2.a. (setback and height requirements). In the alternative, if the applicant cannot meet
the previously noted section, an administrative review m ay be possible, if the review standards of
section 26. 26.435.050 E (Administrative Review) are met. As a site-specific approval, the Planned
Development is required to be amended or reflect this proposed design change. Additionally, staff
believes this will add Floor Area to the project so compliance with the FAR outlined in Ordinance No.
23 (Series 2001) needs to be shown. Finally, the property is subject to Commercial Design Review
as the design standards discuss elevators/mechanical equipment.
The commercial design standards were not in place when the Mountain Chalet was approved for
expansion in 2001. As such, this is a new review and not an amendment to a previous commercial
design approval, requiring approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the scope of work is
discussed in the design standards (General & Mountain Base chapters). Staff suggests consolidating
the application, making the request a one stop review before the commission for all land use approvals
needed.
Land Use App:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835/Land-Use-Application-Packet-2017
Below is Land Use Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
Design Standards and Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/412/Commercial-Design-Standards-Book-PDF
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.110(A) Planned Development Amendments, Insubstantial Amendment
26.435.050 D.2.a. (ESA) Attached building Features (or)
26.435.050 E. (ESA) Administrative Review
26.412 Commercial Design Review (combined conceptual and final)
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
Review by: Staff for complete application
P&Z for review and approval
Public Hearing: Yes 23
2
Planning Fees: Planning Deposit - $4,550.00
Total Deposit: $4,550 (for 14 hours, additional planning hours over deposit amount are
billed at a rate of $325/hour or reimbursed if under)
To apply, submit the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership
and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of
all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
A site improvement survey provided by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of
Colorado. A survey is waived if clear, dimension drawings are provided. A surveyor may be
needed for view plane issues.
Written responses to all review criteria.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
1 Complete Copy of the above items. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following
items will then need to be submitted:
2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
Number of copies correlates to referral agencies and review boards.
Total deposit for review of the application.
A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The
summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested
right. 24
MOUNTAIN CHALET
VICINITY MAP
20 SEPTEMBER 20181
Mtn Chalet - GIS
CityofAspenGIS
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density Residential
9/19/2018, 4:53:58 PM
0 0.09 0.170.04 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,632
City of Aspen GIS
CityofAspenGIS |
DURANT
A
V
E SPRING STS MILL STDEAN ST
25
O & E NO. 1908068
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
This Ownership & Encumbrance Report constitutes written information identifying the last recorded
owner as shown in the most recent recorded instrument of conveyance, the legal description as set
forth in the most recent recorded instrument of conveyance, and any recorded deed of trust or
mortgage executed by the owner identified herein of the particular real property as identified in said
recorded deed of trust or mortgage available from public records. This report does not constitute a
title search and does not include any additional information, including but not limited to judgments
against prior owners, name searches of prior owners, tax liens or encumbrances against or by prior
owners. This report also does not guarantee the accuracy of the legal description set forth in the most
recent instrument of conveyance or recorded deed of trust or mortgage.
COMMONWEALTH TITLE COMPANY OF GARFIELD COUNTY
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the REAL PROPERTY records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office that the owner of:
Mountain Chalet Planned Unit Development Correction Plat
According to the Final Plat thereof recorded February 8, 2002 in Plat Book 59 at Page 70 as Reception
No. 463762 and the Correction Plat recorded September 17, 2004 in Plat Book 70 at Page 68 as
Reception No. 502034
situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of:
Mountain Chalet Enterprises, Inc.
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following:
Deed of Trust from Mountain Chalet Enterprises, Inc. to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use
of Community Banks of Colorado, showing an original amount of $2,300,000.00, dated December 27,
2012 and recorded December 31, 2012 as Reception No. 595669.
This report does not reflect any of the following:
1) Bankruptcies against the owner as identified herein which, from date of adjudication of the most
recent bankruptcy, antedate this report by more than 7 years.
2) Suits and judgments against the owner as identified herein which, from date of entry, antedate the
report by more than seven years.
3) Paid tax liens against the owner as identified herein which, from date of payment, antedate the
report by more than 10 years.
4) All easements, rights of way and reservations whether of record or not.
5) Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of
title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that
COMMONWEALTH TITLE COMPANY OF GARFIELD COUNTY, neither assumes, nor will be charged with
any financial obligations of liability whatever on account of any statement contained herein.
DATED at Rifle, Colorado this 16th day of August, 2019 A.D., at 7:59 A.M.
COMMONWEALTH TITLE COMPANY OF GARFIELD COUNTY:
BY: Patrick P. Burwell
26
NOTICE CONCERNING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE ACTS
(This Notice is Permanently Affixed Hereto)
It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an
insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company.
Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any
insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false,
incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose
of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a
settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado
Division of Insurance within the department of regulatory agencies.
