HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20141021
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
October 21, 2014
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT - NONE SCHEDULED.
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES - NO MINUTES TO APPROVE.
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. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 14
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 1 of 14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: 709 E Durant – Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual
Commercial Resign Review, GMQS Reviews for Lodging and
Affordable Housing, Timeshare Review, Subdivision Review,
Conditional Use Review, Special Review
Resolution No.___, Series of 2014
MEETING DATE: October 21, 2014
APPLICANT /O WNER :
Aspen Club Lodge Properties, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION :
709 E Durant Ave
CURRENT ZONING :
Lodge (L) Zone District
SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests reviews to redevelop the
existing Sky Hotel to include lodge,
commercial, affordable housing, and free-
market residential uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval, with conditions.
Photo: Sky Hotel building.
P1
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 2 of 14
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant is requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council
approve the following reviews:
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design
Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building.
• Conditional Use Review (Chapter 26.425) for commercial space as part of the lodge.
• Special Review (Chapter 26.430) for the project’s parking calculation.
• A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the development of a lodge. The Applicant requests a PD Review to
allow an increase in height, a decrease in setbacks, and an increase in floor area.
• GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, affordable housing, and free-market
residential development and allotments.
• Subdivision Review (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for the creation of timeshare legal
interests.
• Timeshare Review (Chapter 26.590) for the creation of timeshare lodge units.
In addition, the Applicant will request the following review from City Council:
• Amendment of 1961 and 1962 Right-of-Way Vacation Ordinances. (This is a
discretionary City Council Review. No action by the Planning and Zoning Commission
is required.)
Changes since the 10.7.2014 P&Z Meeting:
The Applicant has proposed a number of architectural changes and some use changes since the
October 7 th public hearing. These are outlined in the Applicant’s memo attached as Exhibit J.1.
They are also summarized below:
• Two (2) of the fourth floor free-market units are proposed to be converted to fractional
lodge units. This increases the proposed number of lodge units to 106 (with 106 keys and
107 total bedrooms).
• Massing changes are proposed along the eastern wing on both the Aspen Alps side and
the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont side. These changes include increasing the fourth
floor setback and reducing the peak of the 3-story Chalet roof form along the alley
façade, while adding a 2.5-story chalet element to the Alps façade.
• Height changes are proposed along Durant Avenue, lowering the tallest Chalet style roof
form by 1 foot 8 inches.
• Interior special event space is added to the main level to help accommodate louder
events.
• The valet area and garage entrance have been revised with feedback from the
Engineering Department. The changes include the addition of some parallel parking
spaces, and meets traffic codes.
P2
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 3 of 14
Staff is supportive of the changes, as they address staff’s concerns regarding the massing and
façade design along the east wing of the building.
Staff has also included the Triumph Report as Exhibit M, as it has been referenced at the past
public hearings. This report was commissioned by the City as part of the recent lodge incentive
work and was intended to outline what use mix and dimensions are needed to develop a
Limelight-like hotel.
Questions from 10.7.2014 P&Z Meeting:
A number of questions were raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission and members of the
public at the October 7 th public hearing. These are outlined below, followed by an updated staff
memo.
1. Is the right-of-way between the Sky Hotel and the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont
a Street or an Alley? The right-of-way between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau
buildings is an alleyway. City staff has reviewed a number of original townsite maps,
and it is clear that Dean Street (also known as Deane Street) is a public street until Block
102 (the current location of the Little Nell), where it transitions to a public alley. It
remains an alley through Block 107, where the Sky Hotel is located.
The 1880 Incorporation Plat map defines an alley as having a right of way of twenty (20)
feet, and a street as having a right-of way of seventy-five (75) feet. On this map, the
entirety of what is now Dean Street appears to be an alley. Attached as Exhibit L are a
number of plat maps showing the right-of-way in Block 107 is consistently as an alley,
not a street.
It appears that when the Sky Hotel area was originally developed, it was a railroad yard.
Using the 1904 Sandborn maps and the 1896 Willits map 1, it appears that sometime
following the 1880 Incorporation Plat and the Sandborn maps that the Dean right of way
was platted as a street up until the rail yard area, which coincides with Block 102. The
1959 Aspen Townsite Map clearly shows the area at Blocks 102 and 107 transition to an
alley. Subsequent townsite maps in the 1960s and 1970s also show the area as an alley. 2
While it appears the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont were developed with their “fronts”
toward the alleyway, it does not change the fact that the right-of-way is an alley and not a
street. This was not an uncommon development practice at the time, but it does not
change the designation of the right-of-way.
2. Does the City have a preference for the alley direction? The City Engineer has
reviewed this again, and recommends the alley direction remain as it is today – traffic
enters off of Durant and exits onto Original. This has been included as a condition in the
Resolution.
1 The Sandborn Map and the Willits Map were surveys prepared by private companies, and are considered to show
an accurate depiction of development at the time and are often used as historical references, but they are not legally
recognized plats.
2 The plat maps references here are considered legally recognized plats.
P3
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 4 of 14
3. How will access to the alley be maintained through construction? The applicant will
be required to provide a draft Construction Management Plan (CMP) as part of their
Planned Development Detail Review. This will be required to address the access
concerns that were raised by neighbors. That said, alley closures are to be expected on a
project such as this. At various times throughout the construction process there will not
be through traffic, and this is permitted on a limited scope within a Construction
Management Plan. The Sky Hotel will need to work closely with the Fire Department to
ensure there is fire access from one side of the alley or the other. Some form of
emergency access to adjacent properties is required to be maintained throughout
construction.
4. Is soil stability on the Aspen Alps property an issue that can be addressed with this
application? No, the City cannot require one property owner to mitigate problems than
may exist on another property. However, the City does require that excavation and
disturbance does not make the situation on adjacent properties worse.
5. One Commissioner was interested in seeing a copy of the City’s mudflow map. This
is attached as Exhibit K. As was referenced in the October 7 th public hearing, a portion
of the property in the southwest corner falls within the mapped “Blue” mudflow zone and
that a portion of the property on the east is located in the “Yellow” zone. The City’s
Engineering code requires a 100 year mudflow analysis be conducted. This will be
completed as part of the PD Detail Review. The Engineering Department will ensure this
is mitigated through construction techniques as part of their building permit review.
6. A number of Commissioners expressed a desire for the applicant to evaluate the
proposed design and to see if there were ways to minimize the mass along the
eastern wing, adjacent to the Alps 100 building and the Chateau buildings. The
applicant has proposed a number of massing changes, which are outlined below. Exhibit
J.1 is a project memorandum from the applicant describing the changes in detail.
a. The applicant has proposed to pull the fourth floor back on both the north and
south sides of the eastern wing by approximately six (6) to eight (8) feet (See
elevations Exhibit J.2 for renderings and Exhibit J.3 for floor plans).
b. Smaller massing changes on the second and third floors of the eastern wing are
proposed along the Aspen Alps elevation. Also as part of the changes, two (2)
free-market residential units are converted to two (2) fractional lodge units.
c. Massing changes along the western wing (along Spring Street) are proposed to
accommodate a revised valet parking and loading area configuration. The
building façade is moved in, creating an eight (8) foot sidewalk and car valet area.
Some balcony changes are proposed on this façade as well.
d. With the massing changes, the overall floor area has decreased to 96,133 sq ft.
