Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20141007 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING October 07, 2014 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH AT NOON (MEET AT THE SKY HOTEL LOBBY) II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff IV. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - 709 E Durant - Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, GMQS Reviews for Lodging and Affordable Housing, Timeshare Review, Subdivision Review, Conditional Use Review, Special Review VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 1 LJ 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 Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan informed the board of the upcoming election on November 4th and suggested the meeting that night be cancelled and rescheduled for November 11 in council chambers as a special meeting. The commissioners agreed to the change in schedule. Ms. Phelan then asked the commissioners about setting a continuance date for the public hearing for 511 Lazy Chair. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the 511 Lazy Chair review to the November 11th special meeting. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – September 9, 2014 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the September 9, 2014 minutes with a spelling correction in the second paragraph of the Commissioner Comments section. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goode. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. Public Hearing – Midland Park Subdivision – PUD Amendment Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Midland Park Subdivision – PUD Amendment. Ms. Quinn submitted the affidavits of public notice as Exhibit F demonstrating notice was properly provided. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director with the Community Development Department, presented the applicant’s request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is a site specific approval. The Home Owners Association (HOA) has requested to memorialize changes that have occurred over time and to identify a set of options for future changes allowing the home owner to directly work with the HOA and apply for a building permit rather than obtaining multiple land use approvals. P1 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 2 Midland Park contains eight multi-family buildings (Buildings A-H) for a total of 37 units with three to six units in each building. The property is roughly 4 acres or about 174,000 sf. It was annexed into the city in 1979 and is zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF). The owners have come in on an individual basis to obtain approval for the changes made over time. In 1988, the Community Development Director at the time suspended further changes and asked for the changes that had been made and a calculation of the floor area. One of the property owners conducted an extensive research project to inventory the changes and concluded the site consisted of approximately 32,400 sf of floor area on the property. Since the conclusion of the project in 1988, there have been approximately four additional, somewhat small changes. Unit B21 obtained approval for a loft of about 200 sf. Another approval provided for a pop out of approximately 38 sf. With the additional changes, the total is now 33,159 sf of floor area on the site. Since 1988, the zoning has changed a bit. The allowable floor area for the property is .75:1 which would allow approximately 130,000 sf of development on the site today. So there is quite a gap between what is constructed and what could potentially be maxed out. This approval would provide for a menu of changes for the home owners to do so they just need to apply for a building permit. In regards to neighborhood context, these properties have deep eave overhangs on street facing and non-street facing facades. Some units have carports and the two story units facing the street have street facing balconies. The changes that have been made include enclosures under the eaves for storage, a pop-out to create an entry way \ mud room. Another change on the rear façade was to enclose the space under the eave and put a balcony on top. Staff has requested the applicant to provide a list of the change options so the Community Development Department does not have to evaluate each change. The applicant provided two different categories of changes consisting of interior and exterior changes. Interior changes include conditioned or unconditioned space within the roof line. Conditioned space has the ability for heating and cooling. The eaves and gables have quite a bit of space to provide for storage or loft areas. The resolution also provides for conditioned or unconditioned changes to carports as long as the owner keeps the parking space and the space meets the minimum required dimensions. The list of exterior changes recommended by staff differ slightly from the applicant’s list so there will be a couple of points for P&Z to discuss and decide upon. With the deep eaves, the footprints can be enclosed not exceeding 18 or 48 inches depending on the depth of the eave. The not to exceed dimensions are provided so the existing cold roof vents will not be covered. Another exterior change allows for garage doors, which has occurred on some units already. With street facing windows, staff recommends any new windows be consistent with pattern, material and trim to match existing street facades. Rear windows added must also be consistent with materials and trim. Side windows are permitted as well, but must be non-orthogonal. Skylights may be added as long as they meet the building code. There are a couple of additions of bay windows, but staff is recommending allowing the two bay windows to be maintained, but no additional bay windows be added. The HOA would like to allow bay windows on more units. In regards to increasing the footprint, staff is recommending allowing the full width of a unit to be enclosed on the rear, non-street facing side of the building. The applicant is asking for the enclosures to be allowed on the front of the buildings as well. P2 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 3 Staff recommends only those units with both ground and second floor be allowed to enclose under the balcony. This includes two units in Building A and two units in the Building B. The applicant would like to be able to enclose any street facing unit balcony. Staff is recommending side eave enclosures up to 50% of the length of the unit and applicant has requested 75%. Buildings G & H have deep side eaves that are quite deep. All four units with the side eave have enclosed a portion of the eave to create a mud room. Staff is recommending any additional enclosures be allowed up to 50% of the length of the side wall. The HOA has requested 75%. The final change requested involves an architectural change to the roof form. Specifically, there is one owner interested in installing a gable roof form off the rear side of their property to capture more sunlight. Staff is acceptable with the changes to the roof line on the back of the buildings, because you will not see them from the street. But an architect working on this project suggested many of the street facing buildings could do a similar type of dormer change in buildings A-E to capture sunlight. The question for tonight is if the owners should or should not be able to make these changes. Ms. Phelan stated this subdivision was one of the first affordable housing developments in Aspen. It was designed be a local architectural firm that tried to incorporate passive solar into the property and create semi-public realms with porch elements facing the street. When looking at architectural characters under a PUD criteria, she stated the need to determine to what extent changes would detract from the existing cohesiveness with the building forms. Staff does recommend some of the changes be allowed to happen. Owners can personalize their space, their lives may change requiring changes to their property. Staff has provided a list of options usable for the applicant, but they recommend against some of the changes that might interject forms such as the projecting bay windows that were not part of the original design concept. The gabled dormers might be a great addition to the buildings architecturally for visual interest, but staff is concerned if only one or two owners install the dormers, there may be inconsistencies in the architecture. If any of the dormers are on non-street facing facades, then the appearance won’t change, which is fine. The applicants are interested in allowing the street facing buildings A-E to have the dormers if they choose. The key items where there are differences between the applicant and staff include the bay windows, the number of units allowed to enclose the front façade, the percentage of allowable enclosure and whether or not to allow the gable roof modifications. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Walterscheid stated assuming there is a PUD overlay, there has been a lot of discussion about staff recommendations which seems to be out of the ordinary including trims. He feels there are certain things that fall to the HOA and he doesn’t understand why HOA guidelines don’t dictate a certain amount of the changes. As long as the amount of sf per unit is divided equally and heights are maintained, he doesn’t understand why staff is getting involved into certain elements. Ms. Phelan stated it depends on how involved the HOA tends to be. Staff’s concern was trying to let the owners make changes, but keep the architectural character in place. That is why the staff was making certain recommendations in regards to window types, trim and colors match existing conditions to ensure cohesiveness. P3 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 4 Mr. Walterscheid stated he understands that perspective, but he is not certain as to why that is not an HOA issue. It seems to overstep the bounds of staff to dictate these items. Ms. Phelan stated this PUD is a list of options they (owners) can go and obtain a building permit. PUD’s do talk to the architecture character and staff wants to ensure the continuity. Mr. Erspamer asked if P&Z was going to approve something the HOA might not approve or is this already addressed by the HOA. Ms. Phelan stated the City requires owners to submit an HOA compliance from the HOA prior to obtaining a building permit. The HOA compliance form attests they are subject to an HOA and they received approval from the HOA, or what they are proposing is not regulated by the HOA or there is no HOA. Ms. Tygre noted the improvements being made by the owners may be expensive and she asked if it would affect the resale price of the units. She understands the owners are there to stay and not making improvements to move on, but things change. Ms. Phelan stated the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) only allows certain improvements to be recouped and there is a total cap any one unit can recoup. Ms. Tygre asked if the improvements would allow the unit to be change categories based on the improvements. Ms. Phelan believed the unit would remain in the same category. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was anything in the code in regards to bay windows. He wanted to know if it was mentioned because it was not part of the original plan. He asked why staff does not want the bay windows allowed in the list of options for changes. Ms. Phelan stated staff does not see the bay windows as typical of the existing development. There have been two bay windows added, but staff feels no additional bay windows should be included in the development. She also stated the HOA has asked for bay windows be allowed in the list of options for change. Mr. Erspamer asked if the previously completed non-conforming changes will now be considered conforming in this resolution. Ms. Phelan stated there have been approvals over time and the resolution will allow the permitted changes that have occurred to remain. If an owner with previous unpermitted changes then requests additional changes from the City and it is noted the previous change had not been permitted; the owner would need to obtain a permit for the previous change as well as the new change to ensure the changes meet life and safety code regulations. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Tom Griffiths is representing the applicant. He has lived at Midland Park for 28 years. He then provided background information regarding the development and current owners. Midland Park was the second deed restricted affordable housing project. The first was Park Circle which had a sunset to the deed restrictions which expired. All 12 units went to free market and one unit was bought down for housing mitigation and is still deed restricted. None of the Midland Park units have the sunset provision. Some owners (23%) have lived there since the units were built and another 40% have lived there for 20+ years. The 37 units average about 907 sf. The site is about 4.3 acres of which the eight buildings on site occupy about 19% of the total space. A portion of the remainder is utilized by the public utilizing an easement to Smuggler Mountain. The property is well maintained and their HOA reserves are an in excess of the recently recommended guidelines for capital reserves. They have never approached the City about any issues being underfunded like some other HOAs have in the past. Ted Guy, the original architect, designed and placed the buildings to take advantage of solar gain in the winter and cooling in the summer. He has also advised the buildings were engineered structurally to handle the expansions. Overall, they believe the requested changes will enhance the quality of life for the owners and not P4 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 5 detract from the character of the community. Therefore, the HOA is requesting the following changes to the recommendations from staff as identified in a document provided by Mr. Griffiths. This document titled “Midland Park Plat Amendment – Proposed Changes to the Resolution 9.16.14” was entered as Exhibit E. He then reviewed the changes from the document which correspond to the resolution provided in the agenda packet. The requested changes included the following. • Request to permit bay windows on side and rear of building with neighbor’s consent. • The measurement of allowable expansion of a unit under existing decks and eaves. No vent portals may be blocked. • The percentage of allowable expansion of a unit under existing eaves. • Allow for new dormers / roofline changes to be added to the front or rear of all buildings. Mr. Peter Fornell also spoke for the applicant. He asked the P&Z to remember that Midland Park is a 40 year old complex and it is deed restricted. The only way the housing inventory stays up to date is when the owners update them. He reiterated they are not changing the HOA or the buildings and they are not trying to profit from efforts or move in or out of categories. He stated the existing bay windows are looked upon fondly by the other owners. Mr. Griffiths stated he met with Cindy Christensen at APCHA on the previous day. He wanted to address Ms. Tygre’s earlier comments. Midland Park has three different deed restrictions and three different rates of recapture with caps. They are category four buildings. If an owner exceeds the cap, it is not subject to recapture when the unit is sold. Mr. Fornell stated these changes are included to be streamlined with the idea is to have the owner go directly to the building department instead of having to seek community development approval each time from the P&Z. This application is to help owners proceed with pre-approved items in the permit process. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked how it would handle if a unit with a deck is located over another unit with a different owner. He feels these type of changes need to be carefully articulated who has responsibility. Mr. Griffiths explained the upper decks are all concrete, so he does not see maintenance or noise issues. Mr. Fornell stated Midland Park has a strong HOA with an architectural review committee to review this type of change. The HOA also requires the owner to seek approval from neighbors on these type of changes. Mr. Erspamer asked if they are a condominium or townhome complex. Mr. Griffiths replied they are a condominium complex. Mr. Erspamer confirmed the HOA owns from the drywall out with both Mr. Fornell and Mr. Griffiths. Mr. Erspamer asked how a deck is categorized at which Mr. Griffiths stated it is a limited common element specific to the unit. The owner who encloses the deck area will subsequently be able to convey this area to a new owner. Ms. Tygre asked the applicant to confirm the changes would not change the architectural feel of the buildings when they enclose a deck. Mr. Griffiths did not believe the changes would impact the architectural feel. The owners have utilized other methods to maintain potted plants and gardens when the decks have been enclosed. P5 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 6 Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Phelan what happens when a change is non-conforming and a permit cannot be issued. Ms. Phelan stated if it was a life safety issue, the owner would have to meet the code. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Griffiths what constitutes talking with the neighbors regards planned changes. He wanted to know if this requirement would be in the resolution or not. Mr. Griffiths stated they need to obtain written consent from any neighbor who could be impacted by the change. The HOA will manage who needs to be contacted. Mr. Erspamer asked what happens if an owner applies for a permit for a new change, and they have a non-permitted change such as closing off the cold roof vents. It is his understanding some of the cold roof vents have already been closed. Mr. Griffiths stated there are four units in the G & H buildings where the vents have been closed off to date. The spaces were changed to mud rooms and are not heated. Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA is not sure the vents may not be working due to a buildup of new insulation around the vent. Ms. Phelan stated the changes that have already occurred are not an issue for the meeting tonight. Mr. Fornell stated the HOA would not allow a new change to move forward if existing issues existed. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Griffiths to confirm what façade the HOA was asking to be include in the resolution regarding the changes to the roof line. Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA has requested for the front street facing or rear of all buildings. Mr. Erspamer asked if the owner could change the roof line on both the front and back façade of their unit. Mr. Griffiths did not think the owners would want the change on both sides based on the positioning and space available on the building. Ms. Phelan stated staff designated buildings F, G & H would be fine because you would not see the roof line change from the street. It would also not be visible on the north side of buildings A thru E. Realistically, it is the south facing facades owners would be interested in changing the roof line to take advantage of the solar and views. Ms. Tygre asked if an owner would want to change the roof line on both the north and south sides of their unit. Ms. Phelan thought the resolution should include language to clarify what can be considered. Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA would like the capability for owners to change the south facing side of the buildings only. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. Ms. Sara Garton, a Midland Park resident, asked the board about the sunset clause on the original deeds. Mr. Fornell stated as the units are sold, APCHA changes the deed restriction on the unit. The only owners with that right are the original owners. Ms. Garton stated she would support roof line changes only on the south side. Ms. Pamela Cunningham, a Midland Park resident since 1981, would like language governing the property tightened up but understands this is not under P&Z’s purview regarding insurance responsibilities. She understands the HOA is working on this issue. Mr. Erspamer closed public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened for applicant and staff rebuttal/clarification. Mr. Fornell asked if each time an applicant comes in for a change, will they be responsible for a plat change. Ms. Phelan stated it is the responsibility of the owner and HOA. Ms. Phelan stated it really P6 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 7 comes into play when the owner tries to sell the unit. Mr. Fornell stated it should probably be handled by the HOA. Ms. Phelan stated she had already red lined the proposed changes to the resolution as displayed on the monitor in the room. Mr. Erspamer closed the applicant and staff rebuttal/clarification. Mr. Erspamer asked for comments from the commissioners. Ms. Tygre thought it is a good idea to allow a list of changes to be handled in an overall way so the individuals do not have to go through individual reviews. She feels the allowable changes will make the units better for the owners. The changes are still very far below FAR. She feels the dormers should only be allowed on the south façade of the buildings. The consistency of the architecture should be managed by the HOA as Mr. Walterscheid pointed out. She would like to hear from the other commissioners regarding the width of the enclosure. She does not have strong feelings regarding the width of the enclosure and does not have any issues with bay windows. Mr. Gibbs mostly agrees with Ms. Tygre. He feels the HOA should manage the changes and the city doesn’t have a great deal of interest in micromanaging the changes. In regards to the details in the resolution, he is concerned the resolution is memorializing changes the HOA or other owners would not prefer to continue. He is not sure the details should be included in the resolution. It is mass and scale, but is concerned about the legal implications with what the HOA wants to do in the future. He asked if the resolution could be changed so the HOA must weigh in to define what is acceptable. Ms. Quinn stated this type of check is already in the building permit process which requires the HOA to approve the change. So the resolution is setting the absolute limits of the specified changes allowed. Mr. Gibbs would prefer the HOA dealt with the changes. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Gibbs if he would prefer the resolution language stated up to 75%. Mr. Gibbs thought it would be okay. Mr. McNellis agrees with Ms. Tygre and Mr. Gibbs. In regards to the 75% issue, he feels the total amount of space to be gained is not that large in total and would be beneficial to the owner. He does not want to get bogged down into the details of the changes. He believe the HOA should have assume the responsibility regarding the details of the changes. Mr. Walterscheid feels the details specified in the resolution should be handled by the HOA and the changes are so far under the FAR that the verbiage is a bit too much. He feels the venting issue is a building code issue. He feels the resolution should state the width to be taken to the edge of the roof. He has no problem with the south facing dormer or the bay windows. He feels the changes should be reviewed by the HOA and be within the underlying zoning code. He would have like to see each unit allowed a certain amount of the total as opposed to defining the details. He has issue with what is being proposed in regards to the details of the changes. Mr. Goode feels the same as the other commissioners. Mr. Erspamer feels the same as the other commissioners. He does have some issues with the cold roof. He was concerned on who is responsible for paying for upgrades to the roof. Mr. Walterscheid stated if the owner is making the changes, then the owner is responsible for the expense of the roofing and siding. P7 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 8 Ms. Phelan stated she had red-lined the resolution