Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140107 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, January 7, 2014 REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. 431/433 W. Hallam St. Residential Design Standards Variances VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 1 "For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change" CITY AGENDAS City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1" and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of December 23, 2013 117 P&Z A-4:30 Notice:12/16 431/433 W.Hallam RDS,PH - JP . 1/21 P&Z (aD_4:30 Notice-12/30 Year in review 2/3 P&Z (aD 5:00 (Monday) Council/P&Z work session 2/4 P&Z A-4:30 Notice:1/13 2/18 P&Z 8-4:30 Notice:1/27 Community Development Update December 2013 Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a new three-story mixed-use building. Update: HPC approved the project on July 25, 2012 by a vote of 3:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to HPC for further review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on November 14th. The Applicant applied for subdivision and growth management reviews on February 15th. P&Z granted growth management approval by a vote of 5-0. This case was approved by City Council for Subdivision review on September 9th. Next Steps: The applicant must submit an application for final design review by HPC within a year's time. Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Sarah Adams Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less than 300 square feet. Update: The project's conceptual commercial design review was conducted by HPC. on January 9, February 13 and March 13 and continued their review to April 24, when the project was approved. A hearing was scheduled for 10/15 before P&Z to review the application for PUD and subdivision reviews. The hearing for PUD and subdivision & rezoning reviews was continued to 11/19 before P&Z, at which time the Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial to Council, by a vote of 3:1, with one Commissioner abstaining from the vote. The case went before City Council for first reading on 129. Next Steps: Second reading is scheduled before City Council on 1/13/14. Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Page 1 of 3 Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12, 2012. City Council did not call the project up. Next Steps: The applicant is requesting a six month extension of vested rights to their conceptual approval. Project: 422 E Cooper Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial building, commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop). The applicant proposes to replace it with a new two —three story mixed use building including commercial space and one free-market unit. Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and approved it on October 24. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to HPC for view plane review. HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes. Next Steps: This matter has been scheduled for final review before HPC on January 8, 2014. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Winter 2013/2014 Description: One of City Council's 2012 Top Ten Goals was to "examine the desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff conducted a great deal of background work and stakeholder meetings to gain an understanding of Aspen's lodging sector. The background phase was completed in early May. All the reports are available online at: http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/PIanning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/ In December, City Council identified three (3) goals to focus on: Enabling upgrades to condominium units while maintaining those units in the short-term rental pool, enabling upgrades to existing lodges, and enabling new lodge product. These goals were reaffirmed at a June 25" work session. Council has included a 2013 Top Ten Goal related to adopting a lodging incentive program. Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing lodges, and new lodges. Staff presented a detailed matrix of policy options at the June 25th work session, and Council prioritized changes to condominium and existing lodges. Staff presented specific recommendations to City Council as it relates to changes in Condominiums and Existing Lodges during the July 15th work session, and received Page 2 of 3 direction to pursue the "Standard-Plus" option, with particular focus on ensuring any height and floor area changes are consistent with community character. Next Steps: Staff is working on draft Code amendments that will be presented to Council. This is tentatively scheduled for the fall. Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Winter 2014 Description: City Council requested staff to examine amendments to the SCI zone district to better address the current functioning of the zone. SCI is the only zone district that lists specific allowed uses (Coffee Roaster, for instance), rather than relying on general use categories (Commercial Uses, for instance). Update: Staff has met initially with business owners in the different SCI buildings, as well as with the P&Z to gain feedback on what goals they have for the zone district. Staff presented the findings and asked for initial Council direction at an April 23rd work session. Next Steps: Staff is working on continued outreach with SCI owners and businesses based on the direction from Council. Staff member Sara Nadolny is meeting with Wally Obermeyer to discuss the effects of changing the current SCI zoning to NC at Obermeyer Place on May 29th. A meeting with the representatives of Clark's Market is also planned, to discuss any potential impacts of rezoning the Ace Hardware store at N. Mill St. Station to NC. Staff will return to Council this summer as more progress is made. Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Winter 2013/2014 Description: City Council requested staff to update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review processes. Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff is coordinating with the Parks and Engineering Department on changes related to the Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, and 8040 Greenline reviews. Next Steps: Due to work load in the engineering department, staff has not had an opportunity to refine code language. Staff continues to make progress on this code amendment, and anticipates requesting formal policy direction from City Council at the end of 2013. Page 3 of 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin stated that he abstained from voting at the last meeting on the second vote and there was a lot of pressure from the applicant. He asked if under those conditions if it is possible to adjourn the meeting until a later date where they are not being pressured because of others timelines. Ms.Tygre stated that other than abstaining she is unsure how P&Z can make the applicant table something if they don't want to. Mr. Erspamer said he agrees with procrastinating and sometimes one meeting is not enough. Ms.Tygre asked if the commission does not feel they have enough time to make a decision can they continue it even if the applicant does not want to. Ms. Quinn,Assistant City Attorney, stated she thinks they can. Mr. Gibbs said he feels a continuance is perfectly in order. Ms. Quinn stated that inappropriate behavior by an applicant is grounds to continue a meeting. Mr. Erspamer read the thank you from Steve Skadron and presented the calendars. He asked to pass on a thank you from Planning and Zoning to the mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is an item for the first meeting in January. Ms. Phelan said they are looking at the first week in February to have a work session with City Council. She also said the second meeting in January will be the year in review meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. MINUTES - November 19, 2013 Ms.Tygre wanted criteria and criterion changed when needed. Mr. Erspamer page 10, 2nd paragraph "walk off' needs changed to "lock off', page 17,4th paragraph wants added " Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Brown to state this in a more respectful manner". Mr. Myrin motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No Declaration of conflict of interest. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits - AABC Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms. Quinn has reviewed the affidavit of public notice and it is appropriate. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 Justin Barker, community development planner, said the application is for the development of affordable housing units outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary and the establishment of a certificate of affordable housing credit. The property is located in unincorporated Pitkin County and was originally approved as Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. This included one lot of existing condos as well as this lot which was intended for 17 affordable housing units to be built in two phases. The first phase was built and condominimized to become the Pacific Avenue Condominiums and includes nine units completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. As well as completing the remaining eight units, the applicant is requesting to establish a certificate of affordable housing credit for the 24 FTE's that would be generated by this development at the category two level. