The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20140908 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, September 9, 2014 SPECIAL 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) 511 Lazy Chair, 8040 Greenline review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: (LI P1 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 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 hearing 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. Revised April 2, 2014 P2 "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 Not for publication.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-15t and 3d Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd &4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of September 1, 2014 919 P&Z(aD-4.30—Special meeting—Council chambers meeting room Notice: 8/18 511 Lazy Chair, 8040 Greenline—JB 9/16 P&Z (x)-4:30 (Closed) Notice: 8/25 Midland Park, PD Amendment—JP Sky Hotel Review, PD -JG 1017 P&Z A-4:30 Notice: 9/15 Midland Park, PD Amendment—JP (continued if necessary) Sky Hotel Review, PD - JG 10121 P&Z (aD-4:30 Notice: 9/29 Sky Hotel Review, PD - JG 11104 P&Z 04:30 Notice: 10/13 Boomerang Lodge, PD - SA 11/18 P&Z(c)-4:30 Notice: 10/27 Boomerang Lodge, PD - SA P3 Community Development Update August 2014 Project: Molly Gibson — 101 W. Main St. Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending HPC Review Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The properties are zoned Mixed Use (along Main St.) and R-6 (along Hopkins) with the Lodge Preservation Overlay on the entire site. The Molly Gibson is Located in the Main Street Historic District, but is not an historic site/building. The proposal includes demolition of the existing lodge and its replacement with 63 lodge units (an increase of 10 units over existing), three free-market residential units (two single-family homes along Hopkins and one unit within the lodge building) and one onsite affordable housing unit. Subdivision is proposed to merge the Main Street Molly Gibson parcel with a 3,000 sq. ft. vacant parcel to the west along Main Street. FAR and setback variances are requested through Planned Development review. Update: The plans with be reviewed for Conceptual HP Design Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, GMQS, PD recommendations to Council, and subdivision recommendation by Council Next Steps: A public hearing will be scheduled before HPC for Conceptual Design Review. Project: Maroon Creek Club PD Amendment Contact: Jennifer Phelan Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The Maroon Creek Club Planned Development (PD) is a site specific development plan that contains a combination of uses on the site including recreation, open space, single family homes, townhomes and affordable housing. As site specific approval, the subdivision is not permitted to extinguish Transferable Development Rights (TDR) within the subdivision unless the PD is amended. The HOA is requesting the ability to extinguish TDR's on the single family lots within the subdivision. Update: First Reading was approved by City Council on August 11th Next Steps: Second Reading has been scheduled before City Council on September 8th Project: 301 Lake Avenue Contact: Amy Simon Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined Page 1 of 6 P4 Description: This project is a voluntary designation of the residence with the Aspen Modern program. The applicants have also proposed an addition to the existing home. Negotiations involve fees and incentives. Update: HPC has reviewed the proposed design and have provided a recommendation of approval to City Council. Council approved first reading on July 28th. Council reviewed Second Reading of the application on August 26tH Next Steps: Second Reading was continued until Sept. 8th with direction for the applicant to reduce the size of the proposed addition. 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. Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12th, 2012. City Council did not call the project up. The applicant received an extension of their vested rights for six months. Next Steps: HPC will review the matter for an Amendment to Conceptual Design Review on September 10tH Project: 709 E. Durant -Sky Hotel Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a mixed-use lodge building consisting of 100 lodge units, 5 affordable housing units, 8 free-market residential units, and 3,380 sq. ft. of commercial space. The building is commonly known as the Sky Hotel. Update: Staff has conducted a Development Review Committee meeting with City referral departments. Next Steps: Planning and Zoning Commission review is scheduled for September 16th and October 7th Project: 219 E. Durant (Dancing Bear Ped Tunnel) Contact: Hillary Seminick Status: Closed Closing Date: 8/26/2014 Description: The applicant proposes to amend prior PD approvals for both the Dancing Bear and Chart House to construct a subterranean pedestrian tunnel Page 2 of 6 P5 connecting the existing Dancing Bear Hotel (311 S. Monarch) to the former Chart House Lodge; where Dancing Bear plans to expand its lodge. Update: The applicant submitted the Land Use Application for the PD amendment on March 19, 2014. The Design Review Committee will meet on April 9, 2014 to discuss any potential issues. The applicant received a recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing on May 6, 2014. First Reading was approved by City Council on July 14th. Council approved the ordinance upon Second Reading on August 26th, in a vote of 3 to 2. Next Steps: Was approved with a vote of 3 to 2, with the condition that the lodges need to operate as a single lodge, otherwise the Ordinance is void. Project: 834 W. Hallam (formerly Poppie's) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The property is zoned MU and is designated historic. The proposal is to restore the historic landmark, turn it into one large common room, and construct a two- story detached building along the alley to house dormitory-style affordable housing units — a total of 20 beds in five dormitory rooms (four beds per room). The applicant seeks affordable housing credits for the entire project. Update: Review by HPC for conceptual HP Design Review, Residential Design Standards Review. This project does not require City Council review. Next Steps: A public hearing will be scheduled before HPC for Conceptual Design Review. Project: Boomerang Lodge Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant is proposing to change the design and unit mix of the previously approved Boomerang Lodge in order to address the current demands of Aspen visitors for economy and mid-market lodging. The applicant is proposing increases to the number of lodge rooms, free market residential units, and affordable housing units. Update: The project went before P&Z on June 17th for Design Review, and was continued until August 12th Next Steps: Design Review has been continued once again until November 4th hearing date. Page 3 of 6 P6 Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ordinance Rescinded Closing Date: 8/26/2014 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/Planning 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 25th work session. Council has included a 2013 Top Ten Goal related to adopting a lodging incentive program. Staff has conducted significant outreach with the lodging and condominium community, as well as ACRA, P&Z and HPC to gain feedback on a potential incentive program. Staff has also held public open houses. Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing lodges, and new lodges, and provided direction to move into public hearings. City Council met in their regular May 27th meeting to review a Policy Resolution on the proposed incentive program. The main areas identified in City studies on lodging as needing to be included in an incentive program are: allowing fourth floors in limited area, lowering affordable housing mitigation, and allowing free-market residential uses. First Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 23Id. Second reading began on 7/14, and was approved on 8/11 during a continued hearing. Next Steps: The Ordinance was rescinded on August 26th during public hearing. Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Undetermined 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 (e.g. Coffee Roaster), rather than relying on general use categories (e.g. Commercial Uses). 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. Staff met with two members of the Obermeyer HOA Board on April 23rd to discuss whether they are interested in pursuing the rezoning, and again on May 29th to address concerns and initiate a pre-application conference summary for the Obermeyer Place HOA. Page 4 of 6 P7 Next Steps: Staff expects to bring this before Council during a work session late spring/early summer. Obermeyer Place is expected to come in as a separate application, with a desire to change their zoning to SCI/NC for Obermeyer Place. Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: FallMinter 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 in the near future. Project: Rubey Park Remodel Contact: Justin Barker Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing building and property at 420 E. Durant Ave and add two new one-story structures with a roof that will connect all three structures. The remodel will provide enhanced amenities for users, as well as a separate office for RFTA employees. Update: The applicant will be required to undergo Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews before HPC, and Planned Development and Growth Management review before P&Z and City Council. The applicant is required to submit an application for final design review before HPC within one year's time. This matter was approved by HPC for Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews in February. On January 15th the Applicant went before P&Z for Planned Development and Growth Management Reviews, which resulted in a recommendation of approval by P&Z to Council. City Council approved the First Reading for Planned Development and Growth Management reviews of July 28th, and approved Second Reading for the same review on August 25th with a vote of 4-0. Next Steps: Final Design Review will be scheduled before HPC at a date to be determined. Project: TDR Code Amendment Contact: Sara Adams Page 5 of 6 P8 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Fall 2014 Description: On June 9th City Council is asked to consider a policy resolution that would increase the number of TDR's that can land on lots of specific sizes and locations. Generally only one TDR per residence is allowed in residential zone districts. Update: First Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 9th Next Steps: Second Reading will be scheduled before Council on a future date to be determined. Page 6 of 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 1 0 U Erspamer,Chair,called the Planning&Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members.Stan Gibbs,Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis,and 011ie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer remarked on a good article in the recent issue of the Colorado Municipalities magazine. The article titled "A New Era in Transportation" discussed how entities need to work together. He stated it focuses on anew approach, not just building highways or HOVs, but to look at the underlying problems. \� Mr. Erspamer thanked Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki on his contribution to the commission since it will be his last meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan informed the commissioners the long range scheduled is getting shuffled a bit due to a missed notice issue with the Sky Hotel. In addition to the regular meetings, a special meeting is currently scheduled for September Stn PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES-June 17, 2014 Ms.Tygre moved to approve the June 17,2014 minutes,seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion carried. MINUTES - August 5, 2014 Mr. Gibbs noted the agenda item listed the wrong address. Ms.Tygre noted Mr.Walterscheid's name was misspelled. Ms.Tygre moved to approve the August 5, 2014 minutes with the noted corrections, seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he had sent an article of his opinion to council regarding the lodge ordinance (Ordinance#19-2014). In the letter, he comments on a reference document included in the packet. Ms. Quinn asked if he has informed an opinion as to the outcome of this public hearing at which Mr. Erspamer replied no. Mr. Erspamer provided a copy of the letter to the applicant and to staff as Exhibit 1. Public Hearing- Boomerang Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a variance request for the Boomerang as continued from June 17th and July 15t of 2014. 