HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140916 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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 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.
1
Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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 facade 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.
2
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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 fagade,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.
3
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16 2014
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
4
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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.
5
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16 2014
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 fagade 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 fa4ade 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
6
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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 fa4ade 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.
7
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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 facade 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 fagade 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 7 th
There is also a site visit planned at noon on October 7t'. In addition,there is a meeting scheduled for
October 21St if this is not resolved in the October 7"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.
8
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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.
9
Regular Meetiniz Planning& Zoning Commission September 16 2014
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
10
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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.
11
Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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
12
Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission September 16,2014
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
13