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council regarding the establishment of units outside of city limits and the affordable housing credit. Units that are establishing affordable housing credits must meet the criteria of the land use code including being located within city limits. City Council does have the authority to accept units outside city limits as long as they are located within the urban growth boundary. APCHA supports these units mostly because they are three-bedroom units being offered at the category two level. Another review criteria for establishing units within the urban growth boundary outside city limits is all approvals must be obtained from the governing body with jurisdiction over that particular parcel, Pitkin County. The vested rights from the original approval of the 17 units had expired in 2010 but the applicant is working on an administrative approval. The City Council hearing will not be scheduled until the approval has been obtained. Staff is recommending approval of the units outside city limits. The affordable housing credit program was designed to establish an option to offset the impacts of development that occurs within city limits. Mitigation can be accepted within the urban growth boundary but is considered a secondary option. Staff is recommending a prioritization that would reflect the idea that Staff prefers things established within city limits rather than outside. Staff is presenting a reduced percentage of credits being established versus what is actually being generated. Staff recommendation is currently 75 percent of the 24 FTE's which would create 18 total FTE's of credit. Staff is also recommending that P&Z and Council evaluate if a reduction in credits would be appropriate. Mr. Gibbs asked if there was any reduction when the Residences at Little Nell were built. Mr. Barker replied no, it was a combination of different types of mitigation. Ms.Tygre asked if phase one satisfies the requirement of the Little Nell and Mr. Barker replied it does. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the use of"prioritization". Mr. Barker stated the mitigation is preferred to be within city limits. Mr. Erspamer stated it is priority to want it in, or they have to go through the P&Z process. Mr. Barker stated the 25 percent reduction is a reflection of that prioritization. They prefer to have units within city limits. Mr. Erspamer asked if this is a penalty in the code. Mr. Barker stated it is not specifically listed within the code but is an option instead of just accepting units outside of city limits at the exact way it would be presented within city limits. Mr. Erspamer noted the initial approval was for the 24. Ms.Tygre said it is for the same thing it just didn't get built. Mr. Barker noted it is a little different since that was specifically for the one development and this proposal is providing credits to be opened up to any type of development. Ms.Tygre stated it was an already approved plan. Ms. Phelan said it was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Erspamer noted their vested rights have expired and they are re-applying. Ms.Quinn stated they are Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 not going through this because of vested rights but because the applicant is requesting certificates of credit. Mr. Myrin asked if the discussion tonight is whether it qualifies for 100 or 75 percent of the mitigation. Ms. Phelan stated the affordable housing credit program, created in the past three years, did not talk about this type of situation, where someone would offer to voluntarily build affordable housing units outside the city boundaries and ask for credits from the city. There is a process in the land use code to accept affordable housing outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and are proposing that these credits have a value and affordable housing has a value, however this program is not within the city and should perhaps be discounted. Mr. Myrin said that the current code could let something happen outside the city with a reduction and P&Z just needs to figure out how to come up with that number. Ms. Phelan stated that Council has the discretion to accept housing outside the city limits. Mr. Myrin asked if going forward with the 25 percent reduction would set a precedent that 25 percent would also be the reduction the next time this came up. Mr. Barker stated that is part of the discussion that needs to happen. Ms.Tygre asked if the current code takes this reduction into account. Ms. Phelan replied that it is not written in the code. Mr. Myrin asked staff how they came up with the 25 percent reduction instead of some other number. Mr. Barker stated it was considered a roughly reasonable number at this point versus 50 percent. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Peter Fornell, the applicant, stated the affordable housing credit program is designed to benefit the applicant that builds lower category housing. Less money is collected from the person buying the unit and more from the development community. He stated that the two projects he has completed have been just that. At 301 Hyman they completed eight one-bedroom units. Six of those went into the lottery and 63 applicants applied to purchase the units at$104,000 apiece. At 518 Main Street, they restored a historic cabin. Eight of the eleven units will be category two two-bedroom units for $124,000. He stated he wanted to show that his mind and heart are in the right place with what he has completed so far. Mr. Fornell stated that it is his notion to put housing in the city, and at the AABC the property was earmarked as affordable housing with a PUD overlay ten years ago. He said that 24 FTE's take a pretty big project to offset. Mr. Fornell said that building for credits at this location is the only way to see affordable housing get built here in the near future. Mr. Fornell mentioned the discounting of some sort for affordable housing units outside the c ity limits. He stated that to an extent he agrees with it but also not. He stated if he was going to Basalt or somewhere outside our transportation center he might agree with what Staff says about the discounting. He said you need to look at the project for where it is and the AABC is a central location with the exception that it is not inside the city limits. He said that if he would build these eight units and sell them for$1.3 million the credits are worth 5.8 and if he gets discounted it will be for the majority of the revenues that he is trying to create. If it is a category four, he would be discounted for a lesser percentage of overall revenues and is a larger burden for building category two housing. Mitch Hass said outside the city limits is a very broad term. He stated that this is a location at the AABC and has already been approved by the City as a place for mitigation at 100 percent credit for the Residences at the Little Nell. He said it is a location surrounded by employee housing by a large part. Phase one has already been built as well as a playground and park. He stated this is an appropriate place for employee housing. He said the AACP makes it very clear in pushing for employee housing Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 without public subsidy and looking for ways to get public/private partnerships for employee housing development. He stated the AACP also talks about developing employee housing that is transit oriented. He said it is not far outside the city and compared it to the location of the City's employee housing at Burlingame. He stated the City is not developing other employee housing and it is up to the private sector and Mr. Fornell is the only one doing so. Mr. Hass said these are eight three-bedroom units sized at the category four level but Mr. Fornell is willing to deed restrict them at the category two level and hold on to the credits and assume the risk and the time it takes to sell them. Mr. Fornell stated that in regards to the discounting,when he goes out to the market to sell credits to potential users they already have a number in their head that they get from the Community Development Department. He stated he has to compete with a number that is not realistic and to further discount is crippling. Mr. Myrin asked if phase one was discounted. Mr. Hass replied it was not. He said that phase one met close to 89 percent of total mitigation requirement for the Residences of Little Nell and the remainder was met elsewhere. Mr. Myrin asked if there are examples where there has been a discount. Mr. Hass replied no. Ms. Phelan stated there has been no credit program and Mr. Fornell stated he is the only builder to build for credits. Mr. Myrin asked if it works for Mr. Fornell because the 24 FTE's require an enormous project in town where Mr. Fornell can distribute it to multiple projects. Mr. Fornell stated you rarely see anyone who needs 24 FTE's at one time. Mr. Gibbs asked what the delta in construction between categories two and four are. Mr. Fornell stated there is no real difference in construction costs other than in the size of the units. Mr. Fornell said it is a year less for him in building permits to build category four instead of category two. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a risk of the project failing because the gap between the time he puts the money in until the time he gets it out is too far. Mr. Fornell said there is a risk in a lesser return than in other markets. Mr. Fornell said the risk is to him. It took four years to sell his first credit but he has sold 12 this year. He can't get the credit or sell it until someone is living in the unit. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to commissioner comments. Mr. Myrin commented that the staff recommendation has "75 percent of the 24 FTE's produced by the project" does not carry forward to section 2 of the resolution which talks about 18 FTE's. He asked if there would be a drawback to having that as part of the resolution. Staff replied it would not be a detriment to add it in because it is just stating what it would be with the 25 percent reduction. Mr. Myrin stated he would be in approval with thatchange. Ms.Tygre disagreed with Staff recommendation in this particular instance based on the fairness issue. If another project in the same location got 100 percent FTE she does not feel there is justification for them to have 100 percent FTE but this applicant only gets 75 percent. She said it is treating the applicant unfairly and inappropriately considering the previous approval. She said she hates the idea that City Council uses the AABC and allows this but they started it and it is in the code. Her concern is that P&Z is to enforce the code as it exists not as they wish it to exist. Ms.Tygre stated that there may need to be a discussion that if affordable housing is going to be built outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary there should be an adjustment in the amount of credit given. She stated there should be criteria by which P&Z can decide what that reduction should be. She said that arbitrarily saying 25 percent is ill considered and would set a precedent that may not be the appropriate precedent. She Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 stated she would rather see no housing out there rather than a reduced one and P&Z has to judge this project by the code and she does not think they should start changing code for one particular application until it has been discussed and is a matter of policy. Ms.Tygre stated she does not see any reason why the applicant should not get the 100 percent which they have had all along. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre. It is arbitrary and not based on the code as it is currently written. He also thinks since it is not really a development project where the developer is choosing to relocate its mitigation. He said that for a developer like Mr. Fornell where the site already exists it is not going to drive any choice of the siting. He said the code is trying to say to build in town if you can and only if Council agrees will you be able to do it outside city limits. He said that is as far as it needs to go and that is what the code says. He stated that is what he has to support. He said it is a well proposed project and if Mr. Fornell is successful it will provide a lot of housing. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Tygre and Mr. Hass said it best. He said he was hoping the recommendation would not have said 75 percent. He stated it would have been better to leave the figure out. By just picking a number makes everyone look not good and he is against penalizing this one group. He said the project is great but he will not approve 75 percent but will vote for 100 percent mitigation. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 22 series of 2013 recommending City Council approve it with the following modification; section two changing 18 to 24 and will have 100 percent of the FTE's produced by the project (identical to the staff language on page three). Seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr. Gibbs commented that he understands where Staff is coming from and he agrees with the concept but he thinks it would bear good discussion with Staff and Council and then a code amendment. Mr. Myrin stated that fixing the code is something P&Z needs to do and he thinks it is broken. He said they need to honor what the last approval was at this similar location. He said it makes no sense to him to create a reduction when there wasn't one at the same location previously. He said he commends Mr. Fornell for coming up with something that is 24 FTE's and it is rare to have a large project in town and Mr. Fornell is able to split it out. Mr. Fornell stated that there are two parking spaces per unit and four guest spaces. He said they are more than doubling the code for parking. Roll call Ms.Tygre yes, Mr.Gibbs yes, Mr. Myrin yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. Motion carried. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor meeting adjourned. MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directoo RE: 431/433 W. Hallam Street-Residential Design Standards Variances,- Public Hearin DATE: January 7, 2013 Applicant: DH Hallam LLC Representative: Dylan Johns M- Zoning: R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Land Use: Existing duplex proposed to be demolished and replaced with a Single-Family Residence Request Summary: The Applicant is requesting two variance from the Residential Design Standards with regard to the setback required of a garage and the appearance of the garage door. 431/433 W. Hallam (from Hallam) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial the variance requests. T i (from N. 4r� Street) Page 1 of 6 LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant proposes to demolish an existing duplex on the corner lot and replace it with a new single family residence. The Applicant is requesting two variances from the Residential Design Standards, one that requires a street facing garage to be set back further than the front — most wall of the house and one that requires street facing garages to either be single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. The applicant is requesting a variance from L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2.b and f: "The front fagade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." "If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single- stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors." REVIEW PROCEDURE: Variances from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. Figure 1: Vicinity map I!M' Subject ` Site :iii a3.f px. 331 fir=" 4ttLCy. nag' g. ,F» Page 2 of 6 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex located at the corner of N. 4th Street and W. Hallam Street and construct a new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The 6,073 sq.ft. lot does not have access to the alley opposite W. Hallam Street as a separate lot is located between the subject lot and alley. As the lot does not have alley access the garage and parking for the site is proposed along N. 4t Street. Figure 2: Lot Configuration WES,' 11AL(A4 STREET 9 �4 i I I �I 9i a 11l- I I i Alley The proposal is to have the face of the garage flush with the fagade along N. 4th Street, rather than set back ten (10) feet from the front-most fagade as required by the Land Use Code and as shown in Figure 2,below. Figure 3: Original and Proposed site plan -- --1- ------------- I I I I it I II I I I I I I I I i r I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Page 3 of 6 Additionally, the Applicant would like to propose a "hidden" garage door by proposing a door that matches the materials of the building. CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN Page 4 of 6 STAFF ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." Additionally, "Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence." Parking, garages and carports. As noted previously, the parking, garages and carport standard requires that "all residential uses that have access only from a public street" meet certain design standards including having the garage located behind the fagade of the building and to have garage doors "be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors." The intent of this standard is "to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." There are two review standards that the applicant may meet if the Board is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Comment: Residential Design Standards have been adopted to contribute to the streetscape, enhance the pedestrian environment and promote architectural elements that are important components to neighborhood character. Although older development examples are sprinkled throughout the neighborhood that do not comply with the garage door standard, some do. The historic context within the West End is to have detached accessory structures, such as garages, located towards the rear of the property. As this is an attached garage, providing a garage entrance that is set back from the fagade assists in minimizing its presence along the street and should be required with new development. This variance request is not related to reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints, as the Applicant has shown within the application that the set back standard can be met. Adopted standards require garages that are single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. The intent of the standard is to break up the mass of the garage doors, although a "seamless"finish may assist in minimizing the presence of the garage, the curb cut and driveway are telltale signs that there is a garage. A hidden look can still be accomplished by providing two stalls. Page 5 of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does not meet the variance review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.020 D, Variances for the Parking, garage and carport variance request as there are examples of residences meeting the standard and there is not a site specific constraint. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application. The Resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. Changes may be necessary depending on the motion. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny Resolution No. , Series of 2014, approving variance requests from the Residential Design Standards." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B —Application Page 6 of 6 Resolution No._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES AT 431/433 W. HALLAM STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS A, B, AND C, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 39 INCHES OF LOT C, ALL OF WHICH PROPERTY IS SITUATE IN BLOCK 36 IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel No. 273512433001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dylan Johns of Zone 4 Architects, on behalf of DH Hallam LLC requesting Variance approval from two Residential Design Standards for a new single family home located at 431/433 W. Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the twoVariance requests; and, WHEREAS, the 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 at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning 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 Planning and Zoning Commission approves the requests; and WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variances Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves two variances from the following Residential Design Standards that are underlined below, as represented in the application presented before the commission and included as an exhibit to this resolution: A. 26 410.040.C.2.b. Parking, garages and carports. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. The variance granted from sub-section 26.410.040.C.2.b. allows the applicant to build a garage that is flush with the building along N. 4th Street. B. 26.410.040.C.2.f. Parking, garages and carports. If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. The variance granted from sub-section 26.410.040.C.2.f. allows the applicant to build a two car garage door that matches the materials used surrounding the garage. Section 2: Building Permit Application Other than the two variances granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted regulations. Section 3: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 4• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: 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 Commission at its meeting on January 7, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney U Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Linda Manning, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit 1: Approved site plan, elevations Exhibit 1: Approved Site plan and Elevation I I I I bi I I i i I Icl 1 1 i I I i i I i I I I � I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Approved Site Plan � •� OqR aaWR rtzl��^MK xiYY811lM M!I! ■NwIIwIIIiM. :ar`riiir .e.YY rW PufunwewW wr�r Approved garage (area of matching material outlined) EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA& STAFF FINDINGS A. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW No variance shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with either of the requirements set forth below: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff'Finding Residential Design Standards have been adopted to contribute to the streetscape, enhance the pedestrian environment and promote architectural elements that are important components to neighborhood character. Although older development examples are sprinkled throughout the neighborhood that do not comply with the garage door standard, some do. The historic context within the West End is to have detached accessory structures, such as garages, located towards the rear of the property. As this is an attached garage, providing a garage entrance that is set back from the facade assists in minimizing its presence along the street and should be required with new development. This variance request is not related to reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints, as the Applicant has shown within the application that the set back standard can be met. Adopted standards require garages that are single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. The intent of'the standard is to break up the mass of the garage doors, although a "seamless"finish may assist in minimizing the presence of the garage, the curb cut and driveway are telltale signs that there is a garage. A hidden look can still be accomplished by providing two stalls. Staff does not find either criterion met. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Appointment of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: January 7, 2014 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to appoint , as chairperson and as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2014." RESOLUTION NO. -- Series of 2014 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, was elected chairperson and was elected vice- chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 8, 2015; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that be appointed as chairperson and be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: January 7, 2013 LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Linda Manning, Deputy City Clerk Z O N E rA I L INWoUn30 uNwo E 7J r— N3dSd d0 A110 DOZ 0 7, AON A R C H IT E C T S LLC a3A1 3 33 November 19, 2013 Attn: City of Aspen Planning &Zoning Commission Members RE: Request for Residential Design Standards variance for property located at 431/433 West Hallam. Street. To the esteemed members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, This is an application to consider a variance exemption from Section 26.410.040.0 2.b of the Land Use Code, which states: "The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." The subject property is currently configured as a duplex residence and is located has the addresses 431 & 433 West Hallam Street. The proposed design involves the demolition of the existing structure and replacing it with a Single Family Residence+ADU. The configuration of this property is somewhat unique when compared to the predominant sub-urban pattern of development in the West End. Rather than occupying two platted town site lots and having the long axis of the lot extending from the Street to the Alley (North/South),the long axis of this property is oriented across a portion of three town site lots in an East/West direction. The southern 1/3 of the three lots are owned by the Weaver Subdivision with the address of 422 West Bleeker Street, and this area currently serves as surface parking and a single story garage for the 422 West Bleeker residence. The effect of this is anomaly is that the property at the corner of 4th and Hallam Street does not currently have driveway access to the alley and is forced to access the property via a curb cut on 4`h Street. IF the Property did have driveway access to the alleyway (and the garage doors hence facing the alley), this variance would not need to be requested, since the language within Section 26.410.040.C.2.b specifically states that the front facade of the garage (i.e. garage doors) is required to be setback from the front fagade of the Residence by 10 feet, but does not specify that any other portion of a garage must be located 10 feet behind the front fagade of the Residence. The Residential Design Standards were established to primarily protect the character of the West End from redevelopment which was occurring there in the late 80's and early 90's, and thus were codified around typical lot configurations found in this Zone District. The variance process was established to address situations where the lot configurations "ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 did not conform to the typical 30x 100 foot platted lots which spanned from Street to Alley, both in the West End and in other Zone Districts within the City of Aspen. In response to the criteria for review of this variance request application, please see below: 2. G ariances fi•oni the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040. which do not meet this Section, rncry be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Acj ustnient or the Historic Preservation Commission. if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.115. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and'Zoning Conunission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing Cite other land use application.An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted ivould: a)Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose oj'the particular standard.In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship oj'the proposed development with adfacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted: or -Response: There are several properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property which do not conform to Section 26.410.040.C.2.b The proposed design is not out of context within the immediate neighborhood. b)Be clearly necessai y for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. -Response: This Property has unusual site-specific constraints by virtue of the atypical lot configuration, which creates an unfair burden on the property because Section 26.410.040.C.2.b forces the reduction of usable lot area that is not within a right of way or setback for no other reason than the Property Owner not being unable to utilize the clear access to the alley. Application of 26.410.040.C.2.b in this case does not further the intentions of this code section by either"minimizing the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traff=ic" (as the lot is not located within the City's Sidewalk Attainment Zone, and the right of way is not pedestrian friendly by nature of being sloped), or"reduce lifeless parts of the streetscape"by virtue of a having a slight facade offset and creating longer driveway. If the intention of the code section is to minimize the presence of what a garage door looks like to a pedestrian,there are much more effective ways of masking the visual impact of these elements(examples below),although an additional variance from variance from Section 26.410.040.C.Lb would be also required. It is important to consider that if the Property Owner was able to secure an access easement or property rights to the portion of the Weaver Subdivision area which would allow entry to the garage from the alley,the garage wall facing 4`" Street would be allowed,by right,to have the same western garage wall setback as what is being requested in this application. Thank