The floor areas for the lodge units and the free-market residential units have also
P4
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 5 of 14
decreased to 62,449 sq ft and 13,617 sq ft, respectively. The dimensional table
later in the memo has been updated to reflect these changes. In addition, the
decreases in the lodge and free-market residential space has impacted the
affordable housing requirements for the project such that they applicant is
providing adequate mitigation with the proposed on-site affordable housing units.
e. The elevator to access the roof deck will be 54 feet in height, which is 4 feet
higher than is allowed by code. This height is required in order to provide ADA
access to the roof deck.
7. A number of Commissioners requested to see additional sun/shade studies for
adjacent properties. The applicant has prepared sun/shade studies using the modified
massing, which are attached as Exhibit J.5.
8. Are their ways to mitigate the potential noise coming from the second level and
rooftop level pool and deck areas? The applicant has proposed, as an option for P&Z
to consider, some glass walls to be located at the outer edge of the rooftop deck. These
would range in height from three and a half (3.5) feet to seven (7) feet in height.
Depending on the location of the proposed glass barriers, additional height variations
may be needed to accommodate them. Exhibit J.6 illustrates the sound/acoustic studies
the Applicant’s sound expert has prepared. The Applicant will explain these in more
detail at the October 21 st hearing.
9. What are the City’s requirements regarding noise levels? The City’s maximum noise
levels in the Lodge zone district is 60 dBA from 7am to 11pm and 55 dBA from 11pm to
7am. Vehicles have higher maximum noise levels of 82-86 dBA for speeds of 35 miles
per hour or less.
BACKGROUND :
The Sky Hotel is located in the Lodge zone district at the south-east corner of Spring Street and
Durant Avenue at 709 E Durant. The existing lodge is in the shape of an “L,” wrapping around
the alley. The property has been used as lodging since the 1960s when the Glory Hole Lodge
and restaurant occupied a portion of the site. The property was remodeled in the late 1970s and
the property was renamed the Woodstone Inn. In 1981 the lodge received approval to
condominiumize, though no condominium units were ever sold – the lodge has remained in
various single ownership interests throughout its history. In 1984 the lodge was purchased by
Richard Butera and renamed the Aspen Club Lodge. The current owners have owned the
property, now known as the Sky Hotel, since 2001. The owners filed an application for
redevelopment in 2005, which was ultimately withdrawn.
The property is not a typical set of townsite lots and blocks, and includes portions of vacated
streets and an alley. In the 1960s, there were a number of street and alley vacations in the area,
with other lands being dedicated to the City for right-of-way. The existing Spring Street, for
instance, was conveyed to the City in 1961, and the original Spring Street right-of-way, which is
part of the Sky Hotel property, was vacated in 1962. A portion of Ute Avenue is located on the
P5
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 6 of 14
property and was also vacated in 1962. In addition, there is a 1963 15-foot access easement on
the Sky Hotel property granted to the Aspen Alps Condominiums.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Sky Hotel, adding sixteen (16) new lodge units, for
a total of 106 lodge units, five (5) affordable housing units, and six (6) free-market residential
units, and replacing 3,380 square feet of commercial space to the site. The existing and proposed
dimensions are listed in Table 1, below. The Applicant is proposing to vary the east side yard
setback, the overall building height, and the overall floor area through the Planned Development
process.
The existing Sky Hotel includes the following development:
90 hotel units.
5,259 square feet of accessory commercial space.
45 parking spaces (14 are in an underground facility, and 13 surface spaces are
dedicated to the Aspen Alps.)
3,760 square feet of public amenity space (9.7% of the site)
38,367 square feet of Floor Area.
Approximately 32 feet high.
The proposed Sky Hotel includes the following development:
106 hotel units, 106 keys and 107 bedrooms in 48,095 square feet of net livable area.
3,380 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable space.
6 free-market residential units (plus 4 lock-offs) in 10,322 square feet of net livable
area.
5 affordable housing units in 4,301 square feet of net livable area.
83 parking spaces (70 of which are in an underground facility, and 13 of which are at-
grade spaces dedicated to the Aspen Alps.)
13,021 square feet of public amenity space (30.5% of the site)
97,145 square feet of total Floor Area.
45 feet high
Table 1: Dimensional Data, changes are included as track changes.
Lodge Dimensional Requirement Existing
Development
Proposed
Development Zone District Allowances
Lodge Units and Net Livable 90 units in 24,477 sq
ft of net livable space
106 units in 48,095 sq
ft net livable N/A
Commercial Net Leasable 5,259 sq ft 3,381 sq ft net leasable N/A
Affordable Housing Units and
Net Livable N/A 5 units in 4,301 sq ft
net livable N/A
P6
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 7 of 14
Free-Market Residential Units
and Net Livable N/A 6 units in 14,322 sq ft
net livable N/A
Minimum Gross Lot Size (sq ft) 42,645 sq ft 42,645 sq ft 3,000 sq ft
Minimum Net Lot Size (sq ft) 37,113 sq ft 37,113 sq ft N/A
Minimum Net Lot Area per Free-
Market dwelling unit (sq ft) N/A 4,639 sq ft 3,000 sq ft
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 116 ft 116 ft 30 ft
Minimum Front Yard Setback
(feet) 10 ft Above Grade - 10 ft
Below Grade - 5 ft 5 ft
Minimum East Side Yard Setback
(feet)
22 ft East Wing; 2.5 ft
West Wing
Above Grade - 6.4 ft
East Wing; 2.8 ft
West Wing Below
Grade - 5 ft
5 ft
Minimum West Side Yard
Setback (feet) 5 ft Above Grade - 13 ft
Below Grade - 5 ft 5 ft
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
(feet) 25 ft Above Grade - 5 ft
Below Grade - 5 ft 5 ft
Maximum Height (feet) 32-34 feet 45 feet 38-40 feet
Public Amenity Space* 3,760 sq ft (8.8%) 13,021 sq ft (30.5%) 4,264.5 sq ft (10%)
Allowed Floor Area
Overall 43,605 sq ft (1.1:1)
96,133 sq ft (2.59:1) 2.5:1 (92,783 sq ft)
Lodge 38,825 sq ft (.99:1)
62,449 sq ft(1.68:1) 2:1 (74,226 sq ft)
Commercial 4,461 sq ft (.11:1) 3,459 sq ft (.09:1) 0.25:1 (9,278 sq ft)
Affordable Housing 0 4,615 sq ft (.12:1) 0.25:1 (9,278 sq ft)
Free-Market Residential 0
13,617 sq ft (.37:1)
44.6% of AH and Lodge
NLA (23,368 sq ft)
Minimum Trash/Recycle Area 112 sq ft 400 sq ft for lodge; 213
sq ft for residential
400 sq ft for lodge; 124.5
sq ft for residential
*The original Public Amenity calculations were taken from net lot area, and should have been
taken using the gross number
Parking:
The property currently includes 45 parking spaces, 13 of which are reserved for the Aspen Alps
on an access easements along the rear (south) property line. Based on the existing development
of 5,259 sq ft of commercial space and 90 hotel units, the code required parking is fifty-one (51)
spaces 3, when only thirty-two (32) are provided 4. A project is allowed to maintain a deficit of
parking. The project will maintain the existing 13 Aspen Alps spaces.
3 45 spaces for the lodge (.5 spaces per lodge unit are required) and 6 spaces for the commercial uses (1 space per
1,000 sq ft of commercial net leasable space). = 51 spaces required.