1 P l 1 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 Sara Adams,Senior Planner for the Community Development Department reviewed the staffs memorandum for the proposed amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development(PUD), amendment to Growth Management approval and an amendment to a Subdivision and Commercial Design Review. The project is vested under the 2006 code referred to as the old code in place when the project was. originally submitted.The approved project has vesting through October 20, 2015. The proposed amendment discussed on July 11 had three main concerns the P&Z raised which are outlined below.She also included the minutes from the meeting from the last meeting,the applicant's response and staff's recommendation. The first concern voiced by commissioners and staff dealt with the proposed ratio of uses.The project applied under the lodge incentive program but in staff's opinion as well as the commissioner's opinion, it is not a lodge project.The free market component was too large in comparison to the lodge component. The applicant responded by committing eight of 14 of the free market residential units to have an owner use restriction similar to a program included in the recently adopted lodge incentive program on August 11, 2014.The applicant proposes eight of the 14 free market residential unit owners will be restricted from using their units more than six months per year.The units would be in the rental pool the remainder of the time. The second concern was the insufficient back of house operational space to support the proposed lodge component.The applicant team proposed an off-site management company to run the lodge and- support the condominium component similar to the operations at The Gant.The applicant has not changed their proposal regarding this concern from the July 1st meeting. The third concern dealt with the relationship of project to the neighborhood. Both the commission and staff felt the project is out of scale with the neighborhood.Support has been voiced for a lodge in this location.The project has the lodge preservation (LP)overlay.A historic lodge was previously operated at this location by Charlie Patterson. However,there was a lot of discussion at the July 11t meeting regarding balancing the proposed uses of the projects and the requested variations from the underlying R-6 zoned district. Staff appreciates the willingness of the applicant to commit eight of the 14 units to the ownership restrictions. However, staff feels the steps do not go far enough to warrant the dimensional variances asked for by the applicant.The height variations and overall floor area is still out of context with the neighborhood and the proposed ratio of uses does not support the requested variances. Ms.Adams cited the PUD review criteria 26.445.050 listed beginning on p. 24.Criteria 26.445.040.0 and 26.445.050.13& E are not met. In response to the proposal being out of context with the neighborhood, the applicant reduced the four story lodge tower by about three feet(ft).Staff does not feel the reduction of three ft does not go far enough to have the project meet the neighborhood context considering the proposed uses. Staff recommends the entire project including mass, scale and height be reduced across the board, not just the four story lodge component which now makes it about the same height as the free market residential three story components.The floor to ceiling heights(in the lodge component) are between 7.5 and 8 ft.The floor to ceiling heights are very short. 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 1 2 Staff also recommends more back of house operational space be provided in the building to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP),economic sustainability chapter and the managing growth chapter. Ms.Adams reminded the commissioners they are the final review the Growth Management amendment up for review. As discussed at the July 15Y meeting,the Growth Management review in the 2006 code uses the AACP as a regulatory document.This is contrary to today's code.Staff feels the 2006 code requirement has not been met. Staff is supportive of a lodge on this site, not the proposed mass and scale considering the uses.The project has the LP overlay and the purpose of this zoned district is to protect historic lodges,especially those in residential areas,to provide flexibility in lodge redevelopment, lodge updating.There are specific requirements in the LP overlay zoned district that help the P&Z and City Council determine the amount of free market residential floor area appropriate for these projects.All the review criteria discussed in the July V meeting relate back to the lodge component and the flexibility of the lodge component, types of units,and amenities provided. Staff finds the review for Growth Management are not met,the project does not meet the criteria of the AACP from the 2006 code,specifically economic sustainability and managing growth chapters. Staff is recommending denial of the Grown Management application. Ms.Adams stated if the P&Z decides to support the draft resolution in the packet which denies the requested growth management amendment,the project will not continue to City Council for a PUD Subdivision Amendment review. Mr. Erspamer called point of order asking if the Council can call it up anyway. Ms.Adams responded the applicant has the option to appeal the P&Z's decision to City Council. It's a review based on the record. City Council can remand it back, reverse the decision,or uphold the decision. Ms.Adams reviewed the P&Z's role for the proposal is to review the Growth Management, review amendment to the PUD as a recommendation to City Council, review amendment to the Subdivision as a recommendation to City Council and review the Commercial Design. Ms.Adams stated the proposal meets the Commercial Design Standards. Ms.Adams stated the applicant provided a financial analysis study in their revised'information based on a study the City hired an outside consultant to perform regarding a feasibility study relating free market residential component to a lodge component and how it drives or does not drive a lodging component. The study was completed to inform the Council,the community and staff about the direction for the code amendments adopted on August 12,2014. Ms.Adams wanted to be clear that the study included in the application is not relevant for the review criteria for this proposed project.The applicant has the option to submit a new application under the current code, but they have chosen to use the code they are vested under for this application. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for any questions of staff. Mr. Erspamer asked if the back of house space is within the code and the AACP regarding having operations on site. Ms.Adams stated the code does not specify the back of house requirements.She did state the AACP does discuss the economics sustainability and the managing growth chapters do include points on economic sustainability and managing growth as specified on p. 15 of the packet. Not having 3 P 1 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12,2014 any back of house operations now creates inflexible situations for future operations of the lodge. Ms. Adams stated these two areas of code are not met because they are not sustainable. Mr. Erspamer asked staff how they concluded the 7.5 ft floor to ceiling height of the proposal was too short. Ms.Adams responded the proposal is vested under the 2006 code and therefore the height requirements are from the 2006 code, not the current guidelines. Ms.Adams stated the application received stated 7.5 ft, but the applicant had communicated earlier in the day the heights would be 7.5 to 8 ft.She assumed the applicant would review those measurements during their presentation. Mr. Erspamer asked where the amount of lodge ratio to free market is provided within the code. Ms. Adams stated the LP Overlay provides specific review criteria to establish the free market residential component. It is a product of the lodge amenities,the lodge unit size, and diversity of space. Lodge projects with a LP overlay are required to go through a PUD review process.The percentage of uses is established during the PUD review.The underlying R-6 zone does not allow for a lodge as a permitted use so it doesn't provide a percentage of use.Therefore,the PUD review criteria is used to determine what is appropriate for the site. The applicant's calculated percentages are taking the eight free market residential units with the proposed deed restrictions for the owners and rolling those into their lodge percentage as rental units.The code the application is vested under does not recognize the free market residential deed restricted units as lodge use.The staff memo follows the applicable code regarding lodge and free market uses. Mr.Gibbs asked if the maximum aggregate density described on p.20 of the packet includes all the uses of the units including affordable housing. Ms.Adams stated there probably is not a definition in the code for maximum aggregate density. Her assumption would be it is an aggregate sum of all the proposed units(density is typically units). He then asked for confirmation regarding the statement "Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD..." on p. 20 of the packet. He wanted to ensure the current review would occur before a PUD review at which Ms.Adams agreed. He wanted to confirm aggregate density does not apply in this situation. Ms. Phelan stated the standards are there for situations where the uses are allowed based on the underlying zoning allows for the standards. For situations where the underlying zoning does not provide the standards,the LP Overlay is there to establish the standards. Mr.Gibbs asked for other similar restrictions on other lodges in town. Ms.Adams stated the owner restrictions within the application were based on the new lodge incentive program and not previous code. Ms. Phelan believes the Christiana may be a similar case, but Ms.Adams stated she would need to perform addition research to respond. Ms. Phelan believed there used to be a restrictive ownership, but it was dropped because owners were ignoring the restriction. Ms. Phelan and Ms.Adams stated the incentive program passed on the day prior to this meeting included a package of incentives allowing for a six month allowance under certain circumstances for free market residential units, not lodge. Ms. Phelan and Ms.Adams stated the code applicable to today and this application allows for an occupancy of 30 days and no more than 90 days throughout a calendar year for a lodge unit. Mr. Erspamer then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr.James DeFrancia with Lowe Enterprises appearing with Charles Cunniffe, Marina Skiles and Rich Pavicek from Charles Cunniffe Architects and Michael Hoffman as legal counsel. Mr. DeFrancia stated they are appreciative of the special meeting to help move this project along. 