changes and could display them for the commissioners for review. The changes were reviewed and agreed upon by the commissioners including the following based on allowing the HOA and the permitting process manage the details of a requested change. • Unpermitted changes completed in the past must be permitted prior to any new changes occurring on a unit. • Bay windows shall be permitted. • Expansion of the unit shall not exceed the depth of the eave per the HOA approval. • Enclosures on the street facing façade may be enclosed and shall not exceed 75% when an upper story deck is enclosed. • Side eaves on buildings G and H may be enclosed not to exceed 75% of the length of the side wall. • Gable styled dormers will be allowed on the south facing façade only for the units to be defined in the resolution by Ms. Phelan. Ms. Tygre made a motion to approve Resolution 14, Series of 2014 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll call vote; Gibbs, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Goode, yes; Tygre, yes; McNellis, yes; Erspamer, yes. Motion passed. Public Hearing – Sky Hotel – Planned Development Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Sky Hotel – Planned Development. Ms. Quinn has reviewed a number of affidavits of public notice and the commission is aware of the complications. The notices included mailing of notice, neighborhood outreach and mineral estate owner notice. She has reviewed all of them and upon completion of her review, it appears notice was properly provided. She did comment on the legal issue raised by Mr. Jody Edwards in his letter and the reply by letter by the applicant. The issue raised by Mr. Edwards was if the application should be deemed complete because there was a reference to a restrictive easement. It is the position of the attorney’s office they do not believe by determination by staff that the application is complete should be revisited based upon the letter presented. The neighbors are free to disagree with this determination and have means to deal with this at some other time. It is not up to this commission to make a decision regarding the legality of this issue at this point. Each have made their points, which are part of the record. Ms. Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the Community Development Department, presented the applicant’s request for the redevelopment at 709 E Durant, also known as the Sky Hotel. This is an introductory meeting and given the time constraints, staff is providing an abbreviated presentation. She will go into staff recommendations and staff comments at the P&Z meeting scheduled on October 7th. There is also a site visit planned at noon on October 7th. In addition, there is a meeting scheduled for October 21st if this is not resolved in the October 7th meeting. In terms of the reviews being conducted by the P&Z, there are seven different reviews, ranging from planned development to subdivision growth management special review. The memo is incorrect, so she wanted to clarify the review process. The applicant has requested a consolidated review process, which means any reviews that typically end at the P&Z, will actually be a recommending body to City Council. P8 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 9 City Council will be making the final decision on all the reviews outlined on p. 2 of the memo or p. 56 of the packet. The applicant is requesting a planned development to vary three dimensions. The first is an increase in height to a maximum of 45 ft with one small setback and a floor area increase beyond what is allowed in the underlying zoning. The memo identifies some specifics in regards to calculations of floor area. She stated she will cover this in more detail in the next hearing. The proposal includes 102 lodge keys, this being an increase of 12 keys. This includes standard rooms, bunk rooms as well as a few timeshare units. There are eight free market residential units and five affordable housing units proposed. There is just over 3,000 sf of net leasable area proposed for a total floor area of 97,145 sf which is about 2.6:1. In terms of the sf breakdown, the building is approximately 60% lodge, 20% free market residential, 5% affordable housing, 4% commercial and the remainder would be nonresident circulation space. The applicant is also proposing a parking garage including 70 spaces accessed off of Spring St. They are proposing to retain the existing 13 surface spaces for the Aspen Alps. They are proposing public amenity of about 15,000 sf including ground floor, second level as well as roof top space. They are proposing all these areas be public accessible. Ms. Garrow stated she would go over the proposal in more detail at the next meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Erspamer asked if the application could be redlined to show any changes for version prepared for the next meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if the calculations provided in the memo were correct. Ms. Garrow replied they were correct and staff will verify any changes moving forward and notify the commission of changes. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. Mr. Sarpa asked Mr. Erspamer about the remaining time available for the meeting this evening. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a motion to continue the hearing until 7:30 PM. Mr. Gibbs moved to continue the hearing on the Sky Hotel until 7:30 PM, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Roll call vote: Mr. Goode, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes, Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, no, Mr. Erspamer, yes. Motion carried. Mr. Erspamer informed the applicant would have until approximately 7:15 PM. He wanted to reserve the remaining time for public comment. Mr. Sarpa feels this is a very exciting, very different project for the community. It’s about young people, a mid-priced hotel at the base of the mountain. The owner, Northridge, has been around for 13 years. They purchased the hotel in 2001. The operator, Kimpton Hotel, has been there for 12 years. The owner and operator know and respect the community. The team representing the owner for this application is entirely local including Bluegreen, Forte, and R J Gallagher. P9 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 10 The Sky Hotel is a fun, recreational place for a lot of young people and other visitors who cannot afford our highest price. This is a mid-priced place. They constantly asked themselves to make sure the project fits into the Aspen economy. They started with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) which states one of the central themes is to replenish our lodging inventory to encourage a diverse visitor base. Second, a community goal is to replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on balanced inventory and a diverse price point. Mr. Sarpa stated the proposed development offers a great opportunity for a balanced inventory and a medium priced lodging option. The application replaces a 90 room hotel with a 100 room hotel and keep it mid-priced and young in its orientation. The team also wanted to make sure the new hotel looks like it belongs in Aspen. Their modern interpretation included a renaissance of the Mountain Chalet as shown in the application. He further stated the current building is obsolete. It is run down and past an option of just renovation. Since it is going down, there are 90 medium priced hotel rooms going away. The applicant is not interested in replacing the current hotel with a higher priced hotel. Mr. Sarpa stated in regards to outreach, they have talked with hundreds of people already. During their outreach, he estimated 95% or greater really liked what they saw. Even those that opposed the development liked the design. Mr. Sarpa wanted to cover four more topics: Target Market – What is the younger client? How do they keep them coming back? How do they appeal to the media outlets who are constantly watching for good values in Aspen? One solution to these questions in bunk beds. They plan to have bunk beds for college