P7
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 8 of 14
The project proposal requires the following parking:
Existing Parking: 32 spaces
17 New Hotel Keys: 8.5 spaces
5 Affordable Housing Units: 5 spaces
6 Free-Market Residential Units: 6 spaces
Total: 51.5 spaces
The project proposal includes a sub-grade parking garage with 70 spaces. Because 22 of those
sub-grade spaces are proposed to be stacked, the actual number of spaces provided per the land
use code calculation method is 48 spaces, resulting in deficit of 3.5 parking spaces. The
Applicant has requested Special Review for their parking calculation due to the garage
configuration.
Lodging Units:
The proposal includes 106 lodge units, which is a net increase of 16 units. The units are
proposed to be a mix of:
94 standard rooms = 94 keys
3 bunk-style rooms = 3 keys
5 fractional units, including 4 lock-offs = 9 keys
Total: 106 keys
The standard lodge units are proposed to be between 335 sq ft and 657 sq ft. The average unit
size of the units is 454 square feet 5, and the density is one lodge unit per 418 square feet of gross
lot area. 6 Lock-offs are proposed in 46 standard units, meaning the units can be rented as 46
individual units or as 24 two-bedroom units. Lock-offs are also proposed in four of the two-
bedroom timeshare units, meaning the units can be rented as 4 individual units, or as 8 one-
bedroom units. Lodge units are located on the first, second, and third floor, and the fractional
lodge units are located on the third and fourth floors.
For the five (5) timeshare units, each fractional interest purchaser will own an undivided 1/10 fee
interest in a specific unit. There are a total of 50 separate timeshare interests (5 units x 10 estates
per unit). The proposed units will be available for owner use a minimum of five (5) weeks per
calendar year, with any unused time being made available for nightly rentals by the general
public. The fractional units are proposed to be 1,334 sq ft – 1,500 sq ft in size.
Commercial Space:
The Applicant proposes 3,380 sq ft of net leasable space located on the first, and second floors,
as well as the rooftop. The space is proposed to include a bar and lounge, a ski shop, a kitchen,
and a rooftop bar.
Free-Market Residential Units:
4 45 spaces – 13 Alps spaces = 32 spaces for Sky Hotel.
5 48,095 sq ft lodge net livable / 106 lodge units = 454 sq ft net livable per unit.
6 42,645 sq ft gross lot area / 102 lodge units = 418 sq ft gross lot area per unit.
P8
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 9 of 14
The Applicant proposes six (6) free-market residential units located on the fourth floor. The
units are proposed to be divided into three (3) two-bedroom units and three (3) three-bedroom
units. The two-bedroom units will range in size from 1,400 sq ft to 1,500 sq ft, while the three-
bedroom units will all be approximately 2,000 sq ft. 7
Affordable Housing Units:
The Applicant proposes five (5) affordable housing units located on the first floor. The units are
proposed to be divided into four (4) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit. The
Applicant currently envisions the units be deed restricted as Category 3, and available for rental
to the hotel’s employees.
STAFF COMMENTS:
LOT AREA – VACATED RIGHTS -OF -WAY : The Sky Hotel property includes a number of vacated
right-of-ways, including a portion of Ute Ave, and the original location of Spring Street. In 1961
and 1962, the City vacated these in exchange for a new Spring Street right-of-way. Spring Street
is now located on the land that was granted to the city in exchange for the aforementioned street
vacations. The Sky Hotel was developed on the vacated rights of way.
The City’s code currently subtracts former rights-of-way from a property’s Lot Area. It is Lot
Area which defines a property’s allowable Floor Area. This reduction requirement was not in
place when the streets were vacated in 1961 and 62. In 1975, the City started reducing Lot Area
by subtracting former streets but exempted properties affected prior to 1975. In 1988, after the
existing hotel was developed on the vacated portions of right-of-way and using that land area for
floor area calculations, the code language was rewritten and the pre-1975 exemption was
eliminated. Thus, under the 1998 amendment all former rights-of-way now reduce a property’s
development rights regardless of when the vacation occurred.
City staff recognizes that according to Alan Richman, who was the City’s Planning Director in
1988 and who was principally responsible for the code rewrite, the removal of the pre-1975
exemption was unintentional. In a letter submitted by the Applicant from Mr. Richmond, he
states: “I am quite certain that we did not evaluate, in any way, the consequences upon prior
vacations of deleting this language. . . If this revision has had substantive consequences, that was
not our intension, and the City may wish to reconsider whether that language should be
restored.” A copy of Mr. Richman’s letter is included in the application’s appendix. However,
this involves legislation of general applicability where rules of statutory construction require
staff to evaluate the legislation based on the words used. Since this language has been supported
in this context in prior litigation, it cannot now be amended without formal action by the Council
to amend the ordinance itself. An amendment to the ordinance is not being proposed.
Instead, the Applicant and staff reviewed the history of the 1961 and 1962 street vacations and
the development of the property following the vacations. Based on this evaluation, Staff
recommends an amendment to the City’s 1961 and 1962 ordinances to include the previously
vacated rights of way in the Net Lot Area calculation. Unlike the legislation discussed above,
the vacation of a city street in this context is an administrative action. Given the fact that there
7 The Lodge zone district limits unit size to 1,500 sq ft, with the ability to increase to 2,000 sq ft through the landing
of a TDR. The proposal will require the landing of five (5) TDRs.
P9
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 10 of 14
was actually an exchange of property involved in the relocation of Spring Street and then
development on the vacated property without floor area reductions, it would be appropriate to
assume that there was never an intent to reduce developable area. Amendment of the vacation
ordinances to reflect that intent is narrow in scope would have no specific application to any
other properties. Stated in another manner given the exchange it would be unfair to deny the
Applicant the full development rights on this property.
Consequently, Staff has recommended that these areas be included for the purposes of
calculating Floor Area, and that the dimension be included as part of the Planned Development
Review that establishes dimensional requirements.
LOT AREA – ALPS ACCESS EASEMENT : The City’s code subtracts access easements from
effective lot area for purposes of Floor Area calculations. The 1963 access easement does not
show up on the Sky’s title work, and many existing improvements are located within portions of
the easement. While the Applicant believes the access easement has been abandoned, they have
agreed to subtract the area from their lot area, pursuant to the land use code. The easement’s
deduction results in an effective lot area of 38,913 square feet.
LOT AREA – CHATEAU DUMONT AND CHAUMONT ACCESS EASEMENT : The City’s code
subtracts access easements from effective lot area for purposes of Floor Area calculations. The
Applicant has agreed to deduct a portion of their lot that the Chateaus use for access. The 1,800
sq ft deduction results in a final effective lot area of 37,113 square feet.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT : The Applicant has requested a Planned Development Review to vary
three (3) dimensional requirements: Height (40 feet is allowed and the Applicant requests 45
feet); Setbacks (5 feet is allowed and the Applicant requests 2.8 feet along the east side yard);
and Floor Area (92,783 sq ft is allowed and the Applicant requests 96,133 sq ft). Staff is
supportive of the setback request, as it is located in a small area along the alley. The peak of the
roof along Durant decreased by almost two (2) feet. Staff is supportive of the direction of the
design and mass and scale of the building.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN : The property is located within the Commercial Character Area. The
Applicant has proposed a design inspired by chalet architecture in Aspen and other mountain
communities. The chalet design is particularly evident along Spring and Durant Streets with the
sweeping roof forms. These elements have been brought throughout the rest of the design.
While materials are not reviewed at conceptual design, staff believes the Applicant is headed in
the right direction.