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12, 2014 P 1 4 Mr. DeFrancia wanted to emphasize they are seeking to amend an existing approval granted several years ago which did establish height and mass.The applicant is confused as to why staff keeps coming back to these topics. In some measure, he feels it's been decided and they are trying to amend it by improving it.The process of improving it is being driven by the explicit findings of the city,especially as it relates to lodging.They do maintain it is a dominantly and overwhelmingly a lodging project. The recent findings of the city and staff itself have shown we have lost 27%of the bed base both in lodging and rental condominium units.The rental condo base is aging and declining which is significant because 40%of the bed base is rental condominiums. It's been established the present quality and diversity of the bed base is rated low, brought up at last night's meeting by representatives from the Ski Company.The price point for our value is rated low. Mr. DeFrancia stated that speaks to the fact that we are very much focused on an economy lodge,which is really significant to understand the character of this lodge as an economy lodge. It is not just a lodge, but an economy lodge. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating the findings of the city were translated into public policy which is most clearly demonstrated in the AACP.The resulting policy is that the lodging inventory needs to be replenished,which they are very much trying to do.They are also emphasizing a diversity in price points according to public policy.This project is designed to be an economy lodge to protect and restore existing lodging to the extent of the historic element as part of the original Boomerang Lodge. The restored historic lodging is a significant component of what they are doing for this project. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating the modifications made since the July 15t meeting call for the continuance of now 54 vs. 56 actual lodge rooms designed to be economy lodging.The rooms have eight ft ceiling heights,averaging 200 sf so they are purposefully small so they are in concert with the modern market demands.These unit sizes and designs that are proven.They are efficiently designed and designed after proven models. Mr. DeFrancia continued with stating they've added eight vacation residences and the important thing about vacation residences is that they are under the new code.The applicant is not trying to bridge codes, but anticipating the new code in which the vacation residences are to be considered as lodging. He thinks this is very responsive to what the commission asked for on July V which was some assurance the condominiums were going to be put in rental programs.The applicant is prepared to restrict those in concert with the new code so they will in fact be calculated.As a result we get 62 lodge units and vacation residences compares to only six free market units and we've also increased the number of affordable housing units to five which fully meets the code requirements. On the sf basis, Mr. DeFrancia stated the existing vested approval had a little over 24,000 sf in the lodge sf.This has now been increased to something over 25,000 sf in lodge sf.The free market sf has been reduced to six units in less sf.The six units are in 8,000 sf where previously we had five units in almost 11,000 sf.This is also purposeful by design.The design of these units, even the free market units, lend themselves to level use similar to The Gant,Aspen Alps and Aspen Square where the smaller units are the ones that rent.The vacation residences are absolutely in because they are going to be restricted and committed.They feel even the free market will lend themselves to being rented, but are not asking those to be counted as lodging.The vacation residences are a new product and breaking new ground with these they are expecting some depressive impact on values and they are not sure how much.They feel they are taking some risk but keep the six as free market with an expectation the character of the product will lend itself to rental programs. 5 P 1 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 Mr. DeFrancia stated the preservation of the historic wing is also important. It's a mid-century modern product valued in the community, internationally known and recognized. He noted the commission's concern from July 11t that the new lodge wing should not over power the historic wing.The height of the new wing has been lowered below the existing approved height by about three ft. If you look at the historic asset from Fourth St,you will see the new lodge wing is reduced so its impact is sitting behind the historic asset to underscore the character of the historic asset to keep it in its original configuration. Two lodge rooms dropped in the application tonight were located in the historic wing purposefully with a sense of preservation.They found if the reduced large rooms on the south side,they would diminish the historic character.They feel keeping the larger rooms also adds diversity to the lodging base. In summary,the applicant is proposing with this amendment to the existing approval to do exactly what has been called for by public policy of long standing.That is now further facilitated by the new ordinance which they anticipated.They feel they are very much aligned with public policy.Secondly,with the adjusted submission,they have demonstrated they have been responsive to P&Z's comments from the July 1St meeting and applied these restrictions on more than half of the condominiums causing them to be characterized as vacation residences and committed to lodging and lodging uses.The height of the lodge wing has been lowered of the lodge wing to further diminish any adverse impact on the historic asset.They wanted to emphasize the proposal satisfies the affordable housing requirements on site,and the parking requirements.They have improved the existing approval in regards to breaking up the mass, appearance enhancements including selective materials and finishes and lowered heights. Ms.Skiles then provided slides demonstrating the views from Fourth St with the reduced height of the new proposed lodge wing as it relates to the historic structure.She stated the floor to ceiling height was eight ft as it exists in the historic wing.Another point she made was in regards to the proposed renovated sunken pool from street level and the code height of the new building to the top of the pool deck. From street level,the building is less than 34.5 ft tall which is less than the perceived 39 ft. Another slide demonstrated the gaps between the buildings to break up the mass from a view on Hopkins. Using a slide with a view from Fifth St,she stated the grade increases as you move up Hopkins. The maximum height of the building is 32 ft from the elevation. Looking down the alley, she demonstrated how the building is set back from the alley and ramp to access the parking garage. She then provided a view of the overall structure from Fourth St. Mr.Cunniffe thought the slides showed how open it is between the building envelopes. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to also underscore the height issue. From ground level,it is slightly over 34 ft down to 32 ft.The 38 ft measurement is from the pool deck. Donnie Lee,the general manager of The Gant, stated it has been anticipated Destination Hotels and Resorts would be the same management assuming this project receives approval and is built. Mr. Lee wanted to reiterate some of the points made at the July 11t meeting. From his vantage point of an operator, he sees the entire thing as a lodge.lust like The Gant where it is a free market residential complex operates as a hotel for the past 40 years. He stated besides it being a historic location, it was intended and designed to be operated in this manner.They anticipate the Boomerang to be operated the same way.With the agreement to place burdens on eight of the units to hopefully provide some assurances to the commission they will stay rented. In his opinion,the free market six will also be rented. In term of the back of house concerns, a lot of the administrative office space will happen off site, most likely at The Gant. Laundry will be shipped in and out. Limited space will be provided for a housekeeping and maintenance offices.The full back of house measures will not be necessary. He feels 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 1 6 although you can always use more storage,the space allotted is adequate to meet the needs of a limited use establishment. He is excited about the project. He feels although staff must look at it as a free market residential project per code, it will be operated as a lodge. He stated the condominiums in some respect ease off some of the density concerns in regards to the neighborhood. If it was strictly a lodge, the density would be much greater. Mr. Cunniffe felt the below ground space could be expanded if necessary for back of house needs.The proposed project is purposefully designed to have a mix of designs, rental oriented and broad spectrum of customers. Mr. DeFrancia stated in response to the commission's request from the July 1st meeting on vacation residences have an assurance they will be available to rent.They staff notes while that category does not exist in the code for this project,the Planning&Zoning Commission as well as City Council does have the right to incorporate the restrictions on the units as part of the PUD Amendment. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Goode asked the applicant to review the setbacks. Mr. DeFrancia explained they have not asked for any modifications on setbacks beyond those already granted in the existing approval. Mr. Erspamer then asked Ms.Adams to clarify the graph on p. 21. Ms.Adams stated that in order to clarify the commissioner's purview for amending a PUD,she referred to an extracted section of land use code on p. 20 of the packet. During the review of the proposed amendment,the P&Z and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to ensure the development will be compatible with current community circumstances. In addition,it talks about including but not limiting to changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the original projects original representations and commitments. It's the city's position that everything approved in 2006 is on the table for review tonight according to this section of the land use code. Setbacks, mass and scale, height, percentage of usage is all within the commission's purview and the decision is based on changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the projects original representation and commitments.So the commission is using an old code,but current community circumstances to make a decision. Mr. Erspamer confirmed with Mr. Goode that he was asking about the setbacks at which he replied yes. Mr. Erspamer confirmed with Mr. DeFrancia that based on the 2006 approval,the minimum front yard is five ft and now its two ft.Side yards are five ft and now its three ft. Rear yards are five ft and now it's zero ft. Mr. Pavicek stated setbacks are correct and nothing was changed from the July 1st meeting.Any changes are from the original approval. He pointed to the setbacks on the drawing displayed.The two ft is for the actual building,the setback for zero ft is the overhang of the deck above which is allowed to into the setback up to three ft. Mr. Erspamer asked if they had determined what six months the units would be available. Mr. DeFrancia replied that according to vacation residence code states it as the owner may not use the unit for more than six months and when not in ownership use,they are available for rental. Then Mr. Erspamer asked if the restriction would be mandatory for the eight units at which Mr. DeFrancia replied yes. Mr. Mike Hoffman stated a key concession made by the development team was to make it so the unit must be made available for rent when not in use. 7 P 1 7 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 Mr. Erspamer asked about a study done by Mr.Tomcich and another study done by the Ski Company. He thought this study discussed 10,000 pillows. He asked if the applicant was aware of the study at which Mr. DeFrancia replied no. Mr. Erspamer asked at what height the view from Fourth St was taken. Ms. Skiles replied it was at six ft. He then asked if they had any renderings of relationships with neighboring properties at which Ms. Skiles believed they were included in the July 1st packet, but she did not have them this evening. Mr. Erspamer asked if the lodging or condos were the higher building. Mr. DeFrancia and Ms.Skiles replied the condos were higher. Mr.Cunniffe added they wanted to be equitable to the historical structure which has an eight ft ceiling height,so they wanted all the lodge units to be the same height. Mr. Erspamer asked at what level was the grade. Mr.Cunniffe replied that Fourth St is a little bit lower than Fifth St by maybe two ft.The building is two ft below the road on the Fifth St and even with the road on Fourth St.The historic Boomerang if the first third of the property off Hopkins Ave with an average of 34.6 ft. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Lee how many units are rented as opposed to ownership not rented at The Gant. Mr. Lee answered stated about 85%do rent and 15%do not rent(120 out of 140 rent). Mr. Lee stated those ratios have been consistent for about 40 years. Mr. Erspamer asked where the front desk would be located. Mr. Lee responded it would be located where it historically has been located. Ms.Tygre wanted to know what guarantees that this lodge will remain an economy lodge and are there definitions or criteria for what constitutes an economy lodge. Ms.Adams stated there is nothing in the land use code to define an economy lodge the project is vested under. Mr. Cunniffe stated City Council debated this a year or two ago and it came down to trying to set standards for a rental rate,which was almost impossible to do.So the decision was to let the market do what it does, but by nature and design this is an economy lodge based on its location and the size of the units.When you have a smaller hotel room not in the core of town it will get less money per night.These rooms are currently the same size of the rooms at the Sky Hotel, but those are quite a bit more to rent because of their location. Mr. DeFrancia added these rooms are economy by design based on similar hotels throughout the country. Mr. Cunniffe then added it's not a full service hotel with no restaurant,turn down service, room service. Ms.Tygre asked what if another operator decides to take over running the hotel. Mr. DeFrancia stated they do not have any reason to think there would be any impact on the operation and there is nothing to prevent it from happening. Mr. Gibbs asked if there will be a Home Owners Association (HOA). Mr. DeFrancia replied there would be a sort of horizontal HOA including the hotel, condominiums,vacation residences, and free markets. . The affordable housing will be segregated from the group in response to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority(APCHA) requirements and insuring the affordable housing does not get taxed with undue assessments. Mr. Gibbs asked if the hotel will have some responsibility for the maintenance at which Mr. DeFrancia replied yes. 8 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 1 8 Mr. Erspamer asked if.staff recommended approval in 2006. Ms.Adams replied by the time it reached council and had changed a few times, she believes there was support based on the community sentiment in 2006. Mr. Erspamer asked why staff is not supporting it now since they are asking for just a few more units. Ms. Phelan stated they are asking for quite a bit more free market residential than the original 2006 approval has in it.As Ms.Adams has stated a number of times,the ratios have flipped.There is less lodging and more free market residential sq ft as a percentage.The 2006 approval had fewer free market residences and larger lodging units(about 500 sq ft). It was a lodge that was approved in 2006. Mr. DeFrancia displayed a graph demonstrating the free market component is reduced by about 20- 25%.There are six vs.the approved five free market units in less sq ft.The vacation residences is again because of the restrictions which we are putting on them to characterize them as unquestionably lodge units.As the staff themselves pointed out, permitted and can be done as an element of PUD add to the lodging component. Mr. Cunniffe stated the ratio of free market is less than 10%. Mr. Erspamer stated the applicant is counting 70%of the proposed floor area as pure hotel and vacation residence, but the staff is not including vacation residences. Ms.Adams stated that they are not including it because it is not in the code. Mr. DeFrancia agreed it is not in the code, but stated it could be included as part of a PUD amendment. Ms. Phelan then added what is being proposed would not even meet the most recently passed lodge-incentive ordinance as a vacation residence.She then said if the applicant is interested in becoming a vacation residence, perhaps they apply under the new code. Mr. McNellis asked for confirmation in regards to the ordinance passed on August 11, 2014. Ms. Phelan responded there was a lodging incentive package approved. Essentially there is an entire package of requirements for a vacation residence and it is not pick and choose one to create a vacation residence. What is being proposed as a vacation residence at this table would not meet the requirements of the .lodging incentive package. Mr. DeFrancia countered that based on the lodge incentive passed on the previous evening, a vacation residence is a unit required to be placed in a short term rental market. It also includes all kinds of incentives such as exemptions from affordable housing,waiver of fees and a bunch of other things. None of which the applicant has requested. Mr. Gibbs asked it the applicant would be amenable to further restrict those six months to not all being the high season. Mr. DeFrancia stated they would investigate it and work with the city attorney's office to better understand the new vacation residence program.They would not be opposed as long there are reasonable expectations. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comments. Mr. Warren Klug, General Manager for the Aspen Square Hotel and an Aspen resident. He wanted to express support for the proposal because he sees it as an important addition to the lodging community and to help address the 20-25-27%number that has been discussed. Encouraging lodging improvement and renovation, replacement, redevelopment are all important goals for the community and address the action taken be council last night. He sees this project moving in the same direction as the lodge incentive program. He wanted to comment on two key issues. One, city studies have confirmed you can't build a hotel without free market financing.Two, the proposal is focused on more affordable hotel units and feels this proposal will always support this and not command the rates of locations in the 9 P 19 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 center of town. He feels it is a needed and valuable addition to our lodging picture in Aspen and he wanted to echo Mr. Lee's comments that it will be a lodge. He would urge the approval of the project as proposed. The Aspen Square has 101 apartments and they are all in the rental program. Mr. Paul Taddune,on behalf of the Christiana Lodge. He stated the setbacks are a concern of the Christiana. He asked the applicant where the view from the alley is shown from. Ms.Skiles stated it would be from one of the apartments on the corner at 6 ft. He thought the view displayed more space than there actually is and wanted to know where the variances are in the view. Mr. Cunniffe stated the building is setback because a good width is required for the parking garage access.The area hidden by the tree is where the deck overhang occurs. Ms.Skiles stated that part of the build is set back 10 ft from the property line.Another part of the building is set back five ft from the property line. No variances have been requested. Mr.Taddune felt the views were misleading because it doesn't show the Christiana in the view and it would be nice to see the relationship in that area because it is pretty crowded between the Christiana and the proposed project. Ms.Cheryl Goldenberg is a neighbor of the proposed project.She stated she already voice her concerns regarding parking but had a suggestion that if the owners vacate for six months,then they should also vacate their parking space.After looking at the building views,she feels it's too big for the residential neighborhood.She also agrees with staff.She does not have any problem with the lodge,employee housing, and condominiums.She would just like it small to fit in with the neighborhood. She felt it was originally approved at the size it is because Charlie Patterson obtained approval based on his reputation. Mr. Craig Ward,a 45 year Aspen resident familiar with the property and represented Charlie Patterson when he sold the lodge. Mr. Erspamer stated he and Mr.Ward spoke last week about his letter on the pot clubs, but they did not speak about this proposal. Mr.Ward went on to say Mr. Patterson was not involved with the earlier approval. He stated this is a great amendment to the existing vested right.The height has been reduced,the number of rental rooms have been increased, and it will operate as a lodge.The Aspen Square has no restriction on their units at all and the owners do not use it more than 2-3 weeks per year. He feels it is much needed. Mr. Michael Brown,owns three hotels in Aspen and his office is immediately across from the Boomerang. He has been involved in lodge incentive plan including last night and he feels this proposal is precisely what they do not want.The two members who dissented against the plan was based on the four story development.The three supporting council members did not agree that four stories would be subjected to a very high level of scrutiny which this proposal would not pass.This underlying zoning of this parcel is R-6 zoned parcel.The only parcels that may achieve four stories are those south of Durant St.The applicant's references to doing what the city wants is a bit misleading. He used an analogy of knowing your opponents in poker as well as their cards. He feels it is important to examine their current entitlements.The current approved units are not large enough to be condominiums,thus salable and too large to be hotel rooms. He feels the individuals sitting in the room tonight for the applicant do not even represent 50%of the applicant.They possibly represent 10-20%. He feels they don't have the best interests of the community at hand. He stated one thing falling in the commission's purview is the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) approval. If you read staff's note in regards to granting an amendment to a PUD, it clearly states the project is subject to the 2000 AACP and P&Z is authorized through the PUD and other amendment to apply the current AACP as a guiding document to this review. If you refer to p. 15 of the 2012 AACP IV(4), zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development compatible and appropriate with the context of the neighborhood. He challenged to be shown one building in the area that is four stories and representative of the density in this neighborhood. He said it is the right of the commission to deny the project and not continue it. 10 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 2 0 Mr. Steve Goldenberg,a neighbor to the proposal. Besides echoing the other concerns previously mentioned, he thinks one reason the original 2006 approval doesn't work is because the applicant has failed to realize the loss everybody took during the recession. If they use the numbers they paid for the property, it doesn't work. He thinks if they write it down and use the lower numbers,they might be able to build the 2006 approval as it was approved.And if they can't build it,they need to. reapply. He felt there has been so many changes that it is not an amendment, it is a different project. Mr. Bill Tomcich, President of Stay Aspen Snowmass and has lived in the community since 1995.Stay Aspen Snowmass is the result of a merger between Aspen Central Reservations and Snowmass Central Reservations. It is a true lodging community ski resort partnership created in part by Charlie Patterson. He feels the Boomerang was a true classic ski lodge. He also