you for your consideration, Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects ZONE 4 ARCHI'T'ECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 Examples of Garage Doors which do not look like garage doors. hnplementation of door designs below would also require a variance from Section 26.410.040.C.I.b "If the garage doors(ire visible fi°om a.street or alley, then they shall be single-stall floors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. " Er. S a5w: fx LONE 4 ARCHITECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 10.22.2013 PROJECT: 431/433 West Hallam St REPRESENTATIVE: Dylan Johns&Bill Pollock-970.948.6787 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Residential design standards variance DESCRIPTION: The potential applicant is interested in demolishing the existing duplex on the site and replacing it with a single family residence and on-site ADU. The subject parcel is approximately 6,073 sq. ft. (per the Assessor, a survey is required to confirm the actual lot area), and is located in the R-6 zone district. The property does not have access to the alley directly south, as a portion of the land adjacent to the subject parcel and the alley belongs to the neighboring Weaver subdivision, the bulk of which exists just across (south of)the alley. The potential applicant has proposed a design where the garage's front facade is set back less than ten (10) feet from the front-most wall of the house. This will require a variance from Section 26.410.040.C.2.b of the Land Use Code, which states: `The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Notice requirements include publication, mailing and posting per section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a}—(c). Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http:/twww aspenpitkin com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20land%20use %20app%20form.pdf Provided below is a link to the Land Use Code. http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-DevelopmentIPlanning-and-Zonin-qrritle-26-Land- Use-Code/ Applicable Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.410.040.0 Parking, garages and carports Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Planning &Zoning Commission for determination Public Hearing: Required Fees: $3,250 deposit for up to 10 hours of review(additional billable hours, or hours to be refunded will be at the rate of$325 per hour) To apply, submit the following information • Total Deposit for review of application. • Pre-application Conference Summary. r • Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. • Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. • A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. • A recent survey of the subject parcel. • Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. • An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. • Existing elevations of the development. • A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards (26.410.040) relevant to the development application. • 10 copies of the Land Use Application and all additional letters, maps, and agreements. 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. January 9, 2013 City of Aspen Building Department 517 E. Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 4311433 West Hallam I Owner Authorization Parcel ID#273512433001 To Whom it May Concern: Zone 4 Architects has the authorization of DH Hallam LLC, the property Owner, to meet with City of Aspen ofl`icials as well as submit any required land use applications,permit applications, and change orders for the sole purpose of constructing of a new residence on the property currently designated by the addresses 431 &433 West Hallam Street in Aspen Colorado and having a Parcel/D#273512433001. Sincerely, DH Hallam Joeseph , Ma agar Pq Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Land TWe srr m►ernNr WWW.LTGc.c0K Date: 11-02-2012 Our Order Number. Q62004916 Property Address: ' 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN,CO 81611 Ifyou have any inquiries or require further assistance,please contact one or the numbers below: For Ciosina A%htance: For Title Assistance: Kate Staskauskas Aspen Title Dept. 533 E HOPKINS#102 Kmt Beereboom ASPEN,CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS#102 Phone:970-925-1678 ASPEN,CO 81611 Fax: 800-318-8202 Phone:970-925-1678 EMail: k9mkauskas @hgc-coed Fax: 970-925-6243 EMai1: kbeereboom@Itgc.coxn ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY BJ ADAMS AND COMPANY-rmx* 415 E HYMAN AVE 534 E HOPKRjS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 Attn: TRACY EGGLESTON Attn: ANDREW ERNEMANN Phone: 970-948-7130 Phone: 970-379-5125 Fax: 970-920-3880 Fax: 970-920-2927 EMAI:tracyaspen @yahoo.com EM A:andww@bjac.net Sent Via EMail Sent Via EMai1 .. WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC LAISESHORE COMMUNITIES.INC 4520 MAIN ST#1060 Attn: JOE WOLF KANSAS CITY MO 64111 Email:jWOLF@LAKESHOREMHC.COM Attn: BUSH HELZBERG Sent Via EMAI EMai1:BUSH @PVAFUND.COM LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY 533 E HOPKINS#102 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 Attn: Kate Staskauskas Attn: ASHLEY CHOD Phone: 970-925-1678 Phone: 970-925-6060 Fax: 800-318-8202 Fax: 970-920-9993 EMail:kstaskauskas @ltgc.com EMail:ashley.dwd @sothebysrealty.com Seel Via EMail r Land Title Guarantee Conpany -�'^ CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION I Land We c�Cow.u+r Rf•.L7.C.Com Date: 11-02-2012 Our Order Number: Q62004916 Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 Attu: ROBERT EGGLESTON,JR. Phone: 970-925-6060 Fax: 970-920-9993 EMad:BUBBAEGGCcDYAHOO.COM Sent Via EMail 11.15.12 orasva.o (8/2003) Land Title Guarantee Company Date: 11-02-2012 Land ICJ TWe Our Order Number: Q62004916 ew+xnKree eoUPAW WW W.LTOC.COM Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN,CO 81611 Buyer/Borrower: LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES,INC Seller/Owner: WALNUT CREEK RANCH, I.I.C. A KANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Wire Informadon. Bank:ALPINE BANK 6010 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone. Credit. ABA No.:1OZ103407 Account:ZOZW10529 Attention:Kate Staskauskas Need a map or directions for your upcoming dosing?Check out Land Title's web site at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our 54 office locations. ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES ALTA Owners Policy 06-17-06 $4, .00 $65.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s) (Owner) $65 Tax Report $25.DO f Land ritls Quarantas Company van bs closing this transaction, abovs fees v%22 be collsctad at that tista. L z . TOTAL $4,642.00 .b,=cown:06/04 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER[ Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. 1262004916 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: October 24, 2012 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued,and Proposed Insured: "ALTA"Owner's Policy 06-17-06 $2,550,000.00 Proposed Insured: LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES,INC 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: WALNUT CREEK RANCH,LLC,A KANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: THE NORTHERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS A,B AND C, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 39 INCHES OF LOT C, ALL OF WHICH PROPERTY IS SITUATE IN BLOCK 36 IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. COUNTY OF PII'KIN,STATE OF COLORADO. w ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION PROJWr: Name: y'-:5:1T WE'S'T N�4LL � Location: q3J PIS3 V eS-r 14AU A-t-4 (Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description wh6re appropriate) Parcel ID# UIItED 12 4 3 3� i APPUCAW: Name: N MALL LL C.. Address: C&-WTn Jt U1 fV*q wl L i fir~ Pt'' 110005 Phone#: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: N t Address: Phone#: XfZl- 6q TO TYPE OF AppLICAnom(please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA-8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use ExwnNG CoNDmoNs: • 'on of existing buildin uses, vats,etc. �7vsTi«Xr 'Dvr�c To BE 1v4o'Js y No PIWAOVs lJfi U5 a' //u✓ '. PROPOSAL: lion of m buildirim uses,modifications,etc- d%) VeSinwGts'- '7b $� God az i"its' 1/ 1rhVGa' S£�uS -rwlS T -PwS NC'T H � 'G�S P/Le A+s r11. 13 Cawl II?!M/ w Have you attached the followingt FEES Dog:S ❑ Pre-Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D modeL Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. w . Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen "Ci and Property Phone No.: Owner Cl'): DH Hallam, LLC Email: Address ; / uEST N& r Address: 2711 Centerville Road, #300 (subject of (send bills here) application) Wilmington, DE 19808-1645 1 understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011,review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. 1 understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. i understand that these fiat fees are non-refundable. $ Nl flat fee for $ flat fee for $ AZLA- flat fee for $ - flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above.the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above fisted billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. 1 agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. i understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 3.Z5U deposit for t 0 hours of Community Development Dep7Addirtdi time. Additional time above the deposit amount wig be billed at$315 per hour- $LA deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff tial tim a ove the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner. I It Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: DHDH F alga LL By: Jo$ h I. Wo , President Title: City Use: f Fees Due:$ Rte:$ ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: '-t31 l y33 w;�sT Nqu w► Applicant: LL LLC- Location: 'J'A q 3 3 W IF'S T H4LL AJdf ST Zone District: W'6 . Lot Size: &. 