aged visitors or families with kids. Mid-Priced – The current top-priced options in Aspen include the Little Nell, St Regis and the Jerome. It’s roughly $500 per night. The current mid-priced hotels include the Sky Hotel and the Limelight. Another tier he identified is economy. Program of the Hotel – The team has studied the lodging market to determine where they should be for a younger people. The room is important, but more important are the common spaces. What can you do, how affordable are the common spaces? The Sky Hotel is known today for its pool and lounge scene. The new development will continue to have a lounge and the pool has been put on the roof. There is no public roof bar currently in our community. Reaching back to what Aspen has been about for a long time, we should have a place at the base of the mountain that is a fun place to go. Affordable Housing – The Housing Authority has reviewed their plan and voted unanimously for the proposed five onsite affordable housing meet their approval. The first challenge they know exists is the height, mass, size and scale. They have taken this challenge very seriously and the proposed building averages about 37.8 ft. There is about a 6 ft slope from the back to the front of the site. 68% of the building is four stories but is 40 ft or lower. There is one peak on Durant St that is 52 ft. As measured by the city, it is 45 ft. Mr. Sarpa stated the hotel has 97 pure hotel rooms, three fractionals treated as lodge rooms, and eight residential units. The current plan was designed under the current code. The dimensions of the all the P10 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 11 units meet the current code. Of the eight residential units, three of them are 1,500 sf of smaller, five of them are 2,000 sf. So they would need five TDRs. Mr. Sarpa recommended the Triumph Report commissioned by the Community Development Office. The report looked at a mid-priced hotel built at the base of the mountain taking into account all the cost variables (land, construction, etc…) and asked if you build a three story, 100 room hotel at the base of the mountain, what would you have to charge per night for a hotel room to make it work financially. The answer was about $875. Mr. Sarpa felt the result was very accurate because it describes the Little Nell. It is a 90 room hotel and their average is about $800 per night. They do not want to build another luxury product to the market. They want to keep it mid-priced, young and fun. They backed into how much residential they would need to support the application. Mr. Sarpa then discussed their outreach including a web site available since May. Mr. R J Gallagher handed out cards with the URL for the new sky hotel (www.thenewskyhotel.com) to the meeting participants. The card will be entered as Exhibit F. They have interacted with a couple of hundred people thru the website. They have also had many one on one meetings and group meetings to make their presentation and inform them of what is going on. They started their outreach with their neighbors back in April with GoTo meetings to provide extensive, detailed plans. On May 22nd, they sent a package to the neighbors and began a dialogue with those willing to do so. Some neighbors sent a list of concerns back instead. They have met with the Glory Hole neighbors. The drawings provided for the meeting today reflect changes from the meeting with the Glory Hole neighbors to reduce the height and mass impacts to their building. Mr. Sarpa stated they went back to look at the last set of hearings on the Sky and a lot of the neighbors, some who were present at the meeting tonight, objected to many of the same things back then. As a result, they pulled the roof top units back 7-15 ft on the north side of the building. In summary, he displayed a table comparing today’s hotel with the new hotel reiterating his points previously made. Mr. Corey Enloe, General Manager of the Sky Hotel, has been with the hotel since 2002. The hotel has been successful in creating an atmosphere for the young and young at heart. Unfortunately, the building is obsolete. They cannot expect to continue to provide the same atmosphere with the current building. Specifically, the support pillars are crumbling. The roof needs to be completely removed to be replaced. The noise and sound proofing between walls needs to be upgraded. The plumbing and HVAC systems are inefficient and obsolete. The current systems allow the guests to run both the heat and air conditioning at the same time. The current hotel lacks sufficient parking with only 32 spaces for 90 guest rooms. There are also a number of issues with the current hotel that are not acceptable to the current traveling public. Most of the rooms only have seven ft ceilings, very small bathrooms, corridors with exterior entrances, 25% of the rooms on the second floor do not have elevator access and the hallways are too narrow for a cleaning cart and luggage cart to pass each other. The hotel falls below the minimal acceptable levels of Kimpton Hotels. This hotel is losing its competitive edge against the other ski, beach and golf communities outside of Aspen which are outpacing the hotel in terms of the quality of the product being offered. He then showed some pictures as examples of the issues. The comments they receive from guests, tour operators, group travel agents and other booking entities identify they can find the same product in other places outside of Aspen. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for the applicant. P11 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 12 Mr. Goode asked when the hotel was built. Mr. Sarpa and Mr. Enloe explained one half of the building was built in the 1960s and the second half was built in the 1970s. Mr. Sarpa state the building is 40-50 years old. Mr. Erspamer asked what they were using to determine they are losing their competitive to Jackson Hole. Mr. Enloe stated he largely uses DestiMetrics. Aspen has lost about a point and a half share in t past and previous years. Mr. Erspamer thought our numbers were up. Mr. Enloe stated our numbers were up, but the competition’s numbers were up more. Mr. Sarpa stated they provided about half of their presentation. He stated they would provide the architectural part for the next meeting. Ms. Garrow stated she had received ten letters in support of the project after the packet had been distributed. The letters were submitted as Exhibit E2. Some folks sent two letters. Ms. Quinn submitted as Exhibit G, a letter dated September 15, 2014 from Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti to the City of Aspen as a response to Mr. Edwards letter. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. Mr. Bob Dillon, a resident of Chateau Chaumont in a corner unit closes to the Sky Hotel. They have lived there for eight years. He purchased the property for its close proximity to the ski lift and the view of the mountain. He feels the new building will block his view. Mr. Sarpa stated the building will be 19 ft in front of his unit. He feels the roof on top will be noisy and disruptive, parking will lost and the traffic patterns on the road separating his building and hotel will not be acceptable. He also feels the ability to rent his unit will be decreased. He also sent in a letter. Mr. Benton Smallpage, a resident of Chateau Chaumont, purchased his unit with an expectation of having a view, having Dean St as a place drop off their luggage and there would not be a bar across the street. He purchased his unit protected by city code and he is bothered the city will take away from us and the other condominium owners and give to him in violation of the city code. His expectations are being taken away from him. He asked why isn’t the roof top pool on Durant instead of Dean where there are condominium neighbors. There are five condominiums on the eastern wing of the property. Ms. Kathy Wise, who has been coming to Aspen since 1964 and has had a unit in Chateau Dumont since 1992. She feels like the other condominium owners in that they are being asked to lose sunlight, views