thinks the application is a strong opportunity to move the lodge forward and he strongly supports the proposal. He remarked on the discrepancy in occupancy Mr. Erspamer had brought up earlier in the meeting.At one time,Aspen Central Reservations tracked the ownership percentage based on the number of pillows the properties held. He maintained the data until about 2006 when the evolution of fractions and bed base made it impossible.At the time he was only counting a small fraction of the available bed base in the community. In 2009,Aspen Skiing Company created a benchmark to determine the total transient inventory capacity for this town and Snowmass.They counted everything that may be rented,therefore their numbers were considerably greater than those tracked by Aspen Central Reservations and Snowmass Central.That report was updated in 2012 and is public record.Comparing the pillows report to this one would be like comparing apples to oranges. He is supportive of this project because it is exactly the type of lodging inventory that is in very high demand and lacking since the drop in the small lodges in Aspen. He mentioned to the Aspen City Council four weeks ago about the risks of not doing anything. Inaction will create continued compression on room rates which will cause them to rise and spillage.Those who can't stay in Aspen will stay in Snowmass Village or down valley. He feels we are seeing this results of this compression taking place now. He received metrics yesterday from DestiMetrics which indicates Aspen's paid occupancy in July this year was down from last year(76.1%to 71.8%). Even though the town seems busy,there were more owners here during July and the spillage to Snowmass Village.Their occupancies for July were up 21%.This also led to more parking problems here in town.The other impact of compression was the increase of the average daily rate.The average daily rate in Aspen for July 2014 was up 9%over last year to$379.The average daily rate in Snowmass Village for July was only up 2%to a $142.This is why he is such a proponent of additional,affordable rooms to add capacity to reduce the demand for hotel rooms. Otherwise,the increased compression will force the prices up so they will no longer be sustainable and a threat to our tourism economy. Mr. Corey Emloe, General Manager of the Sky Hotel and current chair of the Aspen Lodging Association encourages the commission to support this project.Aspen is the premier winter, mountain destination. But one of the areas that has not been kept up is the lodging. He feels the applicant has presented a plan to update and improve our lodging bed base. He will not argue code because it is not his expertise, but feels this is a very creative and impressive way to create another tier of lodging that really does not exist in this community. Ms. Debbie Braun, President of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association.She has not attended a P&Z meeting in a while, but has been following the Lodge Incentive Program (LIP) and the public affairs committee.She feels it is important to start to come down to P&Z before the projects reach City Council.She wanted to address staff's concern regarding ability to rent the free market condos. Based on the input from The Gant's GM,The Aspen Square GM and Chuck Frias,these condos can be rented and are hot beds in our community.The chamber stands for our resort infrastructure and support transportation including bus and air service into our community;We also very much support increasing 11 P21 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 our lodging inventory.Our lodges do so much for our community including the comped rooms for the bike race this week and the X-games, supporting the lodging tax where $1.8 million is collected to market this resort.We need a better price point for our guests with better amenities.She wanted to express her support for the proposal. Ms. Martha Madsen, neighbor of the Boomerang for 54 years.She wants the commission to be aware of the parking problems.With the recent opening of the Jewish Center,there was not a parking space along Hopkins, Fourth or Fifth Streets.She wants the commission to be aware how critical the parking is, particular with the Jewish Center.There just isn't room.When she was on the HPC,this neighborhood is supposed to be a mix and she doesn't want it to be predominantly lodge. Mr.John Cali,a lawyer, but not representing anyone here. He has no legal relationship with the applicant and has not been throughout this application process. He has watched this project go on and on and conducted an examination of the vested rights and what is being offered. If he lived in the neighborhood, he would prefer what is now being offered. It is better for the town. Because of the location and nature, it will result in more affordable lodging which he strongly supports. He feels this project has been going on too long and the current proposal is better than the approved project. Mr. Bert Myrin does not live near the proposed project and is not representing anyone. He wanted to stress the ownership usage months allowed shouldn't be a decision for the commission:The LIP exists to handle this and he suggested the commission not create their own LIP.As staff has suggested, if the applicant wants to apply under the LIP,there is nothing restricting them from doing so.The applicant's position is that you can't build a hotel without a free market component.Again,this is something that has.been addressed in the LIP. Rather than this commission create a LIP for this one project, he encouraged the commission to follow staffs recommendation for applicant to come back under the current code. It would be a much cleaner package based on the current incentives. He encourages the commission to follow Ms. Phelan's suggestion for the LIP to be used which is an entire package to handle defining residences, not a piece meal definition. Mr. Myrin stated P&Z's process is well defined to include commissioner's discussion on what criteria has and has not been met in the bullets listed on p. 2 of the memo. For the first item,staff has provided the answer when applying the code.Staffs analysis of the GMQS is on p. 8 of the packet stating the GMQS criteria has not been met. Looking into the past,GMQS proposals are rarely denied which shows something is astray. He encourages the commission to follow staffs recommendation and apply the criteria on GMQS. Ms.Adams entered the letters received as Exhibit 2.They have been shared with applicant. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions clarifying public comment. No questions were submitted. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened for staff rebuttal of evidence presented by the applicant and public comment. Ms.Adams wanted to clarify P&Z's role in tonight's meeting.She stated P&Z is allowed to review the entire project, FAR height, setbacks. Regarding the questions of the historic landmark wing, HPC has purview over the wing and pool.That section is a designated landmark and will be preserved and restored. Ms.Adams wanted to clarify the proposed owner restrictions on eight of the 14 units on the vacation residences has been discussed in the LIP will be considered free market residential in this application. It 12 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 2 2 is not a lodge use based on the 2006 code the project is vested under.The 2006 has three types including affordable housing, lodge and free market residential. Ms.Adams stated she performed an analysis of the building height based on an elevation provided for the July 1n meeting,which she will include as a drawing identified as Exhibit 3.The pink line is the building outline per the previous approval.There are areas where the proposed building extends above this line.She felt the representation made during the applicant's presentation did not provide the clearest information.There was an approved roof plan as part of the PUD in 2006 that approved different heights for different potions of the building.This elevation shows the 2006 approved roof plan and what has been presented tonight.The four story has dropped perhaps three ft,so P&Z should ignore that piece, but the rest of the building heights,including the free market units, have not changed. Ms. Adams responded to Mr. Gibbs question regarding restricting the owners to using their units during certain months.She thought P&Z should ask how enforceable that would be for community development to achieve. She feels it may be a bit too complicated to enforce and define for city council. Regarding Mr.Taddune's question of setback variances, Ms.Adams clarified what was approved in 2006 and what is proposed.This information is located on p. 21 of the packet.Table 1 on p. 21 compares the dimensional requirements.The 2006 approved ordinance and the current proposal are included in the table. For the rear yard,the 2006 approval stated five ft in the ordinance and the current proposal is at zero ft. In conclusion, Community Development staff have discussed this project at length and are very supportive of economy lodge and a lodge in this location.They are very concerned about the mass, scale, height and what it will do to the neighborhood based on the proposed uses.The approval from 2006 was primarily a lodge without hybrid units.The current proposal has hybrid units with unknown impacts.They are under the old code. If they elect to be under the adopted code from last night or the current code,which is entirely their right to bring a project in that meets those requirements. But for this proposal,the commission must look at the2006 code. Mr. Erspamer opened to the applicant for rebuttal of evidence presented by staff and public comment. Mr. DeFrancia responded to both Ms. Goldenberg and Ms.Madsen concerns of parking.They are not allowing any auto storage.The operating policy will first direct all parking to the garage to minimize parking on the street.The project also calls to provide improved new public parking on Hopkins Ave and Fifth St. Mr. DeFrancia stated the issue of four stories of the building is not about the number of stories, but an issue of height.The new height from the street is about 34.5 ft. In regards to the new lodging ordinance,the concern about four stories was with floors with 9-10 floor to ceiling clearances.The mayor made a statement about looking at 60 ft heights.That is not the issue here. Mr. DeFrancia assured they do represent 100%of the ownership and not playing poker, but trying to submit a meaningful project. In regards to staff's comments,they fully recognize under the 2006 code,there is no provision for a vacation residence.They are prepared to commit those in accordance with the new code. P&Z and council can incorporate those units with those type of restrictions including amplified restrictions as mentioned by Mr. Gibbs. He doesn't feel the restriction enforcement will not be a big deal. With past discussions with Chris Bendon and other committees over the past couple of years while the new code 13 P 2 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12,2014 has been developed.The entire project will be operated as a lodge. Everyone checks in and checks out. Records will be kept for auditing purposes. In response to the suggestion to submit under the new code, Mr. DeFrancia wanted to underscore that if they come in under the new code,45-55%of free market sq ft as opposed to lodging sq ft.The current proposal is for 10%.The new code provides reductions of affordable housing requirements if not elimination of them.The new code waives the fees,which they are not asking for in the current proposal.They are trying to develop a project that works and makes sense. Mr. Cunniffe responded to Mr.Tomcich comments stating they have seen an increase in bookings with people frustrated with the lodging in Aspen.The old approval only asked for five units and the current proposal is asking for six.This project has been about 10 years in the works.The bottom line asks if this is a good project and good for the city. In regards to the setbacks,the zero setback is only the deck, but the rest of the building is set back further. Mr. Erspamer closed the applicant's rebuttal discussion. Mr. Erspamer opened for deliberation by the commissioners. Mr. Erspamer then reviewed the criteria for judgment by the commissioners:on p.2 of the memo. Ms.Tygre stated her issue has always been to decide if this is still a lodge project. Staffs opinion is that the changes made by the applicant resulted in it not being a lodge project. If it wasn't a lodge project, it wouldn't be eligible for those lodge incentive dimensions. For her,this is the critical issue. Can P&Z consider this a lodge project given the change in the types of ownership?The type of ownership doesn't really bother her and doesn't feel lodging has to be little hotel rooms.You do need condominiums because people like to rent them.The question for her is how to guarantee these will be available for short term accommodations and she doesn't'feel the commission has the correct tools.She is not sure she can rationally decide if the restrictions in place are enough in regards to the units, restrictions and type of lodge. Ms.Tygre stated a condominium can be a short term accommodation. Certainly Aspen Square is an example. If you took a project like the Boomerang and it was all studio condominiums rented short term,would or would that not qualify as a lodge? Mr. Erspamer stated the application is a nice effort. His concern is that it's not located south of Durant and it's not in the central core. He is trying to decide if there have evidence in code to disagree with staff about the mass,scale and character of the neighborhood.Staff is not supportive of the requested dimensional requirements considering the ratios of uses within the project in the neighborhood context. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if the commission is considering the eight free market residential or lodging.Another issue he wanted to raise was if the application should be vested under the new code. Is there too much change requiring too many sweeping decisions. Mr. Erspamer responded he wasn't sure if the commission's judgment to call or not.The commission is held to the criteria listed on p. 2 of the memo. Further in the memo it states the application does not go' far enough to create a long term sustainable economy because of the ratio of uses.Some things are met. But he still questions if a condominium is a lodge,which he doesn't think so. But condos could duplicate the need for a lodge provided the owners place the units in a pool for rental.Another idea would be what if they sold the lodge rooms similar to the Stonebridge Inn at Snowmass did about 30 14 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P24 years ago. Ms.Tygre added the Inn at Aspen did the same thing. Maybe this project should have more lodge rooms and let them sell them as condominium. He has not been convinced a condominium is a lodge room. Personally, he does not like applying the six month restrictions. He feels if they own it,they should own it outright. Mr. McNellis agrees with the commissioner's comments. He stated what hasn't been brought up yet are the discrepancies between this application and it jiving with AACP and R-6 zoned district. He has always had concerns with the mass and scale and is in agreement with staff. He is very supportive of a project here, especially an economy lodge. But he is very concerned about size and scale. He feels he needs to look at this through the lens of the R-6 zone. It would have been very beneficial to see a street scape study to see how it compares to the historic resource as well as the other buildings on Hopkins Ave. He has a feeling because the other buildings were built against the R-6 criteria,the structure will seem looming in comparison. He thinks the design is good, but it does not pay enough credence to the historic resource and other street scape on Hopkins Ave. He is concerned how close it is, especially on Hopkins Ave given the height of the structure. Mr. Gibbs stated he is pretty much in agreement with Brian. He did ride the distance of Hopkins on the way to the meeting and given what he understands about the height of the project, he feels it isn't compatible with the neighborhood.There are no other buildings on Hopkins Ave over two or three stories tall. It is a nice feeling looking down the street.The character of Hopkins Ave on the west side is residential and he doesn't feel a building this big belongs there. He was not on the P&Z Commission in 2006, so arguments about what was approved then don't carry a lot with him. He feels his job is to look at this project against the identified criteria and make a decision.And he feels because the AACP is regulatory in this situation requiring compatibility with the neighborhood and economic sustainability, the concept of selling to obtain capital to do a project won't sustain the maintenance needs of the building. Fundamentally, he objected to the free market component of Mr. Brown's project that jutted into the R-6 part of the west end.To be consistent with that decision, he must apply the same criteria in this situation.This project would be fine in the core, but it's not in the R-6 residential area. If it was all lodging, he could be more supportive, but he also thinks it could be smaller on this site. Mr. Erspamer responded the parking is up to code. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki wanted Mr.Gibb's to clarify his position that the condominium units, despite being rental, are not to be considered as a lodge. Mr.Gibbs feels that should be defined by the code and the code which must be used to review this application does not define any such thing.So Mr.Gibbs feels it is a good idea, but the code does not support it.The problem is how to define and regulate usage restrictions and the P&Z is not to be making that decision.That needs to be a policy decision from City Council.We shouldn't be making up what sounds good,we need to complete the evaluation based on the code. Mr. Gibbs does not consider it lodging. He considers it to be in the same position as it was in the last meeting. It is too much free market residential, not enough lodging to justify putting a building of this magnitude in that location. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated because it is a PUD and allowing for an override of the underlying zoning, He is not as concerned about the R-6 zoning. For him,there is an argument to be made that there is enough benefit to having an economy lodge there.There are more rooms than approved in the 2006 submittal and a slight value added having those condos in the rental pool. Perhaps that does justify the greater mass and scale. 15 P25 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 12,2014 Mr. McNellis's rebuttal is that because it is a PUD,you could ignore the R-6. His point is that everything else in the area was built under the R-6 Zoning.The criteria the commission must use to judge this particular project on points directly to the AACP which states directly to respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Gibbs stated the PUD does not get you out of the underlying zoning. Mr. Goode likes the architecture style but thinks he agrees with the other commissioners. He does have an issue with it being referred to as four story building, but as the applicant pointed out, it is only about 32.5 ft tall. Half of the three story buildings being reviewed are higher than that. He thinks the best thing for the commission to do would be to kick it back and see what the new initiative does with it. Mr. Erspamer would like the City Council to see this application. He is not sure what direction they would go, but he doesn't feel good having this stop here and feels it should go further. He doesn't want to change his vote just to have it go further because he doesn't feel the condominium has been changed enough to be considered a lodge room. He agrees with staff. Ms. Quinn reminded the commission in the context of the staff memo and the staff resolution presented, it deals with the first issue of growth management. If the commissioners haven't found the growth management criteria are met,then deny that aspect of it and the application does not move forward.What happens in the future is not part of the criteria to be used to judge this application. Ms. Quinn stated if there is additional information the commission needs that might add to the discussion,you can allow a continuance.There was discussion earlier about looking at view scapes along Hopkins, but it is up to the commission.She thought the applicant would prefer a continuance over a denial. Mr. Erspamer then asked the remainder of the commissioners if they wanted to continue or go to a vote. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated perhaps providing drawings showing the street scapes and street sections showing relationships to other buildings to the lodge may help reach a conclusion. Mr. Erspamer stated that would help but would not help him decide whether a condominium is a lodge unit or not. Ms.Tygre thought to answer Mr. Erspamer's question would require some input from staff in terms to how they can judge where the condominium is really a short term unit.An Aspen Square is a short term condominium and it works exactly the same as a lodge unit. She believes the applicant's intention is to have the vacation residences work that way, but the commission doesn't have that kind of information. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15, seconded by Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki.All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Erspamer asked if they should go to vote or continue and ask the applicant to provide additional renderings and to increase the number of lodge units. Ms.Tygre stated it's not the number but the use. Mr. Erspamer feels a lodge is a lodge and a condo is a condo and there are numbers to be determined to make the margins work based on the code. 16 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 12,2014 P 2 6 Ms.Tygre moved to continue the hearing on the Boomerang to September 2nd to allow the applicant to address issues about height and scale, provide street scapes and additional information about usage and proposals on controlling usage. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Cunniffe stated it is frustrating to keep coming back. Can we narrow the focus of items to be addressed? Mr.Tygre stated she wants to see the regulation of short term usage and the street scapes with compatibility. Mr. McNellis stated the street scape study for a block on each side showing mass and scale. Mr. Erspamer told the applicant they have done a great job, but there are problems with the semantics. Mr. Erspamer called the motion to vote.The motion carried by a vote of 5 aye and 1 nay. Meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 17 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 19,2014 P 2 8 U Erspamer,Chair, called the Planning&Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs,Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff;lames R True,Jennifer Phelan,Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer and Mr. McNellis attended the recent State of the Valley presentation and both found it very interesting. Ms.Tygre had friends visiting here recently from Marin County and St.Thomas that had never been before and they couldn't believe how crowded it was here.She wantecfto comment on the trend subgrade planters. In addition to the pits at the Gondola Plaza,the Art Museum also has plantings below the street level. Is this a new architecture trend? Mr. McNellis sated he did a double take on the ones up by the Gondola. Ms. Phelan state a lot or right of way approvals for the Art Museum included the sunken areas for storm water. Ms.Tygre is concerned people will fall into the pits. Ms. Phelan stated it might be something to raise to Engineering. Mr.True stated the city is planning to add railings to the pits near Gondola Plaza. STAFF COMMENTS: In regards to the Sky Hotel, Ms. Phelan stated there were some mineral rights and the notice was not completed in time.So the Sky Hotel has been rescheduled for September, 2014. Mineral rights notices are longer than the typical 15 days. Ms. Phelan also informed the commissioners Jason's wife was accepted for graduate school in Boston. He will be commuting back and forth and will remain an alternate. Ms.Tygre asked if there would be a new member joining the commission. Ms. Phelan stated there was an ad in the paper recently. Ms. Klob stated we had not received any applications as of yet. Mr. Erspamer noted the city of Encinitas pays their commissioners$50 per meeting. Mr.True stated a similar change here would require a land use code amendment. Multiple commissioners noted it may be beneficial to compensate commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None were declared. 