0,4,3 Lot Area: , 04 3 (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes.Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:- MIA Proposed: /V o+ Number of residential units: Existing: Z, Proposed: 1 f 4kl>V Number of bedrooms: Existing. G Proposed. G t AVC V Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:_L64_Allowable: W YM Proposed:-3-4 $5 W/7PrL Principal bldg.height: Existing: 17.1 VS'f Allowable: _Proposed: 25 1 Access.bldg.height: Existing:_ NJA Allowable: 2-461 Proposed: N 14A On-Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: V ADV Proposed: Zf ARV c e � %Site coverage: Existing: 3 e Required: T0,Yd' Proposed: 3 9 %Open Space: Existing: Required: 14 Proposed: N A' -WA�dm-) Front Setback: Existing: 1D- SZRequired: 1� 1S�u- Proposed: iv`lo lo'y Rear Setback: Existing:hng:�_Re uired: �0 5 4*4 W Combned F/R: Existing: !Z. Required. N A Proposed: ZO-10 Side Setback: Existing: �" Required Proposed: 3-7- Side Setback: Existing:_� Required: N Proposed: N /- Combined Sides: Existing: _Required: 4 Proposed: N Distance Between ExIStInS 11/� Required: Jr Proposed. 5 Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: l`)VST/'V 6' 1A3 I G1E vC E HAS kS S E—r44 C . A1e41-C*V F*t011 T1 ES . r14fiC avU NoN-Co*JPW" Variations requested: NO V4 VC&3 U-*J0Tc-P west End Mstwr sW. J. s40 waat Frames la1 S{Ad F I� •-�''� Q S sr --- .t`' 'ago a�H 47 `�•t- f eaQ xl s29, 319. 61Q, tY 317+ 8, .. fX ' 411, - 434. H `sot. �,,. , 3m• ago, --- •```` 3 HALLAM ``-.f ,,• --� a33 ° $25, R-6 404. w _ 'LD4. x r - waav+ar jfi� I Is it ri al,, • 517. j9.. 310, ^t Impro vem en t Survey Pla t The Northerly 70 Feet of Lots A B and C, FXcepl the Easterly 3,9 Inches of Lol C, 411 of Xhich is ,Siluale in Block 36 in the CITY OF ASPEN 6PS MONUMENT N0. City 9 and Fownsite of Aspen, Pilkin Counly, Colorado CITY OF ASPEN . GPS MONUMENT NO. 20 a �\ Legend and Notes, I/f G indicates found monument as described indicates Spruce Tree indicates Cottonwood Tres indicates Water Service I Reb cap of slue 7NMMMX ar* / \ – 3 B0 Bearings are based upon a No. 5 mbar with a plastic cap L.S 19184 at the 90 \ northwesterly comer of sold Lot and o No. 5 Reber 53• 7 / \ found at the northeasterly comer, using a bearing of S75'09'11 E between said Y / \ monuments. 70# 7904.89 \ – The unit of measurement for this surrey is the U.S Survey Foot. x790419 MBAR – Th e Yertica/datum used in this surrey is based upon NA 88. 7904.19 7903 GRAPHIC SCALE The date that this survey was preformed was January 22, 2012. x I � – Tines are measured by the diameter of breast height(OBN)and the symbol is scaled to the drip line o ` + n – Said Parcel is entirely within Zone X Area determined to be outside of 500 year \e 7 Se7gfe SYyy DUD- iF E1r t IN FM Rood Plain'per FEMA flood Insurance Rote Map, Ponta 203 of 325. I 431 433 Hallam Street 5 1 inch=1D M (Qk�(vN�erer'Oh �� LOT AREA. – This surrey does not represent a title search by this surwyw to determine ownership / y LOT Aj / / or to discover easements or other encumbrances of record. All information pertaining to 4 ownership, eosemen is or other encumbrances of record has been token from a title insurance commitment issued by Land lit/e Guarantee Company, dated October 24, 2012, Carport / / as Order Number 062004916 7N/S FRO-ca?rr/S sya.ECT 70 ANY FACT$Po047S IN7ER£sM OR CW1/S WNOY MAY 4XST LW ARSE BY AWN OF ME FOLLOWNG FAC7S s7/ONN ON/MPROIWENT SURWY DATED AUGUST 01,2012 ;9 PREPARED BY ROCYY MOUNTAIN SURIEHNC.q B/12540_ _ME f t'• 1 8/ EASMW BOUNDARY S7URCCr PROFERTY ANDnTHf,EFFECT OF ANY R/G/T 1771.E OR V-1 a K SPAT wm?f5'T INAT MAY BE a.A/MED DUE 7O ANY SAID Dlsa E ANCY.(PER SAID M E O011"7kDvr E rMP77G✓ \ ���� ft fiNyR l 790J 90 � NO.9) oirrN to 64 No. 5 Rebor and / Cap Illegible Vicinity ffap 1 "_ 5500' 36 gar Surveyor's Certificate: �!. \' /, ✓efNey Allen 7utt/e, being o Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado, 3 ay r `.,� do hereby certify that this improvement survey was prepared from on actual monumented land survey of the property comer monuments both found and set, under my direct supervision and checking, that it is carmct to the best of my belief and knowledge and that all dimensions, both linear and angular were / / •: +. �[�,m determined by an accurate contra/surrey in the field which balanced and closed within o limit of 1 in 15,000(which complies with Colorado Professional standards for a/and surety pint and the current accuracy standards for AL MIACSM Land Title / ; -c' a, / O •„io_. Surreys): I further certify that the improvements on the obom described parcel on ��� this date, January 22, 2013, except utility connections, are entim/y within the `/ r •]1 boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there ore no encroachments upon tF • L {�' the described premises by mmprorements on any adjoining premises except as Indicated and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing e��•�.., l�_Y - or burdening any part of sold parcel, except as noted. rn + s �./(f ✓effmy Alien 7uttie LS 33638 Dote Nah�e Ahab vy,^�•7„�,,,•,pro^m ,�ommen<, TITTTl�' SDRY�'YING S�fRYJC�'S a's rin r noh4lAf urywv�^^^y di.�r=^ 727 Blake Avenue 431 and -133 Nest Hallam Drown by,- Qrsr dis�oyi.r sv�A deJr�r /no T yI^may 0/en wood S rin s, Co%rodo 81601 Dot,., i�T 3 y leye/aenon daxd upon arty dU�1 in Improvement .Survey Pia l > P g < > 2�Ispen Colorado 81611 sv, a cnmmsn vd m• eA^n rin yin., 970 928-9708 FAX 947-9007 s feff®tss—us.cam TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES OF HALLAM STREET ( SOUTH SIDE) II , Ir � x .A.v .r - _ _t ran.r • _ - s-� �t� dw • - .. IL •- — � � ri � .,.,� r�-s�r..�—s f—•�+�t� � w r.rte �_ .. w _ h a M, r HALLAM STREET ( NORTH SIDE FLIPPED ) Z O . N E i 431 /433 HALLAM ST I 3D ELEVATION AT HALLAM STREET N.T.S. 11 . 15.2013 ARCHITECTS uC 4th STREET ( EAST SIDE ) MW awl fb AW` � a -,- �� � — -...� `• -T'. -.� ��. -. � .� ,^ ,,fix � ` y ::' r �'.., q'-. t A f - y. M y M/ r r�• ,t t I 4th STREET (WEST SI DE FLIPPED ) Z O . N E i 431 /433 HALLAM431 /433 HALLAM STI3D ELEVATION A T HALLAM STREET ELEVATION A T HALLAM STREET N.T.S. 11 .15.2013 ARCHITECTS uC F-ZONE 4100 HAL AMN-l.l Ga R.n.,pin VJ m z D r 0 m U) G) z 0 �� �m 4� O a 0 U) m 0 ? o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE iO 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET 2 ASPEN, CO 81611 D. D N N O 0 p zzCD x Q F oo 0ox 0�.. m �� Z n-N n 0 0 -4 �rom N m o � am o yj T ig 0 � z ? o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE iO 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET 2 ASPEN, CO 81611 D. D N N O 0 p zzCD x Q F oo 0ox 0�.. m �� Z n-N n 0 0 -4 �rom N m Z 0 . N E r—I I A R C H I T E C T S L L C. P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81612 WVWV.ZONE4ARCHITECTS COM ............ w zi Oi 0 LU ol m LU 0� I S C W 4 40 =D 2 OZ 5 LU w 0. I TREAD AT 12: 3 IRISERSAT, 12TREADATll'-j. 3RISERS.Tl UP S RELOPE CIVIL I I LU DULDI GSETtkCK i It _Rl -------------- Lo u LO U� BY REVISIONS DA c Drawn by: Z4A DOES HE ABWE ONE 1— (11) BEEN ENLARGED d1 EDJCEO �� FFECTING ALL LIBELED SCALES " W712013 SITE ALL POSED -ALLEY ALTERNATE SITE - PRO SI;a1e: �A NOTED (02,/) -u (o 1 bUAl-h lfff I-V H ALT DRIVEWAY it A101 ft­ 1I 2013 Z O . N E I dL 7. 170 ARCHITECTS L L C. P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81612 VNNVV ZONE4ARCHITECTS COM 3 W g U � Z w w � LU FAIR LU <r. cA 2 Q0 z J W � — Q �U) - a l -- — F- LU O� ,,,\\O 02 WEST ELEVATION- ORIGINAL DESIGN WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED By REVISIONS DATE gg €§ 74 �y E� i� Drawn by: Z4A gg€ F TIIE�ODES IWT MEA ONE NLN (t") $ El(PCRY T-Itl3 dUW1NG WILL HAVE ,� BEEN ENLGROED CR REDUCED. €� PFFEODNO RLLtASELEO EGLES e� Date: 11nno18 Scale: AS NOTED �� P� ;s R W E ELEVATIONS �s = gF �y A301 5� O Rove on: �TnrzoTS 3e i w ■�i ■■ � � ■ �, ■! !' ���f iii �i iii.� ■ � ■► ��! ■��■■�� "rte. ��� ����..�.� I m z,::,` .,:�� '° ■�■� ■ICI ., _ r ■�r■■�■■� �I�� ICI ��r�■� CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' E S I G N z o . m t 431 /433 HALLAM ST 3D ELEVATION AT 4TH STEET ARCHiTECTA LLC I I� T S 1 1' I 1. s alb �1 _77' 4 Z O N E _ 1 431 /433 HALLAM431 /433 HALLAM ST I HIDDEN GARAGE DOOR CONCEPTS DOOR CONCEPTS N.T.S. 11 .1 5.2013 l ARCHITECTS uc CURRENT ' PROPOSED 1 431 /433 HALLAM ST • ,I 1w ARCHiTEC LLC ... _ i CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' • 431 /433 HALLAM ST 3D PERSPECTIVE ,� LOOKING N • • LLC CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' E S I G N z o . m a 431 /433 HALLAM ST 3D VIEW AT CORNER OF 4TH & HALLAM LLC I I� 1 ........... ly i CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN Z O N i 431 /433 HALLAM ST AERIAL VIEW dL_ N.T.S. 11 .15.2013 F, ARCHITECT! uC .., ., � �� rw it rr ,.,� ��,rw rr ►r. , rY t�it� a.. f I � • ' I��� !J�/;d ti�� �! , el • - i�� y.. 1�r�r�zyj���,++� �� I' 1 �i1�A �! �r v � * � ar _ --=--r •z l'� ��� � ��` + ,-rear '�� ��' �'r' „, ., � 1�� '1�' r• r• �i■�wr�r� CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN z 0 . N 9 HALLAM ST 3D ELEVATION A T HALLAM STREET ARCHiT Kali LLC I� Z O . N E ' I o r ARCHITECTS L L 0. P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81612 WV VZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM W i? S Y G -__---- --_____ - ---- - - -- - ---------- ------- ------ ----- ----_ -- 'ii I. III --_ __----______ ------------ uj W zW// 1 W lJ. I I 1 3 i I J00 i N I I ii pI J I P I I I I F I I O QO -----t----- . a J uj I I M I I e I i � i ----------- - -- 'Gpa co (°1 _ 4� H I � - GOB ITIT U]J 't --- - �1 -- -_— -_--= LF BY REVISIONS DATE 5 H5€p 3R �x Drawn by: Z4A ROOF PLAN —ORIGINAL DESIGN \/L SCALE 318= 1'-0 �/ I SCALE:3116 oeuff F AROD 11 wrceH c nnMrsrer.u nrusHnuw ru roaE E a m u u as c aMLE Date ep