C. R. S. A. § 10-1-128 (6)(a).
27
Page 1 of 1Elevator doc.pdf -Dropbox10/1/2019mhtml:file://P:\1811 Mtn. Chalet\3_Public Agency\Current planning process\01-PUD Sub...28
EXHIBIT 7
COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposed elevator addition complies with the following applicable standards and
guidelines as they relate to the Remodel section and Mountain Base Character Area:
(Please also refer to Exhibit 15: Architectural Drawings and Neighborhood Context
Drawings)
General and Mountain Base Chapters Applicable Items
1.1: Context study: A photo-image rendering shows the proposed addition in context
with the existing Mt. Chalet building and adjacent buildings (The St. Regis) on the block.
The elevator addition will be the minimum size needed to accommodate the existing
elevator car size, and minimum height as required by building codes. It will be less than
the PUD allowed 51’ height and will be lower than the adjacent St. Regis building,
across the street to the south.
1.5: Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
•While the new elevator addition cannot step back from the existing building
perimeter, due to the need to align with the location of the existing elevator
shaft, the new addition will align with existing building facades and orientation.
The overall size of the shaft addition will be reduced from the existing
1.18: The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building.
•The elevator addition will incorporate the same architectural detailing as the
existing building (Exposed wood roof beams and fascia; Façade recesses and
articulation to match existing.
1.19: Use materials that compliment the design of the building façade.
•The elevator addition will utilize the same materials on the existing building:
Asphalt shingle roofing, painted wood fascia trim, stucco wall surfaces, and
painted wood deck railing.
1.22: Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
•The new building materials will match the materials on the existing building (See
Exhibits 13 and 15).
1.23: Building materials shall have these features:
•The new building materials on the addition will match the quality and range of
materials on the existing building.
1.33: All remodel projects shall meet the Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
•See responses above.
1.35: Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
•The new design alterations will relate to the existing building style and form.29
6.1: On lots greater than 15,000 square feet, the massing of the building should be
broken into smaller volumes:
• The new elevator addition will use the smallest possible building element and
volume to accomplish the desired goal of adding an accessible elevator to the
public meeting room on the fifth level.
6.7: Architecture: Roof forms should be low pitched to reinforce the mountain character
of the neighborhood.
• The roof on the elevator addition will be low pitched (3:12) and match the
existing building.
6.8: Easily identifiable architectural details are encouraged.
• The architectural details will be easily identifiable, as they will match the existing
building.
30
EXHIBIT 8
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW
(Administrative Review per input received from Amy Simon and Claude Salter, following
a review with City planning staff:
“You will not have to do any surveys. As long as you stay below the height limit
established in the PD, you should be fine. The elevator is expected to be subject to
Administrative review and you’ll have to show that the extension is not visible by the
naked eye from the origination point of at the Wheeler and the Main Street
viewplanes. As I said, creating some kind of a mock up and then trying to photograph
it from the view point might be the way to go.” Amy Simon
The Mt. Chalet is within the Wheeler View Plane area, in the Background Component
(Section 26.435.050). The new elevator shaft will be erected only to the minimum height
needed to accomplish the purpose for which it serves, and to comply with the
Commercial Design Standards. The new addition will not be seen by the naked eye
from the reference point (Wheeler Opera House; 7,916.18’), as depicted by
accompanying View Plane photos taken from the Wheeler Opera House or the Main
Street View Plane. Note: The Main Street View Plane angle intersects the Mt. Chalet site
about 140’ above the (Main St. View Plane) reference point, which is well above the
proposed elevator addition.
31
WITH STORY POLES IN PLACE
EXHIBIT 8
VIEW FROM WHEELER OPERA HOUSE MOUNTAIN CHALET
VIEW FROM WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
01 OCTOBER 20191
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
EXHIBIT 10
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT: INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
To the original PUD Agreement for the Mountain Chalet Lodge (See Exhibit 9)
This request does not change the use or character of the development. The new
elevator addition will be added to the existing elevator shaft and will be confined to
the existing shaft floor plan dimensions. It will also not alter the site footprint.
The existing F.A.R is 32,169 sf, per Sheet A0.0 in the approved Plat documents; Exhibit 16.
Total allowable F.A.R. SF is 37,500SF (Existing lot area 15,000SF x 2.5) See Exhibit 16.
The new proposed elevator shaft footprint FAR = 95 sf, which would be counted at the
fourth level.
The included documents and exhibits in this submission will act as an amendment to the
original PUD Agreement (See also Exhibit 15).