1 P 2 9 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 19,2014 Public Hearing - 620 E. Hyman Ave. - Commercial Design Review Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a variance request for 620 E. Hyman for a commercial design review. Ms.-Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician for the Community Development Department,opened by entering the public notice as Exhibit F. Ms. Nadolny stated this is a public hearing for the final commercial design review for the building located at 620 E. Hyman Ave. P&Z is the final review authority.This is a mixed use building located in the Commercial (C-1)zoned district. It is located across from the Aspen Art Museum.Some of the businesses in the building include La Hostaria, Pure Barre,and Aspen Real Estate Company. The applicant is proposing some changes to the exterior street facing fagade.Specifically, looking to remove the existing white colored diagonal wood siding and trim and replace it with a dark colored ceramic the and steel C-channel trim.They will be maintaining the light colored exposed concrete portion.This is before the commission today because these changes represent more than a minimal impact on the building aesthetics,therefore it cannot be reviewed administratively. Ms. Nadolny noted the applicant previously received an administrative approval to replace the second floor railing on the eastern side with glass so it matches the railing on the western side of the building. Replacing the upper story awnings were also part of this approval. Ms. Nadolny continued by discussing the criteria for the commercial design review. It is based on public amenities, space and utility, delivery and trash service provisions. It's a criteria that assumes a greater redevelopment than this project currently is proposing.There are no changes to the existing public amenities or portion of the building that would warrant a change to the current plans and services. Ms. Nadolny stated the more relevant standards are those found in the commercial design review guidelines for the commercial character area as shown in Exhibit D of the memo.The variation of the proposed materials will serve to break up the front fagade of the building.The colors provide a greater sense of articulation that currently exists with a single color tone.The building materials can fade,the range of quality and durability of materials used traditionally throughout the city reflect a bit more modern design. Staff feels the proposed changes will give the building more presence and provide an appropriate visual relationship with the surrounding development such as the Art Museum, Muse and Crandall buildings. In conclusion,staff supports the applicant's request for changes in the buildings materials as proposed. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioner's for any questions of staff. There were no questions. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Kim Raymond of Kim Raymond Architects thanked the commissioners for their time.She brought in the samples of the materials for review showing the color and look of the materials.She demonstrated on the slide where the materials would be provided.She noted the signage for the businesses would 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 19,2014 P 3 0 remain the same.The new materials are maintenance free.She also pointed out the already approved awnings and railings. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Erspamer asked if the designs changes took drainage from rain into account. Ms. Raymond replied the drainage systems will remains as the currently exist.She noted the awnings are very similar to those on Koch Lumber. Mr. Erspamer opened and closed for public comment. Mr. Erspamer asked for any rebuttal.There were no rebuttals. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution#13 in series 2014 approving the final commercial design review for the project at 620 E. Hyman Ave. Mr. Gibbs seconded. Mr. Erspamer opened for discussion. Ms.Tygre stated this is the second project we have seen that is kind of a face lift for an older building with no increase in dimensions. It makes the building look better and she would love to see more of this. Roll call vote; Mr. McNellis,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Mr.Gibbs,yes; Mr. Erspamer,yes. Motion carried with a count of yes-4 and no-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm. Cindy Klob City'Clerk's Office, Records Manager 3 A% P32 MEMORANDUM To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RE: 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road-8040 Greenline Review Resolution No. Series of 2014 DATE: September 9, 2014 APPLICANT/OWNER: - Lazy Chair Lot 2 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Forum Phi Architecture LOCATION: 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road PID#: 2735-113-02-002 I ��' �i • CURRENT ZONING: RR-Rural Residential SUMMARY: Locator Map The Applicant proposes demolition of the existing home and construction of a new single-family home on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request with conditions. LAND USE REQUEST: Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • 8040 Greenling Review - (Chapter 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review) for development within the 8040 Greenline review area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making body. 1 P33 The purpose of the 8040 Greenline Review is to protect the ecological, environmental and scenic significance of high elevation areas through a heightened review process for new development. Development within the 8040 Greenline review area is subject to a heightened review to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. PROJECT SUMMARY: The subject property is approximately 2.4 acres and is located in the RR zone district. The property is located in the Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision, surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club PUD. There is currently a single-family home located on the property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a new single-family home. STAFF EVALUATION: The 8040 Greenline is the topographical line located 8040 feet above mean sea level. The Land Use Code states that no development shall be permitted at, above or 150 feet below (measured horizontally) the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with the review standards. NE s Figure A Property Boundary ■� 8040 Greenline ■■■■■■■ Subject to Review 2 P34 As shown in Figure A, the 8040 Greenline runs through the middle of the property, making almost the entire property subject to review. This property also has an additional requirement that no development may occur above 8060 feet above mean sea level, (per Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2014) except as reasonably necessary for utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation, maintenance or restoration of native landscape, and wildfire mitigation needs. The only development above this line that is proposed is to bury the existing electrical line underground. Staff finds this to be a benefit to the site by hiding utility lines and preserving the natural views. Generally, most of the review criteria focuses on the suitability of the site for development, the environmental impacts of the development, and the availability of services and infrastructure for the development. The new development is larger than the existing, therefore creating more impacts to the environment. However, the applicant has demonstrated in the application how these impacts will either be minimized or mitigated.' Since this lot has been previously developed, the services and infrastructure already exist. Staff finds the project to be in conformance with the review criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve 8040 Greenline Review with conditions. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: Engineering and Parks Departments have reviewed the application and any applicable comments are included in the proposed resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2014, approving 8040 Greenline Review for the project located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road with conditions." EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria—8040 Greenline review standards B. Application 3 P35 RESOLUTION NO._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 511 LAZY CHAIR RANCH ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, ARTHUR O. PFISTER FULLY DEVELOPED LANDS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 14, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 42 AT PAGE 45, AS RECEPTION NO.4033369,PITKIN COUNTY;COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 735-113-02-002. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Lazy Chair Lot 2 LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, requesting approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the construction of a new single-family home at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road, legally described as Lot 2, Arthur O. Pfister Fully Developed Lands Subdivision Exemption, according to the plat thereof recorded April 14, 1993 in Plat Book 42 at Page 45, as Reception No. 4033369,Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS,the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS,the property is zoned Rural Residential (RR); and, WHEREAS,upon initial review,of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 9, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2014,by a to L —_)vote, approving 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds, that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety, and welfare. Resolution No._,Series 2014 Page 1 of 6 P36 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: 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 8040 Greenline Review for the property located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road. Section 2• Approval of 8040 Greenline review for this project is not a reliance on the dimensions provided in the application. All aspects of this project shall still meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located, and all other requirements of the Land Use Code, as applicable. Section 3: Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Titles 21, 28, and 29. The design for the site must meet the Engineering Design Standards which includes the Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements, Construction Mitigation Plan, and Construction and Excavation Standards. Section 4• The removal or relocation of any trees will require a Tree Removal permit from the Parks Department in accordance with Title 13 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code,prior to any removal or relocation. The removal of the existing fence that currently runs through the drip lines of trees will need to be addressed from the Parks Department,prior to Building Permit submittal. Tree protection fencing shall be up prior to any construction or demolition on this property. A fence line shall be erected that keeps the existing natural vegetation safe and secure from any activity around the proposed development. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance of native vegetation &preserve groupings of Gamble Oak. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, 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 6• 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 Resolution No. Series 2014 Page 2 of 6 P37 repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is far any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 9t, day of September, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn,Asst.City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair ATTEST: Cindy Mob,Records Manager Exhibits: L Approved Site Playa H Approved Elevations Resolution No._,Series 2014 Page 3 of 6 P38 EXHIBIT I yµ. s 1, i S9lMFl el .l �aev.srr � I a 1 _. I \Ifl 7i 1 EI III ll 1 Al- rx a , LOWER LEVEL ELEV=8077' � RELOCATED EVERGREEN RELOCATEDDECIDLIOUS '0. * 7 PROPOSED EVERGREEN � r PROPOSED DECIDUOUS Resolution No._,Series 2014 Page 4 of 6 P39 EXHIBIT H Tr c. 0 El I : �1�11 1. 5pi.:4 -0-11 U T 7 T ;T * ._F l n�ytfi • d��y 33.. C� Resolution No. Series 2014 Page 5 of 6 P40 s Resolution No. Series 2014 Page 6 of 6 P41 EXHIBIT A 26.435.030.C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150), feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Findings: The Engineering Department has reviewed the Geological Hazards and Soils Reports submitted in the application and has determined that the parcel is suitable for development considering the review criteria listed above. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed,runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff Findings: Runoff from impervious surfaces s undeveloped flowarate. Ripinrap and on site. Overflow will be released at vegetation will be used to dissipate energy leaving the site. All Aspen water requirements will be met. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Staff Findings: The applicant has proposed a dust and debris control plan as well as emissions control for construction vehicles in order to minimize the effects to the air. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any .proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Findings: A large portion of the structure will be located below grade and is designed to work with the existing terrain. The existing road will be used and no trails are proposed. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Findings: Soil nail walls will be used for shoring to minimize the disturbance to the site. Ordinance 12, Series of 2014 prohibits development above 8060', other than utilities, storm water mitigation, native landscaping and wildfire mitigation. The proposed structure will be located similarly to the existing structure and will generally maintain the existing natural features on site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P42 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Findings: There is only one proposed structure located where the current structure sits. No additional access will be created. Only grading necessary for the construction of the home and to control stormwater will be done. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Findings: The building is under the allowable height limit and is set largely below grade. The building is designed with vegetated roofs and walls to help blend into the natural landscape. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: A City of Aspen potable water tank is located just west of this property. The bottom of the tank sits 31.5 feet higher than the upper floor of the house creating approximately 13.5 psi of static head. A booster pump may be required for the upper floors depending on flows. A fire pump will be needed for the sprinkler system and an existing hydrant will be moved closer to the driveway. Overhead electrical service is from the west and is proposed to be relocated underground. Sewer will be discharged to the manhole to the northeast. All other utilities will run under the driveway. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Findings: There is an existing driveway access that connects to Lazy Chair Ranch Road feeding into Tiehack Road. These roads can all be properly maintained. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Findings: The proposed driveway is wide enough for afire truck and snow plow to access and has a turnaround large enough for a "Y" style turn around that has been demonstrated in the application packet. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development,to the greatest extent practical. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not have any effect on any of the Open Space and Trails Board adopted regulatory plans. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS jOF PROPE TY: ' Y IC.(�,f'l Aspen, CO SC DUL PUBLIC HEARIENG DATE: 1 , 20 `q STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitldn r � c I �(.,( 1;�� (panne, please print) being or representing an Applicant to City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ✓Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached-hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage - prepaid,U S_jUU Lil to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the Ltns 2A3TTi�s; to the development application. The names and addresses of 31JeU�l �" 'QQ',,��.'��''gwner shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they Q0ASiUJCE:W4_t`�"r,: , «S 048ee!appearedc w mare than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A .tt m0dsa r ...r...»........_copy of the oioiers and go>>ernnaerxtal agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required. in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach sw nary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued 071 next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived.. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection yin the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The for oing"Affi avit of Notice"was ackn wledged befo me this--[`day Of , 20 f ,by PUBLIC NOTICE RE:517 A E °'80 G LINE REVIEW WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will behold on Tuesday,September 9,2014,at a meeting to begin at o before the Aspen My commission expires: Planning and Zoning C Commimi ssion,Sister Cities rn Meeting Room,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,As- pen,to consider an application submitted by the _ Lazy Chair Lot 2 LLC,c/o Millard J.Zimet,P.C., 604 W.Main Street,Aspen,CO 81611,represent- . ed by Forum Phi Architecture,for the property 10- cated at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd.The applicant 1 is requesting 8040 Greenline Review approval for Notary Public the construction of a single-family home.The prop- J erty is legally described as Lot 2,Arthur O.Pfister , Fully Development Lands Subdivision `on. KAREN REED PATTERSON according to the plat thereof recorded d April April 14, 1993 in Plat Book 42 at Page 45,as Reception No. NOTARY PUBLIC 4033369,Pitkin County,Colorado,Parcel ID 273511302002. For further information,contact STATE OF COLORADO Justin Baker at the City of Aspen Community De- ,�D velopment Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen, TENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID#19964002767 Co,s7o>429.2797,1ustin.barker®atyofaspen.com. l�1 Febly�Sr Z016 s/LJ Ersoamer Chair jO T J My cOR'IRIi8S1011 EXi"1 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 1, 0 Published Published n The Asepen Tir"�ne Nfeeklyton August POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) C 21,2014(10471275) �4ND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE _ REQUIRED BY SECTION 26304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE - ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: - Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _ �TvE'StaA`> SE 1 �nr�F tZ Ci ,201-1 - STATE OF COLORADO ) _ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) _ i - I, 5 rvt-:-✓ ICJ i t✓5o 0-) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 = (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: C 47 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official = paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) _ days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _ Sw Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the = Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof - materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in - height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the 2C day of Av&y*,T' , 20Lt1_, to and including the date and time _ of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice(sign) is attached hereto. Sw Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community 1 Development Department, which contains the information described in Section = 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15)days prior to } the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the - property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they _ appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A = copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. _ 1/4-. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, _ summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the - neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on nest page) - N/t Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt - requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. _ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any - way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be - made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or = otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal = description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of - real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the = proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning = agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. _ Signature = The forego in "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 25"Nv of WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL = JILL M WAOANISARAVi My commission expires: d��/7 Di7 - NOTARY PUSLIC - STATE Of COLORADO T _ NOTARY 10 S 20014019451 - W EXPMt S AUGUST 17.201? = otary Pubh7 - ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: _ •COPY OF THE PUBLICATION = *PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) _ • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL - • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE _ AS REQUIRED BY C R.& X24--65.5-103.3 Y Y d f PUBLIC NOTICE J4 M4V 4'. n A w � L= Purpose: t I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 511 LAZY CHAIR RANCH RD—8040 GREENLINE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 9, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Lazy Chair Lot 2 LLC, c/o Millard J. Zimet, P.C., 604 W. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, for the property located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd. The applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review approval for the construction of a single-family home. The property is legally described as Lot 2, Arthur O. Pfister Fully Development Lands Subdivision Exemption, according to the plat thereof recorded April 14, 1993 in Plat Book 42 at Page 45, as Reception No. 4033369, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID 273511302002. For further information, contact Justin Baker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen, CO, (970)429.2797,justin.barker @cityofaspen.com. s/LJ Erspamer,Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 21, 2014 City of Aspen Account Easy Peet*Labels, A Llse Avpry'*'Tee p late SIMP Papef rmpaw pop-up Edge,o AWMY6 51600 A. CITY OF ASPEN CROSS TES LL C FINLEY KATHRYN A 130 S GALENA ST 533 E ;' INS AVE 550 LAZY CHAIR RANCH RD ASPEN,CQ 816t I ANN.CID 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAZY CHAIR LOT 2 JAC MAROON CREEK CLUB MASTER AS MAROON CREEK LLC 0133 PROSPECTOR RD#41020 CJ)O JOSHUA AND CC 10 CLUB CIR ASPEN,CO 81'67 1 3W$KtINTER ST ASPEN, CO 91611 ASPEN,CO 81611 S&J INVESTMENTS 11,LLC SCHEO's RUDI E JR 8 CARYN F 222 N LASALLE XRW 110 120 PFEIFER PL CWCAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN,CO 81611 ttique"Os f1w1os A pow A fthWl le gibarit AVERY0 51600 S"4 fu Roorw A 14 hmAum afim-de viwwavwycom 1-800-410-AVERY