s o sracamluu H ue wcs w mIrs s l. I B �€ 11!7/2013 >€ Scale: I AS NOTED gt o �g s R ROOF E PLANS e s A202 0 ,� FIOME a.: nnrzou Z O . N E d L A R C H I T E C T S L L C. P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81 61 2 VWAN ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM 9 3 W U e Z w - - w W LU J co - - =0 J Nw w J a � N r"M -- (n r. LU M L I e E O� 0�O GO m 0# SEAST ELEVATION- ORIGINAL DESI GN EAST ELEVATION- PROPOSED BY REVISIONS DATE 4 € Drawn by: Z4A IF irE MEF911RE ONE�INOfI �t•� S Exitnr,ms oanvnN3 wlu Hwy Ef£N ENw�Fn oA sEOUCm ,uFECnNO nu ueE��s 23 i� Date: 11712013 a Scale: AS NOTED s R Ep E ELEVATION '304 H A, RotlM On: IlaW3 b0 Z O . N E I Ll C7� A R C H I T E C T S L L C P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81 61 2 WWW.ZONE4ARCH ITECTS.COM 9 F � I E G W U II LU W I i D F � W Q co a_0 Z L L J 3N � Q � C- Lj�, �O� JG �G NORTH ELEVATION-OR DESIGN 02 NORTH ELEVATION- PROPOSED VG scAlE:lr4° = r-o SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" — - --- SY REVISIONS DATE if I 4 gp 3� Drawn by: 24A ® 9 33 NOT MFA9URE ONE -Y,-DRANING NI,HOVE p 6�N ENLARGED OA RECLGm. H AfFECi1NG N1LABElEDSCALES pgp$t 8� - Dare: 1117/2013 Scale: I AS NOTED R N ELEVATION G9g A303 LL F%WOn: 1117=3 ae Z O . N E I aLi. 9 I i I III 1. - ARCHITECTS Ili L L C. P.O. BOX 2508 FO ❑ WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM l � - W --------------- -- -- - - Z W I I a I J� QO 3 WEST ELEVATION- PROPOSED � 2 u J wa Q 3 rn = M Q q M c W M ❑ a ❑ 1 °� � s _ -- G0 s i 3 --- - BY REVISIONS DATE Drawn by Z4A ¢ ---------------------.----- � lW IF T�PBWE pMEN9lON GOES 3 ExncnE rigs os.vaHC a u�+n� tl. ---------------- ---------I _ - Dale: 11!112013 I J Scale: AS NOTED Io Q WEST ELEVATION- ORIGINAL DESIGN ELEVATION s A302 PbtlW On: 111]Y1013 �C I A EXHOM ArALX-- Aspen Alp s October 2, 2014 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, On September 30`h, 2014,the Aspen Alps Condominium Association Board of Managers conducted a meeting in which it addressed the redevelopment submission of the Sky Hotel. Per the Board's resolution,the Board would like to make the following known to the commission. On June 24`h, 2014,the Aspen Alps sent a letter,which is attached for your review,to the owner's representative for this redevelopment, Mr.John Sarpa. In that letter, our attorney identified significant concerns that our Association has with this redevelopment proposal. While the letter itself is quite detailed, in summary,the Aspen Alps identified the following as concerns: 1. The height of the structure is excessive,when considering the setback provision by the 100 building. The architecture from Spring Street to Original has the effect of"walling off'the Aspen Alps and will obstruct not some, but all the views of the existing residents in that direction. 2. We are concerned about the structural stability of Aspen Alps buildings surrounding this potential construction site. 3. Several overtures have been made about either extinguishing our parking easement in the 100 building parking area, modifying it, and perhaps moving parking to a different area during and after construction. Lacking any acceptable proposal,we have no interest in altering our parking or our access to that space at this time. 4. Safety and Traffic:Anyone who has experienced Spring Street between the Little Nell,the Sky Hotel and the Aspen Alps during either the winter or summer season understands the chaos that exists.This plan will not be an improvement in the situation and the planned sidewalk protruding into the street must be eliminated. 5. Noise:The current practice at the Sky Hotel with regard to parties at their pools creates a great deal of noise directed at the Aspen Alps property, and very negatively affects our quality of life. While Mr.Sarpa has met individually with me, Mr. Moses Lebovits(our Board President), and Ms.Joan Marek(our 100 building representative), we have received no satisfactory response to our concerns. We are now engaging independent architects to review the Sky's development proposal as the little information we have received in relation to sight-line or shadow diagrams we feel have been misleading. While we understand the desire for the Sky to upgrade its facility,there seems to be a disproportionate impact on us,their neighbor. It is our amenities, views, entrance, neighborhood feel, property values and quality of life that will be affected by this redevelopment.These are not temporary inconveniences during construction, but permanent changes that are negative in our view. 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (800) 228-7820 Fax (970) 920-2528 Info @aspenalps.com www.aspenalps.com Recipient of the 2005 and 2006 Greentree Award for Environmental Stewardship, Aspen ZGREEN Business To summarize: if the City was to support the current form, aside from the public health risks identified,we feel development of 9 extra hotel rooms will be at the expense of the 16 south facing units of the 100 building. Equally concerning is the negative effect on the arrival of the many owners and guests of the Aspen Alps Condominiums. At this time, we cannot accept this plan as presented. We standby as we did since our letter of June 241h to work with the developer to find an appropriate solution for the satisfaction of all involved. In the best interests of Aspen and our neighborhood we ask that you send it back to the applicant for significant improvement. i 5;nc ; y, r ohn i. Corcoran ` General Manager Aspen Alps Condominium Association r .O.L L.�1 N D&H A RT, Thomas J. Todd Phone(970)925-3476 Fax(970)925-9367 ttodd @hollandhart.com June 24, 2014 VIA E-MAIL AND US MAIL Mr. John Sarpa Northridge Capital 300 South Spring Street. Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 john(ajohnsarpa.com Re: Sky Hotel Proposed Redevelopment—Aspen Ads Condominium Association's Preliminary Comments and Concerns on Neighborhood Review Sketches and Plans Dear John: Holland& Hart LLP represents the Aspen Alps Condominium Association. I am writing to share with you our client's preliminary comments and concerns on the proposed redevelopment of the Sky Hotel, as the same has been proposed in the set of Neighborhood Review sketches and plans (the "Neighborhood Review Plans") previously provided to Aspen Alps General Manager John Corcoran. Our client's comments and concerns are set forth below, Where applicable, these comments and concerns are keyed to the numbered pages and/or titles appearing on each sheet of the Neighborhood Review Plans. Page A5.01: I. The stated height of the peak of the new Sky Hotel's roof is approximately 40 feet (the Dean Street side is 43' 6", but Dean Street is slightly lower than the parking lot of the Aspen Alps). The top of the 1.00 Building is 23'3", and the living level of the second floor of the 100 Building is much lower, around 15' This means that the proposed new Sky Hotel will be almost twice the height of the 100 Building, It is unclear how this will affect the views from the 100 Building's second floor balconies. Please update your visual diagrams to present a view line from the 100 Building's second floor entrances as well as from the 200 Building. The South Alley Alps View is not as the 100 Building owners understand the actual conditions to be, and the perspective from that sheet seems inaccurate and misleading. Bear in mind that the current entrance to the Aspen Alps, including the approach from Spring Street to the 100 Building and 200 Building reception area, is open and park-like; we need to better understand how the proposed redevelopment will impact these site lines. Holland&Hart LLP Attorneys at Law Phone(970)925-3476 Fax(970)925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street,Suite 104 Aspen,CO 81611-1991 Aspen BiNags Boise Boulder Cation City Cheyenne Colorado 5�,cs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole las Vegas Reno Salt Lake Cary Santa Fe Wasmngtw,D.C. HOLLAND&HART, June 24, 2014 Page 2 From our preliminary view we think it is likely that all light and any partial view that now exists will be blocked, as the Sky Hotel almost doubles in height. If this is the case, then from the 100 Building's perspective., this new height is unacceptable. 2. It appears that the proposed underground parking encroaches on the reciprocal easement agreement areas. We will need assurances that throughout demolition, construction and build-out, the surface parking access and parking easements in favor of the Aspen Alps will remain accessible, be fenced off and protected from construction activities and otherwise will not be disturbed in any way. We note that the redevelopment activities will likely disrupt the historic surface water drainage to the dry well that is located in the parking area covered by the easement, so water drainage mitigation will need to be designed and constructed at the Sky IlotePs sole cost and expense. Also, we are especially concerned that the structural integrity of the 100 Building, the swimming pool and adjoining common areas may be compromised by excavation so close to the 100 Building foundation. We wish to engage at your expense an independent structural engineering consultant who can confirm the status of the 100 Building's structural integrity for the future reliance of all interested parties. Please confirm your willingness to fund the cost of this report. Certainly any soils shifting or changes in condition of the 100 Building resulting from the excavation and construction activities will have grave consequences on the Sky Hotel and its sponsors. We encourage you to be pro-active on these matters in order to avoid the expensive and time consuming litigation that the Residences at Little Nell project triggered when soils shifted and neighbors suffered structural damages. 