The building’s main entrance remains on Spring Street, with a secondary entrance long Durant
Avenue. The building is appropriately oriented toward the traditional street and alley grid. The
entrance to the parking garage is located at the end of Spring Street, across from the Little Nell
parking garage entrance and loading dock area. In terms of commercial design, the entrance is
fairly well minimized, with public amenity space located above it and landscaping surrounding
it. Planning and Engineering staff had some concerns that the garage entrance could create
additional pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and have asked the Applicant to provide additional
information about pedestrian and traffic flows. The Applicant has worked with city staff to
P10
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 11 of 14
design a revised valet and garage area, shown in Exhibit J.7. A summary from the Applicant’s
traffic engineer outlines the reduction of trips in the alley by the proposal to move all parking to
the garage, rather than using the alley.
The Applicant is proposing 13,021 square feet of public amenity space, located at grade, at the
second level above the parking garage, and on the building roof. This represents nearly four-fold
increase in the amount of public amenity space. In order to count the spaces located at the
second level and the roof, the Applicant has agreed to make these permanently accessible to the
general public.
Staff encouraged the Applicant to explore more significant mass and height variations,
particularly on the east wing that is located near the adjacent two and three story buildings
(Glory Hole, Chateau Dumont, Chateau Chaumont, Aspen Alps 100 Buildings). Staff believes
the rooftop deck is an important public amenity, and understands the need to have a flat roof to
accommodate that area. Staff also believes the proposed ceiling heights are appropriate for the
proposed uses. The Applicant has made design changes based on feedback through the public
hearings, and has proposed more significant setbacks in the fourth floor, the addition of
additional chalet elements to break up the mass, and additional deck spaces for the lodge units.
Staff is supportive of the changes.
CONDITIONAL USE : A Conditional Use review is required to replace the commercial space on
the site. This includes the hotel’s bar and lounge, ski shop, kitchen, and rooftop bar. Staff
supports the request, as there is currently successful commercial space on the property, and the
nature of the replacement space will be the same.
SPECIAL REVIEW: The Applicant has requested Special Review for their parking calculation due
to the garage configuration. The parking requirement for the project is 51 spaces. The proposal
includes 70 subgrade parking spaces, 22 of which are stacked spaces which cannot be counted as
spaces per the land use code. This results in an effective parking number of 48 spaces, three (3)
less than is needed for the redevelopment. However, the subgrade parking for the hotel will be
accessed by a valet, so the stacked spaces will be readily available for use by hotel and
commercial patrons. The Applicant exceeds the required parking by nineteen (19) spaces if the
stacked spaces are included. Staff believes the requested parking calculation is appropriate on
this site because of the nature of the garage and valet operation.
TIMESHARE AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW: A Timeshare Review is required for the five (5)
proposed fractional units. The Applicant proposes each owner have a 1/10 deeded interest,
resulting in 50 separate timeshare interests. The timeshare plan entitles each owner to a
minimum of five (5) weeks of Planned Use Periods per year, and required each be reserved in
accordance with a Rotational Reservation System and Reservation Priority Chart. The
Rotational Reservation System will determine which summer and winter periods an owner is
entitled to in the upcoming year.
Each owner will also be required to enter into a rental program with an approved agent for the
rental of their unused Use Periods. When units are not used by an owner, they will be available
for nightly rentals.
P11
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 12 of 14
The Sky Hotel front desk and other services will be available to the fractional units, ensuring the
units function as traditional lodging product. The program will follow the mandatory operational
practices outlined in Land Use Chapter 26.590.060.B, Mandatory Operational Practices . The
Applicant has pledged to meet all of the applicable timeshare requirements. Information on the
timeshare development instruments will be submitted as part of the final application.
In addition, Subdivision Review is required for the creation of timeshare estates. Staff supports
the request to include five (5) timeshare units as part of the proposal.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS : Growth Management Reviews are required for the
additional lodge units, the new affordable housing units, and the new free-market residential
units. The Applicant proposes reconstruction of the existing lodge units, as well as a portion of
the existing commercial space, which do not require Growth Management Reviews.
The lodge development includes:
• Seventeen (17) new lodge bedrooms requiring thirty-four (34) lodge pillow allotments (2
pillows per bedroom);
• Five (5) new affordable housing units requiring five (5) affordable housing allotments;
• Six (6) new free-market residential units requiring six (6) residential allotments.
The mitigation required for the project is as follows:
Lodge:
Mitigate for the additional 17 lodge bedrooms @ 30.8%
17 lodge bedrooms * 0.6 FTEs = 10.2 FTEs generated
10.2 FTEs @ 30.8% mitigation = 3.14 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Provide 25.4% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
10,322 sq ft * 25.4% = 2,622 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing
The land use code requires both lodge and free-market residential mitigation be met. The
Applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing mitigation requirements through the provision
of five (5) on-site units. The proposed two-bedroom and two (2) of the proposed one-bedroom
affordable housing units include 2,666 sq ft of net livable area, meeting the mitigation required
for the free-market component. The remaining two (2) one-bedroom units will house 3.5 FTEs,
meeting the mitigation requirement for the lodging component.
Development Review Committee Comments: The City’s DRC met and provided comments
on the proposal. Comments were received from Zoning, Building, Fire, Engineering,
Environmental Health, Parking, Parks, Utilities, APCHA, Sanitation, and Transportation. The
complete comments are included as Exhibits I.1 and I.2. The DRC comments are included as
conditions in the attached resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z approve the applicant’s request.
P12
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 13 of 14
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution ___, approving the applicant’s request
for a redevelopment at 709 E Durant.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED OR PRESENTED TO P&Z: (Only those Exhibits in bold are
included in this packet. Please contact Jessica Garrow if you need an exhibit from 9.16.2014 or
10.7.2014 that is not included)
Exhibit A.1 – PD Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.4 – Special Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
Exhibit C – Supplemental Information from Applicant, dated 9.5.2014
Exhibit D – Summary of Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach
Exhibit E – Public Comment – includes all letters received through September 9, 2014
Exhibit E.1 –Public Comment letters entered at September 16, 2014 P&Z meeting
Exhibit E.2 – New Public Comment – includes all letters received through October 1, 2014
Exhibit E.3 – Aspen Alps letter, entered October 7, 2014
Exhibit E.4 – Chateau Dumont and Chaumont Shadow Studies, entered October 7, 2014
Exhibit E.5 – New Public Comment entered October 7 as Exhibit E.3, re-entered
henceforth as E.5
Exhibit F – Applicant Exhibit passed out at September 16, 2014 P&Z meeting listing project
website ( www.thenewskyhotel.com )
Exhibit G – Applicant Letter from Otten Johnson provided September 16, 2014
Exhibit H – Proof of Notice provided September 16, 2014
Exhibit I.1 – Development Review Committee Comments, Dated August 8, 2014
Exhibit I.2 – Supplemental Engineering DRC Comments, Dated September 26, 2014
NEW EXHIBITS : (all are included in the packet)
Exhibit E.6 – New Public Comment 0 includes all letters received through October 16, 2014
Exhibit J.1 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 - Memo
P13
VI.A.
Sky Hotel PD
10.21.2014
Page 14 of 14
Exhibit J.2 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 - Renderings
Exhibit J.3 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 –
Architectural Plans
Exhibit J.4 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 – Public
Amenity Space
Exhibit J.5 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 – Sun/Shade
Study
Exhibit J.6 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 – Noise Study
Exhibit J.7 – Supplemental information from applicant, received October 15, 2014 – Traffic
Memo
Exhibit K – City’s Mudflow Map
Exhibit L – Historic City Maps
Exhibit M - Triumph Report
P14
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 1 of 11
RESOLUTION NO. ___
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, SPECIAL
REVIEW APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW
APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, TIMESHARE APPROVAL, AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE SKY HOTEL SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 709 E DURANT AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-182-80-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
Sky Hotel Subdivision/PD (the Application) from Aspen Club Lodge Properties, LLC
(Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates for the following land use review
approvals:
• Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.