and access. She considers Dean St to be her front door. The requested height of the hotel is massive, 30% of it being a height variance. Altering the width and direction of traffic on Dean St is unnecessary. In her first talk with the Sky Hotel people, they wanted to take four Chateau Dumont & Chaumont parking spaces in order to make more of a public walk way. They want to put the urban, edgy, young crowd on Durant St. Her condo is on Durant St which is not what she bought in 1992; a quiet, nice location with a great view and sun. She thinks this project is too much like Vail and it is not where Aspen wants to go. She also submitted a letter. Ms. Joan Marek is an owner in the Hunter building of the Aspen Alps and she is the representative for the Hunter building. John Corcoran, manager of the Aspen Alps was not able to attend, but the Alps has submitted a letter and has concerns about the project including the height, the entrance to the underground parking on Spring St. Currently Spring St has an open feeling to the entrance of the Aspen Alps and with the changes, the feeling will be diminished. They are also concerned about the noise from the pool on the roof. The noise from the pool is already an issue and they are afraid it will become a bigger issue. The owners of the Hunter building units are concerned about the height blocking the view P12 IV. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014 13 of Red Mountain. They are also concerned about the parking directly in front of the building. Doubling the size of the building for nine more beds will ruin the whole ambiance of the area. Mr. Scott Lupow, has owned unit #7 in the Chateau Dumont since 1988. He likes the Sky Hotel and the Dumont. He understands the Sky’s objective, but as an owner, he is concerned about what they are proposing. They want to put a loading dock and trash pickup up on Dean St about 50 ft from his building. And they want to change the direction on Dean St coming in from Original. He is concerned there will be trucks waiting and idling making deliveries. He feels this will have an impact on everyone at the Dumont and Chaumont. His view of the mountain will be blocked. They currently use Dean St as a walk way. The street already experiences ice buildup and he is concerned there will be more ice with a taller building. He is also concerned about the noise from the roof top going on until 2 AM in the morning. He feels the dollars are being taken from the Dumont and Chaumont, decreasing its value by $400,000 to $500,000, and trading it over to the Sky, which he doesn’t feel is fair. Another concern he has about the ability for emergency vehicles being able to go down Dean St. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a motion to continue the hearing for five minutes to finish public comment. Mr. Gibbs moved to continue the hearing on the Sky Hotel until 7:35 PM, seconded by Mr. McNellis. Roll call vote: Mr. Goode, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes, Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes, Mr. Erspamer, yes. Motion carried. Ms. Cynthia Dillon owns unit #21 at Chateau Chaumont. She does not want to live next to a loud, young, fun hotel that has a roof top deck with music. She has been to and enjoyed their current hotel and pool. The pool is loud and if placed on the roof, it will be ear piercing for everyone around. She has continually been woke up by three people walking through the alley. She is concerned about easy access to unload her car if they take away her parking space. She does not want to park in the building and pay someone every time she parks her car. She is concerned about losing her view and atmosphere to gather with neighbors. This will also impact their ability to rent the unit. They have already spent $60,000 to upgrade their unit and are afraid they will not get the money back out. She has to question how open the applicant is to the community. When her daughter was 13, she was swimming in the pool and a Sky Hotel Employee asked if she was staying at the hotel and when she said no, the employee told her she must leave the pool. The people staying at the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont are of an older generation with families. This is not a good match with live and fun and young and loud. Mr. Richard Wing owns unit #5 at the Chateau Chaumont. He agrees with the issues previously mentioned. He wanted to comment on an editorial in the paper which referred to building the great wall of Aspen. He just doesn’t want to make same mistake again. Mr. Erspamer stated he would let Mr. Sarpa rebut at the next meeting. The public comment will also remain open for possible further comment. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the hearing until October 7, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P13 IV. P14 VI.A. P15 VI.A. P16 VI.A. P17 VI.A. P18 VI.A. P19 VI.A. P20 VI.A. P21 VI.A. P22 VI.A. P23 VI.A. P24 VI.A. P25 VI.A. P26 VI.A. P27 VI.A. P28 VI.A. P29 VI.A. P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. P32 VI.A. P33 VI.A. P34 VI.A. P35 VI.A. P36 VI.A. P37 VI.A. P38 VI.A. P39 VI.A. P40 VI.A. P41 VI.A. P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. P44 VI.A. P45 VI.A. P46 VI.A. P47 VI.A. P48 VI.A. P49 VI.A. P50 VI.A. P51 VI.A. P52 VI.A. P53 VI.A. P54 VI.A. P55 VI.A. P56 VI.A. P57 VI.A. P58 VI.A. P59 VI.A. P60 VI.A. P61 VI.A. P62 VI.A. P63 VI.A. P64 VI.A. P65 VI.A. P66 VI.A. P67 VI.A. P68 VI.A. P69 VI.A. P70 VI.A. P71 VI.A. P72 VI.A. P73 VI.A. P74 VI.A. P75 VI.A. P76 VI.A. P77 VI.A. P78 VI.A. P79 VI.A. P80 VI.A. P81 VI.A. P82 VI.A. P83 VI.A. P84 VI.A. P85 VI.A. P86 VI.A. P87 VI.A. P88 VI.A. P89 VI.A. P90 VI.A. P91 VI.A. P92 VI.A. P93 VI.A. P94 VI.A. P95 VI.A. P96 VI.A. P97 VI.A. P98 VI.A. P99 VI.A. P100 VI.A. P101 VI.A. P102 VI.A. P103 VI.A. P104 VI.A. P105 VI.A. P106 VI.A. hJessica Garrow bit 1-- "t) From: Tim Powersmith <tpowersmith @aspenclub.com> -e*YO 10 4(2 Li Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:42 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: Sky Hotel Development Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, c/o Jessica Garrow I am writing in favor of the new Sky Hotel plans and redevelopment. As a member of this community and professional in the town, I encourage a pro growth approach to development and the Sky Hotel is a perfect opportunity for well-priced lodging and elevating the social options for our locals and visitors. I absolutely appreciate and value P&Zs approach to keep parameters and regulations around the integrity of our historic town. With that said,the plans to keep the average height at 37.8 feet, 68%of the building is less than 40 feet, I do not feel is intrusive or obstructing. As for the increase in size of the building, I absolutely understand this is pure economics. There is a need for: upgraded square footage, efficiency of space and ultimately the maximum revenue generated by each square foot. As long as the hotel is within easements and regulations, I encourage the Sky Hotel to maximize their opportunities. Lastly, with the deterioration of this more "mature" building, it just needs a facelift. I would love to see the new Sky Hotel attract and continue hosting and servicing a younger demographic and give the next generation of locals and visitors a great place to congregate and have fun in our town. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Thankyou! Sincerely, Tim Power Smith Tim Power Smith The Aspen Club b. Spa Director of Operations Tel: (970) 920-5839 Cell: (970) 948-8970 Email: tps@aspenclub.com www.aspenctub.com ASPEN F To be _ _ _ healthy cornp orld. 1 October 7,2014 BDARD Dl DIRICTDRS City of Aspen Jeff Gorsuch c10 Jessica Garrow President 130 South Galena Street Aspen,CO 81611 Marc Ganzi Vice President To Whom It May Concern: Tony Thompson I am a veteran of the two COWOP processes focused on the development of the Lift 1 A Treasurer side of the base of Aspen Mountain. The experience was eye-opening. The groups acknowledged the dangerous implications of Aspen's eroding lodging base and considered John R several exciting options to address the issue. But in the end, none of the dynamic concepts Secretary ry were approved. Instead,condominiums will be built—described by one City Council Sherri Antoniak member as the"least worst project available." We are Aspen;we can do so much better! Chris Davenport Andrew Ernemann Fortunately,on the other side of the base of Aspen Mountain,we have the chance to prove Katy En! it. The owners of Sky Hotel are willing to invest in a complete redevelopment of their 50- Bruce Etkin year old building. Sky distinguishes itself from most Aspen lodges in that it has an identity Katy Frisch W-one that is youthful,playful-and 1 love seeing Sky's commitment to maintaining its R)Gallagher focus on a younger demographic. This is seen in its plans for exciting features like the Jim Laing roof-top pool and bar and in its target of achieving a 3.5 Star rating. Ace Lane Cathy Tierney I am also heartened when I see the team assembled around Sky's project: Roland& Broughton,John Sarpa, Sunny Vann, RJ Gallagher of Forte International. These are long- time valley residents who care deeply about how the greater Aspen community is developed. They aren't here to make a quick dollar,they live here. Look at their transparency in sharing details via their website:illlp.: thenewsk+hotel.corn. In a recent address to the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Aspen Skiing Company CEO Mike Kaplan cautioned that if lodge owners aren't allowed to redevelop, Aspen will fall further behind competing resorts. I agree with Mike's assessment. Sky's plans will add 12 rooms above their current count,so in effect Sky is offering Aspen the chance to take a cautious step in the right direction. Let's take that step! Sincerely, Mark A.Cole Executive Director . oK,rftOE1�__ ® 1ff MSM ASP£Nt i� SNOWMASS. + Alpine Bank GORSUCH 0 t.[. r-.•... ._-... t►:. w.vwa� DANCING BFAR Aspen Valley Ski&Snowboard Club•300 AVSC Drive,Aspen,CO 81611 pOUBLE DIAMOND �� � Gernt ... ow 1970)205-5100• Fax(970)925-5290•www.teamaysc.org LAW OFFICES GIDEON L KAUFMAN` OF TELEPHONE HALS.DISHLER" (970)925-8166 PATRICK D.MCALLISTER KAUFMAN,DISHLER&MCALLISTER,P.C. FACSIMILE (970)925-1090 ALSO AOMRTEO IN MARYLAND 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ALSO ADMI77ED IN TEXAS SUITE 305 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 October 7,2014 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Jessica Garrow via email to: Jessica.aarrowQc cityofaspen.coin RE: Sky Hotel.—Planned Development Project Review Application Dear Commissioners: My office represents the Aspen Club Lodge Properties, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, owners of the Sky Hotel. I write this letter to address Jody Edwards' October G 1,2014 letter to you. I will address the topics in the order in which they appear in that letter. 1. Neighborhood Compatibility — It is asserted that the Sky Hotel is not compatible with the neighborhood as required by City of Aspen Land Use Regulations ("LUR") 26.445.050D.3 in relationship to height, noise, and scale. We believe that the proposed Sky Hotel is, in fact, compatible with the neighborhood,which we believe will be demonstrated to you at the October 7, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission. The project's compatibility is measured by its compliance with specific code sections. If you examine the Planned Unit Development ("PUD LUR") section concerning dimensions, the code states, "All dimensions including dimensions, mass, and height, shall be established during the Project Review.A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration should be given to the following criteria." It is important to note that the planning and zoning commission is considering the criteria,which does not mean that a project must specifically meet each of the criteria. The code section contemplates balancing the different and sometimes conflicting city land use goals and policies. Paragraph D3 of the PUD section states "The project should be compatible with, or enhance the cohesiveness, or the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns." We believe "neighborhood" is not limited to a few immediate neighbors nor is this section intended to tie future development solely to a neighborhood as it is currently constituted. A neighborhood should not be locked into its current size and scale, but rather the P&Z should look to appropriate development patterns contemplated by the underlying zoning and PUD guidelines. It is informative to look at the Purpose section for the City Lodge Zone District, 26.710.190, which is the zone district for the Sky Hotel and Jody's clients. The lodge district purpose states, "The purpose of the Lodge ("L") Zone District is to encourage construction, I renovation, and operation of lodges through short-term rentals to support and enhance the city's resort economy. The city encourages high-occupancy lodging development in the zone district." The land use code goes on to specifically provide for certain dimensional incentives if the intent of the zone district is met. The Sky Hotel is seeking to utilize dimensional incentives, which we believe are justified and necessary to fulfill the intent of the L District by replacing obsolete hotel rooms and providing more and improved high-occupancy lodging units. The city is currently losing considerable bed-base and the residential multi-family buildings and single-family unit neighboring the Sky Hotel are not required, nor do some of them, short-term their units. It is important to note there is an LO — Lodge Overlay, a district where there are limitations on development, and encouragement for density to be less than in the city's lodge district.The Lodge District where the Sky hotel is located is different as it is the one district which contemplates and encourages the type of development being proposed. Under the PUD review standards, the code specifically states that the underlying zone district designation is to be used as a guide; but, not an absolute limitation to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. If you examine the project in that context, the variances being sought for floor area ("FAR"} are minimal and are being requested primarily to accommodate concerns raised by the opposing neighbors concerning their �I access. In examining the appropriateness of the building's height, keep in mind that a height of f the 38-40 feet is permitted under existing dimensional standards. While some roof sections o lodge may require variations up to 45 feet,the view impacts for many of the neighbors will not be significantly different. Approximately 66% of the upper floor of the hotel meets the existing dimensional standards. The City f Aspen has determined where view plane protection is appropriate, and has ty � codified protections for those areas. The Sky Hotel property and its neighbors' properties are not within an area with view plane protection. This is not an R-6 or R-15 residential zone district where this type lodge is out of character or scale.It is next to the Little Nell Hotel. Therefore this type of variance is appropriate. The height variance being requested provides the Sky Hotel with the opportunity for important public amenities and mid-priced hotel rooms that will enhance i Aspen's tourist-based economy. What better place,than at the base of Aspen Mountain? It is interesting to note that when the Chateaus were built,their current height affected the view planes of the original modest hotel that was on the site. Underlying zoning and PUD ' regulations offer the community an understanding of what can be built in a neighborhood, and this zone district contemplates significant mass and scale because it is an appropriate place for short-term tourist development.The Sky Hotel is,in fact,being proposed in one of the few zoned I areas appropriate for this type of development scale at the base of the mountain. For these reasons, the planning staff has found, the project meets the intent of the L District, and is supportive of our PUD variance requests. The neighbors also raised a noise concern. The City of Aspen has a noise ordinance that the Sky Hotel must adhere to. A noise study has been prepared, and will be shared with you, which will give you a true understanding of the noise impacts of the project. The Sky Hotel is vibrant and active hotel,which we believe will continue. But it is important to clarify currently a v g party that it is not the intent of the Sky Hotel to turn the roof into a late-night at ty p lace, where loud 2 music will reverberate throughout the neighborhood. 