3. Please also clarify your plans in relation to the protection of the existing landscape that is currently shielding your building. Page L I 00a: 1. The proposed new Sky Hotel's underground parking entrance juts out into Spring Street. Mr. Corcoran discussed this with you previously, and you indicated that the underground parking entrance does not encroach into Spring Street, It is not clear from the Neighborhood Review Plans what is existing and what is new. In our opinion, based on our review of the Neighborhood Review Plans, this underground parking entrance does indeed encroach. This is obviously at odds with your prior communication. Please clarify the status with revised Neighborhood Review Plans which clearly show the existing building improvements proposed for demolition and/or modification. 2. The underground parking entrance on Spring Street will increase congestion and create pedestrian and motor vehicle conflicts. The safety of all guests and workers in the neighborhood and specifically those visiting Aspen Alps is a concern to our client. L, I In HOLLAND&HART P4 June 24, 2014 Page 3 During high occupancy times, the Aspen Alps, the Sky Hotel and the Little Nell Hotel all have a constant flow of delivery vehicles, service trucks, and skier/guest arrivals and pick-ups. Guests from all three properties as well as members of the general public are streaming through these areas, making Spring Street a very difficult street to manage. Adding two new lanes of traffic coming in and out of the Sky I lotel's entrance will compound these access and parking management problems. Your suggested traffic management arrangements appear to be in direct conflict with the natural expectation of the flow of traffic in the area. From the Neighborhood Review Plans, motorists pulling alongside the Sky Hotel's west entrance appear to be headed south, in conflict with the adjoining northbound Spring Street traffic lane. This is dangerous in and of itself. (See how the cars drawn on Pages L100a and A2.10 are facing south, illustrating this problem.) It is obvious to us that a traffic management plan has not been carefully considered; we ask that traffic management with all other possible options be more fully studied and reported on by recognized and qualified consultants, and that such studies and reports be made available to us for further review and comment. We emphasize the need to find a safe solution here. The current proposal as designed is of great concern and unacceptable. Page 1,100b: 1. You indicated to Mr. Corcoran that the intention of Sky Hotel's management is to move events from the existing below grade pool to a new roof top pool,which will be a public area. This may very well mitigate the ground level noise problem that clearly exists for the Aspen Alps 100 and 200 Buildings, but we are concerned that the higher pool level may simply move and project the noise problems up the slope to the Aspen Alps 800, 500 and 700 Buildings, 2. Clearly, noise mitigation and strict compliance with noise ordinances need to be established regarding the overall noise generation of the roof top pool as well as the pool at the second story level. New pool areas will likely generate more and larger events occurring on these facilities, which will in turn adversely impact the privacy, property values and rental rates at neighboring properties, including the Aspen Alps. Dean Street View and Durant Avenue View: We are concerned that these buildings may compromise fire and emergency vehicle access. Please explain how the new development will improve on what is currently in place. Overall Concerns Relative to Construction Miti ag tion: A two year redevelopment plan will negatively affect the occupancy, rental rates, and desirability of the short term rentals in the Aspen Alps 100, 200. 800 and 777 1"te a R OLLAND&HA-RT June 24, 2014 Page 4 buildings. This will have a significant budgetary impact on the revenues of the Aspen Alps. I-low does the developer and contractor plan to mitigate this impact as well as the noise, dust, vibration and other impacts on the Aspen Alps? Aspen Alps Parking and Access Easements: You discussed with John Corcoran the fact that owners of the Sky Hotel would prefer a different reciprocal easement configuration, suggesting that the new Sky Hotel be allowed to encroach onto the Aspen Alps parking easement for the 100 Building. This would require a partial revocation of the easement. In this regard, you have proposed a different parking arrangement, with parallel parking for approximately eight parking spaces along the north side of the 100 Building, coupled with a number of covered parking spots (approximately five or six spaces)to make up for the remainder of the parking. This is unacceptable to the 100 Building owners as it makes the parking less convenient and more difficult to access. If you have other ideas that you might want to explore on this topic, please contact John Corcoran. Floor Area Calculations: We are also interested in a comprehensive floor area calculation for this proposal. You have indicated that the Sky Hotel will not need the possible FAR benefits associated with extinguishing the Aspen Alps parking and access easements. If that is the case, we ask that you confirm this statement and also confirm that the Sky Hotel will not be seeking any floor area or maximum density variances as part of its land use application. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of these comments and concerns further, please contact John Corcoran. Sincerely. homas J. Todd of Holland & Hart cc: Aspen Alps Condominium Association 69389833 P g :al I t t �i z p- • 1 �a <Y P) w 4 �F 3' s i 4 { � e �y R' .a q„ e e s. w w S ° n •F � f C 3 y j !, s EXHIBIT massing and view impact study to MDC 10-07-14 - Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont 1 - 5th story `• element i 3rd FI 2nd Fl Ad >• 1 st Floor 1 _ duMont Chaumont .. existing view proposed view ,.`` I Aclrd floor - i � P. view from 3rd floor Dumont massing and view impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont A '.'; R4 r 5th story s elements I 4th FI - --- 3rd Fl 2nd Fl fill' 1 st Floor existing view propose view illfduMont Chaumont 1 st floor M4 p•2 view from 1 st floor Chaumont massing and view impact study to MDC 10-07.14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont 5th story elements 3rd Fl r' 2nd Fl 1 st Floor , existing view proposed view duMont Chaumont /Courtyard p.3 view from courtyard Dumont massing and view impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont 'I #' ' 5th story e elements 3rd . __.°. ►. ,....y. -..� 2nd Fl 1 st Floor existing view propose view iW. duMont Chaumont ( � 2nd Floor balcony WN z Ism) =� p.4 view from balcony 2nd Floor Dumont shadow impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont yellow bar shows total duration of less sunlight Ab July August September October November December January February March April May June From late September to late March the Chateau duMont and Chateau Chaumont properties are physically impacted by a height variance benefiting the SKY Hotel. CD CD CC cc r� i existing view proposed view Starting in late September and running for 6 months out of each year there will be less sunlight reaching the two Chateau properties... every day, 6 months out of every year. p.5 Autumnal Equinox September 22, 2:30 PM shadow impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont yellow bar shows total duration of less sunlight r July August September October November December January February March April May I June existing view propose view p.6 December 22, 9:00 AM shadow impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont yellow bar shows total duration of less sunlight July August September October November December January February March April May June existing view proposed view p•7 December 22, 10:00 AM shadow impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont yellow bar shows total duration of less sunlight July August September October November December January February March April May June existing view proposed view p•8 December 22, 12:00 PM Noon shadow impact study to MDC 10-07-14 Chateau Dumont & Chateau Chaumont yellow bar shows total duration of less sunlight July August September October November December January February Marche April May June blue bar is approximate extent of ski season and winter season combined The loss of sunlight to the two Chateau properties spans every entire winter season and most of every ski season. existing view propose view P•9 December 22, 2:30 PM urban space comparison MDC 10-07-14 Dean Street Entry to Chateau Buildings vs North Of Nell Plaza Emergency Stair, Elevator& Shade Structures create 5th story elements. North of Nell Plaza The North Of Nell plaza is 35% wider than the 5th Fl Roof Deck SKY Hotel proposed SKY Hotel Space. .r Orange line represents the profile of the North 1=4 4th Fl ;; U Of Nell Plaza space. CU ro U U 3rd Fl LL Lmm �r I z Chateau 0 I Dumont l 2nd Fl Loos _ rr I I I z I I =Floor &K u�r I No 49 177 --T 4, d � F 1' t. ilk tj7 h Jorth Of - Dean Street With Proposed Sky Hotel PA 0 urban space comparison MDC 10-07-14 Dean Street Entry to Chateau Buildings vs North Of Nell Plaza Existing Dean Street width at the Nell developments is much wider than at the proposed SKY Hotel , NONELLOF =HAUMONT DUMONT �,, ►� f r - ,- EXISTING SKY •iR gondola plaza ,' HOTEL NELL `4 .. RESIDENCES 'r The width of the existing Dean Street space at the two Chateau buildings is - much narrower than the width of a typical street. The proposed SKY Hotel would make ' the space between the two buildings much narrower and the proposed height 1' _ variance would make the space darker. The combination of these two changes _ will create a dark `box-canyon' effect. North Of Nell Plaza Sp=cs Inn Summer r...►..�. With Propos