• Timeshare Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.590.
• Subdivision Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480.
• Growth Management Review – Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge
Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Growth Management Review – New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land
Use Code Chapter 26.470.
• Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
• Special Review to establish Parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430.
• Conditional Use for commercial space, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425.
• Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application – June 23, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Application for the Sky Hotel Subdivision/PD proposes:
102 hotel units with 102 keys and 103 bedrooms in 44,634 square feet of net
livable area.
3,380 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable space.
8 free-market residential units (plus 4 lock-offs) in 14,622 square feet of net
livable area.
P15
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 2 of 11
5 affordable housing units in 4,301 square feet of net livable area.
83 parking spaces (70 of which are in an underground facility, and 13 of which
are at-grade spaces dedicated to the Aspen Alps.) ; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use
Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their July 16, 2014, regular meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development -
Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing
after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Final Timeshare
approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures,
and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use
reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS , such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of
review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit
of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full
review of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on September 16, 2014, and continued to October 7, 2014 and October
21, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and
comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission ;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on ________, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2014, by a ___ to ___ (_-_) vote recommending
P16
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 3 of 11
City Council approve the Sky Hotel Subdivision/PD Application and all necessary land use
reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Sky Hotel
Subdivision/Planned Development – Project Review approval, Subdivision approval, Final
Timeshare approval, Growth Management approvals, Special Review approval, Conditional Use
approval, and Conceptual Commercial Design approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan
for the Sky Hotel Subdivision/PD, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed
herein. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2: Subsequent Reviews
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review and Planned Development –
Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine
these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council
approval of the reviews outlined herein.
Section 3: Timeshare Lodge Requirements
A public rental requirement assuring that unused timeshare lodge rooms will be available to the
general public. Such rental requirement shall be documented in the Sky Hotel Condominium
Declaration and shall contain a provision that this requirement cannot be eliminated from the
Condominium Declaration without approval from the City of Aspen City Council.
Section 4: Growth Management Allotments
4.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing Sky Hotel development, the Applicant is
entitled to the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470
a. A total of 90 lodging bedrooms, equating to 180 lodge pillows, is credited toward the
Project’s lodge GMQS allotment request.
b. A commercial reconstruction credit of 5,259 square feet of net leasable area is credited
toward the Project’s 3,380 sq ft of commercial net leasable area.
4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted
to the Sky Hotel Project:
a. 17 lodging bedrooms = 34 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the
project represents 107 lodging bedrooms or 214 pillows.
b. 6 free market residential allotments.
c. 5 units of affordable housing.
Section 5: Affordable Housing
P17
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 4 of 11
5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The project is proposed to include five (5) affordable housing
units, including four (4) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit. The mitigation
required for the project is as follows:
Lodge:
Mitigate for the additional 17 lodge bedrooms @ 30.8%
17 lodge bedrooms * 0.6 FTEs = 10.2 FTEs generated
10.2 FTEs @ 30.8% mitigation = 3.14 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Provide 25.4% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
10,322 sq ft * 25.4% = 2,622 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing
The proposed two-bedroom and two (2) of the proposed one-bedroom affordable housing
units include 2,666 sq ft of net livable area, meeting the mitigation required for the free-
market component. The remaining two (2) one-bedroom units will house 3.5 FTEs, meeting
the mitigation requirement for the lodging component.
5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The five (5) affordable housing units shall be deed restricted
at Category 3, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The five affordable housing units shall meet or exceed the minimum square footage for
Category 3.
b. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the five affordable housing units prior to
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the affordable housing units. The CO for the affordable
housing units shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-merket
residential units, and commercial space.
c. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy.
d. Employees of the hotel shall be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for
the on-site units; however, the tenants shall not own any other property within the
ownership exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines.
e. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit, as defined in the APCHA Guidelines.
f. The units shall not be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA notified as to why the
unit has been left vacant.
g. Washers and dryers shall be provided in each employee housing unit.
h. Each affordable housing unit shall be assigned one parking space in the underground
garage.
P18
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 5 of 11
i. The Condominium Declaration shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA and will
include language that should the affordable housing units become ownership units:
a. They will be sold through the lottery system.
b. The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted units vs. the
free-market unit as well as the square footage of the units;
c. No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless
approved by APCHA.
d. A separate HOA shall be created for the five (5) deed-restricted employee housing
units.
Section 6: Planned Development – Detail Review
In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review,
the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail
Review:
a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150.
b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values.
c. A draft Construction Management Plan.
d. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto
neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain
on-site.
Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PUD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets
the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall
commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Planned Development – Detail
Review approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The recordation documents shall be
submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land
Use Code.
a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form , the
following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set:
1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan.
2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans.
3. Public Infrastructure Plan.
4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan.
b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements , a Development
Agreement shall be entered into with the City.
c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements , the
applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee.
d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees , the following
guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the
improvement:
1. Landscape Guarantee.
2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee.
P19
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 6 of 11
3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee.
e. In accordance with Section 26.590, Timeshare , the Applicant shall incorporate the
requirements and restrictions of the City’s Timeshare Regulations into the final
timeshare instruments, including:
1. State requirements,
2. Owner occupancy limitations and disclosure of the public rental requirement,
3. Provisions for reserve funds for ongoing maintenance,
4. Prohibited practices and uses,
5. Limits on marketing techniques,
6. A prohibition against long-term storage of owner vehicles, and
7. Prohibitions on offering non-Aspen gifts within a marketing plan.
Section 8: Engineering Department
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering
Department.
8.1 Drainage : The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A
compliant drainage plan, including a 100-year mudflow analysis, must be submitted with a
building permit application. A variance request will not be granted for exclusion of WCQV
for Basin 8D. An inflow control mechanism could be proposed to limit the runoff that enters
the BMP and allow any access runoff from offsite to bypass the structure. The vault access
doors are proposed on the sidewalk at the hotel entrance. To improve the pedestrian
experience, cover or hide the access lids or place them on the side of the sidewalk rather than
the center. All underdrains shall be designed to show positive drainage to the City’s storm
system.
8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter : All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of
City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic shall be
distinguished in the alley.
8.3 Excavation Stabilization : Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the
excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal.
8.4 CMP : The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
8.5 Traffic Flow : The applicant shall address cul-de-sac design and the Spring Street bump out
as part of the Detail PD Review to ensure they meet minimum Engineering Standards. The
alley direction shall remain the same as today – entry from Durant and exit onto Original.
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
P20
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 7 of 11
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
The subgrade garage shall have adequate fire access. This shall be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Marshall.
Section 10: Parks Department
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on
site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Any
plantings on the roof shall not qualify as mitigation. The applicant shall explore potential sites
around the property to allow full maturation of trees. This shall be included as part of the PD
Detail Review.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by
ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to
the district.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to micropiling. Soil nails are not allowed in rights of
way. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade
development shall flow by gravity.
Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district.
Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude
discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and
P21
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 8 of 11
vehicle maintenance facilities. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts
drains must flow thru Oil and Sand interceptor. Plans for interceptors, separators and
containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit
application.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity
of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees
to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The
District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
The Applicant shall furnish average and peak flows as well as service size prior to final design.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Amendments to the above requirements agreed to in writing by the Applicant and the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District shall supersede the sanitation requirements listed herein.