72
73
74
75
76
EXISTING ELEVATORSOUTH MILL STREETEAST DEAN STREETDURANT AVE. COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA0.1MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/16" = 1'-0"SITE PLANNORTH77
A1.21EXIST. MEETING ROOMNORTHEXISTING ELEVATOR & VENT ENCLOSURE COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA1.1MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO3/32" = 1'-0"1EXISTING 5TH FLOOR78
DNEXIST. DECKMEETING RMEXIST. STAIREXISTING EXHAUST EXTENSION TO REMAIN4'-9"4'-8" 3'-8"DNEXIST. ACCESSIBLE MOTORIZED LIFTDN30.1 SFELEV.A2.21EXIST. DECKDNEXIST. MEETING RM4'-9" 11'-0"4'-8" 3'-8"DNDEMO EXIST. PLATFORM LIFT91.44 SFEXISTING WALLNEW WALLWALL TYPE LEGEND COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA1.2MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING 5TH FLOOR - ENLARGED1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED 5TH FLOOR - ENLARGEDNORTHNEW SF = 91.44 SF79
3 1/2" / 12"3 1/2" / 12"EXIST. DECKPROPOSED ELEVATOR ADDITION ROOFEXIST. MEETING ROOM ROOF3 1/2" / 12"3 1/2" / 12" COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA1.3MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED ROOF PLANNORTH80
4TH FLOOR126'-9 1/2"5TH FLOOR137'-3 1/2"3RD FLOOR117'-4"2ND FLOOR (DEAN ST.)108'-8"ROOF152'-8"RECESS TO MATCH EXISTING.STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTINGEXIST. VENT ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN10'-6"9'-5 1/2"8'-8"44'-0" 15'-4 1/2"44'-7 3/4"16'-0 1/4"MAX. HT. (ELEVATOR SHAFT)164'-8"56'-0"HT. LIMIT (FROM DEAN ST.)159'-8"51'-0"51'-0" 56'-0" 28'-7 1/2" 18'-1 1/2" 8'-8" 00' COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA2.0MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/8" = 1'-0"PARTIAL PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"PARTIAL EXIST. SOUTH ELEVATION81
4TH FLOOR126'-9 1/2"5TH FLOOR137'-3 1/2"3RD FLOOR117'-4"2ND FLOOR (DEAN ST.)108'-8"ROOF152'-8"NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTINGSTUCCO TO MATCH EXISTINGHT. LIMIT (FROM DEAN ST.)159'-8"DEAN ST. STREET LEVEL @ DURANT AVE.WHEELER VIEW PLANE10'-0"30'-0"EXISTING MEETING RM44'-0" 28'-7 1/2" 18'-1 1/2" 8'-8" 00' COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA2.2MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION82
4TH FLOOR126'-9 1/2"5TH FLOOR137'-3 1/2"3RD FLOOR117'-4"2ND FLOOR (DEAN ST.)108'-8"ROOF152'-8"RECESS TO MATCH EXISTING.NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING44'-7 3/4"44'-0" 18'-1 1/2" 8'-8" 00' 28'-7 1/2" COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCCHARLESCUNNIFFEARCHITECTS610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.comA2.3MOUNTAIN CHALET333 E DURANT AVE.ASPEN, CO1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (EXTENDEDVIEW)83
MOUNTAIN CHALET
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
PROPOSED
EXISTING
84
EXHIBIT 16
The attached Plat document describes the allowable dimensional requirements for the
Mountain Chalet. We have illustrated compliance with the heights in the drawings in
Exhibit 8.
The allowable FAR is: 2.5:1
Lot area = 15,000sf x 2.5 = 37,500sf allowable FAR
Existing FAR (Per PUD Documents) =
23,360 sf Previous existing lodge
5,751 sf Phase 1 additions (4th Floor; 5th Floor Lounge; Misc.) Phases 2 & 3 not
constructed
3,058 sf Employee units and support basement
32,169 sf Total Existing FAR
Proposed added FAR:
95 sf Fifth Floor elevator area
35 sf Fifth Floor existing lift floor infill
130 sf Total New FAR
32,299 sf proposed new total FAR
85
86
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B to the Staff Memo
Review Criteria
Insubstantial Planned Development Amendment
26.445.110.A Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project
Review or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development
Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria:
1. The request does not change the use or character of the development.
Staff comment: The elevator tower proposed for extension has been a part of the
Mountain Chalet Lodge for many years and was depicted as existing in the 2001 PD
approvals for the lodge expansion. The proposed extension provides access to an
existing public area of the lodge. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's original
approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff comment: The changes do not significantly alter original representations and are
insubstantial changes. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s) and does
not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area.
Staff comment: No changes are proposed to the allowed height or floor area. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a technical
nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during the Project
Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project Review, or
otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff Comment: There are no proposed changes to the dimensional requirements. The
elevator extension falls below the maximum height established by the PD and complies
with 26.575.020 (Misc. and Calculations). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
Staff Comment: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Review - Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met
as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include
design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is
appropriate.
87
Page 2 of 3
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section
26.412.040.D, Variations.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must
occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in
order to approve a project proposal;
b. weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Staff Comment: Staff finds that that all applicable standards and guidelines are met.
See specific applicable standards and guidelines below.
B. Pedestrian Amenity
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity.
Staff Comment: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. The proposed elevator
extension has no impact to pedestrian amenity requirements.
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines – As applicable to the project
General
Site Planning and Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. (Standard)
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades, where appropriate. (Guideline)
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building. (Guideline)
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building façade. (Guideline)
Materials and Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. (Standard)
1.23 Building materials shall have these features: (Standard)
• Convey the quality and range of the materials found in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color.
88
Page 3 of 3
Remodel
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. (Standard)
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
(Guideline)
Mountain Base Character Area
Building Placement
6.1 On lots greater than 15,000sf, the massing of the building should be broken into
smaller volumes.
Architecture
6.7 Roof forms should be low pitched to reinforce the mountain character of the
neighborhood. (Guideline)
Details and Materials
6.8 Easily identifiable architectural details are encouraged. (Guideline)
89