2. Dean Street—Despite the arguments that Dean Street should be treated as a street and not an alley, the City staff has previously made a determination that the right-of-way between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau buildings is an alleyway. Upon review of the 1896 Willits Map and other historical documents, the staff came to a conclusion that it is an alley and not a street. While it appears that the Chateau buildings were developed with their fronts to the alley, this style of development was not uncommon when the buildings were developed, but the orientation of the building does not change the designation of a street or alleyway. Therefore,the application does not require special review of service areas. I have attached to this letter, a portion of Chris Bendon's January 17, 2006 memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission that addresses this point as Attachment 1. A traffic study will be provided to you at the next meeting. A shading analysis has been provided, and when reviewed together they will demonstrate the actual impacts the proposed development will have on the alley. We believe these studies demonstrate a significant reduction in traffic as well as improved traffic patterns that create a safer,pedestrian-friendlier alley. 3. Value and Fairness ---- When a property is developed, a standard for its approval is not whether it adversely affects its neighbors' value. The city has never utilized this standard to Judge the appropriateness of a new project. If it did, it would unfairly penalize new development and lock in property values of existing buildings at the expense of properties that have previously not utilized their zoning rights. City codes are not designed to maximize or ensure one's property value,but rather to look at the overall benefits to the community and what the underlying zoning hopes to achieve. Clearly, a new,modern,mid-price hotel in this location fulfills the intent of the zone district, the Aspen area community plan, and offers the planning and zoning commission a valid basis to approve this project and its requested variances. 4.Net Lot Area—The city planning staff and attorney's office have addressed the vacated right- of-way issue and have recommended that the areas be included in lot area for the purpose of calculating floor area. This finding was made based upon the facts at the time of the original vacation and the intent of the code re-write. It was not based on favoring one property over another. A detailed analysis is contained in Jessica Garrow's September 16, 2014 memo, which we feel accurately and fairly addresses the issue. 5. Appropriateness of Development — The opposing neighbors argue that the Sky Hotel proposed development would be appropriate in a different location and argue that sites like the Residences at the Little Nell, Grand Hyatt, and St. Regis are areas that this type of development is appropriate in. However, the zoning for those properties also permits lodge uses as well as allowing similar dimensional standards. It is important to remember that the scale, height, and size of those projects were approved by the city, despite their neighbors' opposition to their heights and view impacts. The fact that residential condominiums and a single-family residence in the lodge zone district are impacted does not justify that one of the few appropriate lodge- zoned properties in the city should be denied its opportunity to meet the intent of the zone district. 6. Benefit of Single-Ownership - The Sky Hotel request does not seek to treat its property differently. The other similarly zoned neighbors could seek to rebuild, increase height, and modernize their buildings as well. These units have been condominiuraized, which makes it 3 difficult to accomplish that type of redevelopment. Fortunately, the Sky Hotel is under single- ownership, and therefore, in a position to achieve city goals that meet the intent of the zone district. It is Sky Hotel ownership and development team's hope that when you have had the opportunity to fully review the Sky Hotel land use application,its compliance with the City Land Use Code, you will see the merits of the proposal and recommend its approval. Veiy Ttuly Yours, KAUFM ,DISHLER&McALLISTER,P.C. A Pr4con . rporation By G man Cc: John S arpa Sunny Vann Jody Edwards I I 4 Attachment 1 tSSt�f s F.1 IOM NONIF RIBER-29 �.MEETIN V,.' Tlle.Barlrling and 7oning Cdinmjission on Noveltlber 29« coxes stedi o1' :Staff. 11th Applicant presentation, P&Z ql mstiorls, and comments.,front the public.; 'F'lte.meeting concluded with a series of,questions;rttttl follow:tip :items tsft:lias sununanzed:these below with Commentary: s5 te.Visit—P&Z requested a coordinated site visit. Tbls.li�ts,C�eert°estizblis}iecl foc TtFesc�ay.. uhe.l7'h,at moon. (noon on.the day of the hearing) '* e'll meet 6i'the DWant f Side o the project .brlef spiutmary,of ille.site visit will-17e presented,at.tliexearulg:far ilie record. Dents Street r�r.fllley'-- Tlie::rlglut-ot=way between ilte.Sky Aotel .attd the Chat ill buildings.is.an rule as=a . T tis: artioiS of Ashen is parr of the_Qriginal ToNywite, Tile l ggb ltid of-poxation flat Eg9ws-t1 tis';t5 a?.0-foot Nvi e iif jimmied r1g1it of tvay A plat i6tt: - &srrlbvs:lvlainalnd Cd3tAll.-' now Oarinkch)Streets as 100-feet.wi4e,Streit!]andlAvesxtic$ . its.7:5 fdet_tvicic,aiicl alleys m'.0-feet wido. (See E�cllibit 13.) meter additwhs to the City Deans;.Coitlicis,`Cal xtal.Hill,,ands Eames Ac{clitions—extetudotl:llte towrlsrtc gt�id wiith. mod' vatiotls to#fie right of=tray widths and lot sizes. These tator.aoditidi is xtzcludc 1) Street (or ) qpv, Street)o.as n 50-foot ividic sight-O way ivest:af ►vhat is ilo�v:Cxr�ndloi:L. Plaza. 2CI12bit I1.} -lfto Hoffman Subinhied a copy of the 1$96 Willits:Ulf x.fit tl1i::NU,1+d�tiber 29'h hearing. (F,xhibit r.),This is a survey prepared by a private company dind'Is d;onsidcred Fin weltrate iiepietiott of fire die�Tclot}rz�ent at the time, including structures And.rail lutes Tlte:�iostern portion of:tlle it Ili ofsrR ss lebelcd "Dean," but file nrltne is not calried.thratr It to.the It g y gl eastern polfivlt.. Tn fad t,ul1d�sttl}ject property zppears to be a rail yard, Sjltile,tliis`�11a1i as:,: . - all. acetirate depletion of ilrc development at the tuve and :is:used <ts an Ilisto►icail: I 6fcrewo,it is not 4"!egiz1*1 xccagitizedl plat. I There are street signs that indicate fife allepNay as.D.M.A Street and> as evidenced in the I\Tovnl :r.29'' ieit nfee n this alley as Dean!Street.- i3ut.it is.tecltrucsrlly au It does appeal that the Chateau buildings were dcveloped[;vsrith "their"backs" to Durant Avenuc nild "fronts" to tho alloywaty, This style: of development was not uticoxnmwi -whotr_tltese buildings.N�rere developed. BLit, the orientation.ofa building does.itnt ihattge the designetiorll of ui street or:alleyway, ScrrtJr.s�l�ttt� G'trl-�e�Sr�e-�.p&Z oxl7ressed irrt4rest-in.t}la:ttt�rt�iaundl:.area.at the south ettd;df.§O uth.Spring Street beh)g. cicaned-ill). Staff agrees; this area would berrefit rom solee Improvement. This does not frill solely unAhe applicant. This would:recttiire W: .:. coordillawd. effort between the City (as ntanagei• of the.;riglit-of way) aad:.the three. adjoirlirig.property ommors —`I'ho Sky Hotel, the:Aspen Alps,rind!tho Tuttle Nell. :If.I?�'cZ tAiclfes 11w. City should:pursue this idea, a recodltinendatiotl:`cdiix be forwarded to City Cou licil. 111is On be done as part of the Sky Hotel mcommendtitlon or as a wparatdr- dlCtion, S P107 VI.A. P108 VI.A. P109 VI.A. P110 VI.A. P111 VI.A. P112 VI.A. P113 VI.A. P114 VI.A. P115 VI.A.