Section 12: Environmental Health Department
The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
The trash enclosures shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in Title 12. Prior to Detail
PD Review, the Applicant shall identify the type of door to be installed on the trash enclosures
for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department.
Section 13: Transportation Department
The applicant shall implement the TDM and MMLOS mitigation measures, as outlined in the
application. CMP and TMP should be mindful of Rubey Park construction scheduled for spring-
fall of 2015. Any closures/re-routes of Durant Street will need to be coordinated with this
project. Regardless of construction date, closures/impacts to Durant Street should be limited and
coordinated well in advance with RFTA and the public.
Section 14: Parking Department
The new cut-in loading zone on Spring must continue to be a public loading zone for goods and
passengers and the balance of Spring Street must remain a Fire Lane. There should be no
reduction of street space on Ute Ave from existing.
P22
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 9 of 11
Section 15: Water/Utilities Department
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water
System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees
will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet
adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 16: Outdoor Lighting and Signage
All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 17: Public Amenity Spaces
The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor, second floor, and roof top public
amenity spaces. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or
elevators. These spaces shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls/windows or
otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space.
Section 18:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 19:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 20:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of _____, 2014.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
Attest:
P23
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 10 of 11
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements
P24
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Reso No. __, Series 2014
Page 11 of 11
Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements
Lodge Dimensional Requirement Proposed Development
Lodge Units and Net Livable 106 units in 48,095 sq ft net livable
Commercial Net Leasable 3,381 sq ft net leasable
Affordable Housing Units and Net Livable 5 units in 4,301 sq ft net livable
Free-Market Residential Units and Net
Livable 6 units in 14,322 sq ft net livable
Minimum Gross Lot Size (sq ft) 42,645 sq ft
Minimum Net Lot Size (sq ft) 37,113 sq ft
Minimum Net Lot Area per Free-Market
dwelling unit (sq ft) 4,639 sq ft
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 116 ft
Minimum Front Yard Setback (feet) Above Grade - 10 ft Below Grade - 5 ft
Minimum East Side Yard Setback (feet) Above Grade - 6.4 ft East Wing; 2.8 ft
West Wing Below Grade - 5 ft
Minimum West Side Yard Setback (feet) Above Grade - 13 ft Below Grade - 5 ft
Minimum Rear Yard Setback (feet) Above Grade - 5 ft Below Grade - 5 ft
Maximum Height (feet) 45 feet
Public Amenity Space* 13,021 sq ft (30.5%)
Allowed Floor Area
Overall
96,133 sq ft (2.59:1)
Lodge
62,449 sq ft(1.68:1)
Commercial 3,459 sq ft (.09:1)
Affordable Housing 4,615 sq ft (.12:1)
Free-Market Residential
13,617 sq ft (.37:1)
Minimum Trash/Recycle Area 400 sq ft for lodge; 213 sq ft for residential
P25
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 1 of 6
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion is
not applicable.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The project site does not include lands unsuitable for development. The
Applicant has completed an engineering report that indicates a portion of the property in the
southwest corner falls within the mapped “Blue” mudflow zone and that a portion of the
property on the east is located in the “Yellow” zone. The City’s Engineering code requires a
100 year mudflow analysis be conducted. This will be completed as part of the PD Detail
Review. The project will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP. The Applicant
has completed Conceptual engineering drawings and a Water Quality Plan. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
P26
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 2 of 6
Staff Findings: The site is currently developed is a hotel and includes extensive
hardscape. There are no steep slopes, but the grade rises by seven (7) feet from north
(Durant Ave) to south (toward Ute Ave and the Spring Street cul-de-sac). The proposal
is requesting a height variation to address the slope changes while establishing level
floor planes. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: There are no known geologic features or features with historic, cultural,
or ecological significance. There is some vegetation on the site which will be removed to
accommodate construction. Extensive replacement landscaping is proposed. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Findings: The proposed building facades are aligned to the adjacent streets and
sidewalks. The building respects the zone district setbacks along the street elevations.
The proposed entrance is oriented to and accessed off of Spring Street. Emergency,
maintenance, and service vehicles are able to access the site through the alley. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, 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 shall be given to
the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has proposed to establish height, floor area, and a setback
through the Planned Development Review.
The setback variation is requested along the west wing adjacent to the alley to
accommodate lodge unit deck space and a portion of the building roof. Staff is
supportive of this request to improve the general livability for guests staying in the lodge
units.
The proposed height reflects the seven (7) foot grade change between Durant Ave and the
southern portion of the site, and the need to create level access and corridors. The
building includes proper ceiling heights given the location and use, as well as
requirements in the Commercial Design Guidelines. The project is proposed to be four
P27
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 3 of 6
(4) stories, with various cut outs and roof forms to help reflect the adjacent building
heights and to break up the mass.
Staff encouraged the Applicant to explore more significant mass and height variations,
particularly on the east wing that is located near the adjacent two and three story
buildings (Glory Hole, Chateau Dumont, Chateau Chaumont, Aspen Alps 100 Buildings).
Staff believes the rooftop deck is an important public amenity, and understands the need
to have a flat roof to accommodate that area. Staff also believes the proposed ceiling
heights are appropriate for the proposed uses. The Applicant has made design changes
based on feedback through the public hearings, and has proposed more significant
setbacks in the fourth floor, the addition of additional chalet elements to break up the
mass, and additional deck spaces for the lodge units.
Floor Area is proposed to be varied due to the granting of a non-exclusive access
easement for the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont, which reduces the net lot
area and therefore the allowed floor area.
Staff believes that the replacement and upgrading of lodging inventory is an important
community goal that is bolstered through this proposal. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has proposed to establish height, floor area, and a setback
through the Planned Development Review. The setback variation is requested along the
west wing adjacent to the alley to accommodate lodge unit deck space and a portion of
the building roof. Staff is supportive of this request to improve the general livability for
guests staying in the lodge units.
The proposed height and floor area dimensions are typical of other lodges located at the
base of Aspen Mountain, including the Little Nell Hotel, the St. Regis, and the Mountain
Chalet. The project is proposed to be four (4) stories, with various cut outs and roof
forms to help reflect the adjacent building heights and to break up the mass.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Findings: The property is located in the Lodge zone district, and is in an area that
provides short-term accommodations for guests. This includes the existing Sky Hotel, the
Little Nell, Hotel, Aspen Square, and the condominium units at Aspen Alps, Chateau
Dumont, and Chateau Chaumont. There are no historical or cultural resources in the
area. This area is appropriate for lodging, and the general mass and height proposed.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
P28
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 4 of 6
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has requested the off-street parking requirements be
amended through Special Review (See Exhibit A.4). There is a total of seventy (70)
spaces provided, and the development requires fifty-one and a half (51.5) spaces. The
hotel will operate a shuttle for guests, reducing the need for automobile usage. In
addition, the Rubey Park transit center is located two blocks to the west. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has not requested any allowances in dimensional
requirements between project and final reviews. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards , Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards , and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation .
Staff Findings: The project complies with the applicable Commercial Design Standards.
Responses to these are found in Exhibit A.2. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Findings: The Applicant proposes a mix of stone veneer, wide plank wood siding,
stucco, steel and timber beams, steel columns, and non-reflective metal roofing. Staff
believes the Applicant is headed in the right direction with materials, and that the
changes made to the east wing facing Aspen Alps are an improvement and create a much
more cohesive design. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P29
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 5 of 6
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has included a number of improvements to the pedestrian and
bicycle facilities on the site. Due to the proximity to Rubey Park, no new transit facilities are
anticipated. The proposed streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian experience by
provided larger sidewalks and a landscaped buffer. Bike and ski racks are proved throughout
the site. The parking garage access is proposed to be relocated to South Spring Street.
Planning and Engineering staff do have some concerns that the garage entrance could create
additional pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and have asked the Applicant to provide additional
information about pedestrian and traffic flows. The Applicant met with the Engineering
Department to address these concerns, and have proposed a new design for traffic flow that the
Engineering Department supports. Staff finds this criterion is met.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP. The
Applicant has completed Conceptual engineering drawings and a Water Quality Plan. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: Public infrastructure, including water and sewer lines, will be upgraded. All
costs associated with infrastructure upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
P30
VI.A.
Exhibit A.1 – Planned Development Project Review Staff Findings
Page 6 of 6
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Findings: The proposed development will have a perpetual, unobstructed legal access to a
public way (Spring Street), and the development does not propose to eliminate any legal access
to a public way on any adjacent property. A non-exclusive easement for the use of Chateau
Dumont and Chaumont, emergency and service vehicles, and public utilities will be provided.
There are no proposed internal streets, and no private gates are proposed. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
26.445.060. Use Variation Standards.
A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone
district. The burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and
its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and
conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not
an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use
variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the
review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission
or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the
following standards related to Use Variations:
A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land
uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given
to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may
enhance the project or immediate vicinity.
B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix of
uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a
project will interact and support one another.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation
minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties.
D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is not proposing any use variations as part of the application.
Staff finds this section is not applicable.
P31
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 1 of 12
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Staff Findings
Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review
26.412.050. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of
development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be
used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Staff Findings: Responses to Sections 26.412.060-070 are outlined below. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
Staff Findings: The proposal is for a new structure. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to
be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal
is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways
of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Findings: Responses to the Design Guidelines are outlined below. This property is located
in the Commercial Character Area. Staff finds this criterion is met.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district
design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use
development:
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to
an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and
entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
P32
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 2 of 12
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity,
the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method
or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to
the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of
uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants
and uses.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes 13,021 sq ft of public amenity space, primarily
located on a second floor terrace and on the roof. This represents 30.5% of the site. The
public amenity spaces will be accessible to the general public, as well as the hotel guests,
affordable housing residents, and free-market residential owners. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes streetscape improvements, including benches, street
trees, and ski and bike racks. In addition, the streetscape and sidewalk along South Spring
St will extend to a second floor public plaza space accessed by highly visible stairs. These
will contribute to the overall vitality of the site. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
Staff Findings: The proposed streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian
environment. The sidewalks will be brought up to current width standards, and generous
landscaping is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
Staff Findings: The site currently does not include any of the items listed. The proposal is
for a new, unique, design that enhances the pedestrian environment. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
Staff Findings: The proposal is required to provide 10% of the site as public amenity space.
Subsection 26.575.030.F requires that this be located at-grade. The applicant has proposed
P33
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 3 of 12
3,113 sq ft, of 7.3% of the site, as at-grade public amenity improvements (improved
sidewalks, landscaping, benches, ski/bike racks, etc). Rather than requesting the deficit be
made up through a cash-in-lieu payment, the Applicant proposes to make a second floor
terrace and a roof deck permanently accessible to the public. These areas will replace the
large outdoor pool and seating area currently on the site. Inclusion of these areas brings the
total public amenity space to 13,021 sq ft, or 30.5% of the site. These additional areas meet
all the requirements of Subsection 26.575.030.F, with the exception of being located at-
grade. The second floor terrace is accessible by a staircase clearly visible from the right-of-
way, and the rooftop area is accessed through the internal hotel elevator. Staff believes the
provision ot this much publically accessible space is a benefit to the community and meets
the standards outlined in 26.575.030.F. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of
a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success
of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The
following standards shall apply:
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste , of the
Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
Staff Findings: The proposed trash area meets the requirements of Title 12. The Applicant
is providing trash space for the hotel, commercial, and residential components of the project.
The lodge/commercial component includes 400 sq ft and has 20 feet of alley frontage. The
residential component is 200 sq ft and has 16 feet of alley frontage. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities , of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
Staff Findings: The Applicant proposes to locate the electric meters in the storage building
located adjacent to the new electric transformer, and the gas meters adjacent to the service
lines. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
Staff Findings: The proposed trash areas are collocated. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be
along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid
Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review .
P34
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 4 of 12
Staff Findings: The proposed trash area is located and accessed off the alley. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the
street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title
12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review . All
fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be
no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter
26.430, Special Review .
Staff Findings: The proposed trash area is fully enclosed within the building. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an
alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise
allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade
and accessible to the alley.
Staff Findings: The proposed trash area is located and accessed off the alley. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow
for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the
extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an
historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly
licensed.
Staff Findings: The proposed utility pedestals are located on the project site. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Findings: The proposal includes an enclosed delivery area accessed off the alley, as
well as from the interior of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met.
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet
P35
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 5 of 12
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
Staff Findings: There are no commercial spaces in excess of 1,500 sq ft. The proposal
includes double doors into the lobby. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
Staff Findings: All mechanical exhausts are vented through the roof, with the exception of
the garage ventilation which is vented through the second floor terrace. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
Staff Findings: Mechanical ventilation equipment will be accommodated within the hotel’s
basement. Staff finds this criterion is met.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions ).
Staff Findings: The applicable is not proposing to vary any of the trash/recycling
requirements. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
26.412.070. Suggested design elements.
The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In
many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired
development, and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible.
Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize
new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way-
finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building
on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all signage requirements. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
P36
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 6 of 12
B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the
success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide
this pedestrian interest.
Staff Findings: No display windows are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor
create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch
attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain
important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should
be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's
Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all lighting requirements. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
P37
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 7 of 12
Commercial Design Guidelines – Conceptual Design Review Guidelines for the
Commercial Character Area
Commercial Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the
Commercial Area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them:
1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District.
Staff Findings: While the overall Commercial Character Area is adjacent to the Commercial
Core Historic District, this property is not located adjacent to the Historic District. The
proposal includes elements that relate to other buildings located at the base of Aspen
Mountain, including the Chalet-style architecture. The uses relate to the uses seen in both
character areas. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. Maintain a retail orientation.
Staff Findings: Neither the existing and proposed development include a retail component.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
3. Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions
that convey the community’s continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the
same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This
means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are
presented in the following pages.
Staff Findings: The proposed redevelopment is inspired by chalet-style architecture seen in
Aspen, including at Mountain Chalet and the old Guido’s building, as well as in other
mountain resorts. The applicant has proposed a modern interpretation of the chalet,
utilizing new materials, and emphasizing the roof form along the street elevations. The
proposal includes traditional window styles seen throughout the community. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. The intent is to more clearly establish a
strongly defined street wall, but with some greater variety than in the Commercial
Core Historic District since the historic building edge is not as defined. A stronger
street façade definition should be achieved while at the same time recognizing the
value of public dining and landscaped space.
Staff Finding: As proposed the development will have a well-defined street wall oriented
towards Spring and Durant that is accented with a Public Amenity space. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. It is important that a
range and variation in building height and scale in the Commercial Area be
recognized in future developments. Larger buildings should be varied in height and
reflect original lot widths.
P38
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 8 of 12
Staff Findings: The Applicant proposes a four story building with various recessed areas and
deck components to break up the mass of the building. Different modules are created
through the material treatment and the gable roof forms. Staff encourages the Applicant to
explore variation in the building height, particularly those areas adjacent to existing 2 and 3
story buildings. The applicant has addressed these comments through some changed
materials and roof forms along the eastern wing, as well as pulling the fourth floor back.
The project has essentially the same “L” shaped footprint as the existing building. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the
street edge. Providing space in association with individual buildings remains
important, but should be balanced with much greater building street presence and
corner definition.
Staff Findings: The existing public amenity space is an accent to the established street wall
that exists and is maintained. Staff finds this criterion is met.
7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Display cases, architectural details
and landscaping are among the design elements that should be used.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes variety in the project’s street level experience with
landscaped public amenity space, and building materials. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P39
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 9 of 12
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met:
1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable
1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a ‘wrap’ of commercial
and/or residential uses.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met
1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects.
1.4 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable
1.3 Public Walkways and through courts should be designed to create
access to additional commercial space
Commercial Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines
Street & Alley System
Staff Findings: The development proposal is oriented to the street and includes a developed
alley. The primary entrance is located along South Spring Street. Secondary entrances are
provided at the northern end of Ute Ave, as the rear of the hotel’s west wing, and at the western
end of the alley. There are no proposed changes to the street grid, and the proposed building is
in essentially the same footprint as the existing hotel. No public walkways are proposed. In an
effort to provide visual interest to the alley, the proposed alley elevation includes the same
materials as the rest of the building, and includes patios and entrances to the five (5) affordable
housing units. Staff believes there are too many roof forms located on the alley elevation, and
recommends the roof forms be simplified. Staff finds this portion of the guidelines is met.
Parking
Staff Findings: The project proposes a sub-grade parking garage with an entrance that has been
incorporated into the building façade. A second floor public amenity space is located above the
garage entrance. The design successfully minimizes the visual impact of the garage. Planning
and Engineering staff do have some concerns that the garage entrance could create additional
pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and have asked the applicant to provide additional information
about pedestrian and traffic flows. Staff finds this portion of the guidelines is met.
Public Amenity Space
Staff Findings: On-site public amenity space can help a project relate to the street and provide a
positive pedestrian environment. The existing site configuration includes 3,760 sq. ft. of public
amenity space (8.8% of the parcel). The proposal includes 3,113 sq. ft. (7.3% of parcel) of at-
grade public amenity space, with additional public amenity space located on a second floor
terrace and on the rooftop. With these areas added in, a total of 13,021 sq. ft. (30.5% of the
parcel) is proposed. The at-grade space includes improved streetscape and sidewalks, as well as
P40
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 10 of 12
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met
1.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following
requirements:
• Abut the public sidewalk, Be level with the sidewalk, Be open to the
sky, Be directly accessible to the public, Be paved or otherwise
landscaped
1.8 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the
line of building fronts in the Commercial Area.
1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and
enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following:
Street furniture, Public art, Historical/interpretive marker
1.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria:
• Ensure consistent public access, Be dedicated for public use, Provide a
public overlook and/or an interpretive marker, Be identified by a marker
at street level
1.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and
views to the mountains or other landmarks.
1.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible
and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street
level amenity space.
1.16 Second level dining may be considered.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable
1.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional
lot widths
1.11 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following:
• Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway,
Uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in
nature.
1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these
characteristics:
• Direct public access to commercial space at ground or second floor
levels, Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space, Enhance
the attractiveness and use of the rear alley, Minimize the adverse
impacts of adjacent service and parking areas.
1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context
of a historic on-story residential type building.
benches and bike/ski storage. The second floor terrace and rooftop include outdoor
dining/seating, pool areas, and seating, and are both publically accessible. No mid-block
walkways are proposed, nor are any alley side amenity spaces. Staff finds this portion of the
guidelines is met.
Building Placement
P41
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 11 of 12
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met
1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge.
1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and
primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street.
1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that
of traditional building orientations.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable
1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance
with design guidelines identified in Street & Alleyway System and Public
Amenity Space guidelines.
Staff Findings: The proposed building facades are aligned to the adjacent streets and sidewalks.
The building respects the zone district setbacks along the street elevations. The proposed
entrance is oriented to and accessed off of Spring Street. Staff finds this portion of the guidelines
is met.
Building Height, Mass & Scale
Staff Findings: There are a range of heights in the Commercial Character area. The project is
proposed to be four (4) stories, with various cut outs and roof forms to help reflect the adjacent
building heights and to break up the mass. The height varies from the neighboring Little Nell
Hotel by more than two feet, as required by the guidelines. It is also varied from the other
adjacent buildings that are two and three stories in height. There is some variation in heights of
the proposed building through the varying roof forms, which also serve as parapet walls for the
roof deck. The Guidelines state the range of building heights in the Commercial Character Area
“vary from one to three and four stories toward the mountain base.” The Sky is located at the
base of Aspen Mountain and is proposed to be four stories. The adjacent buildings are a mix of
two, three, and four stories. Because of its proximity to Aspen Mountain, staff supports the
proposed massing.
The design guidelines call for maintaining a minimum of nine (9) foot ceiling heights on all
upper floors, and having a larger first floor. The proposal includes twelve (12) foot ceilings on
the first floor, with ten (10) foot ceilings on all upper floors.
Staff encouraged the Applicant to explore more significant mass and height variations,
particularly on the east wing that is located near the adjacent two and three story buildings
(Glory Hole, Chateau Dumont, Chateau Chaumont, Aspen Alps 100 Buildings). Staff believes
the rooftop deck is an important public amenity, and understands the need to have a flat roof to
accommodate that area. Staff also believes the proposed ceiling heights are appropriate for the
proposed uses. The Applicant has made design changes based on feedback through the public
hearings, and has proposed more significant setbacks in the fourth floor, the addition of
additional chalet elements to break up the mass, and additional deck spaces for the lodge units.
P42
VI.A.
Exhibit A.2 – Commercial Design Standards Staff Findings
Page 12 of 12
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met
1.22 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of
adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet.
1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in
building height of the Commercial Area.
• A minimum 9 ft floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second
stories and higher.
1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the
following:
• Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width, Set
back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof
forms across the width and the depth of the building, Vary the façade
(or parapet) heights at the front, Step down the rear of the building
towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and
guidelines.
Staff finds the following Guidelines are met, but encourages the Applicant restudy
the project to better address them:
1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in
building height of the Commercial Area.
• Additional height may be added for the following reasons: In order to
achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent
building, the primary function of the building is civic, some portion of
the is affected by a height restriction- where relief may be appropriate,
to benefit affordable housing livability, to make a demonstrable
contribution to the building’s energy efficiency.
1.25 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade
height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width.
1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths
shall achieve a minimum of two of the following:
• Variation in height of building modules across the site, Variation in
massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form
and variation in upper floor heights, Variation in building façade
heights or cornice line
Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable
1.27 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form
and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting.
1.28 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that
was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in
height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic
structure within the same block face.
P43
VI.A.
Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings
26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and
Staff Findings: The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the Lodge (L) Zone district.
The commercial uses (ski shop, bar and lounge, kitchen) all currently exist on the site. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
B. The conditional use is compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space, as well as
with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: The proposal is compatible with the mix of development in the area. The
existing hotel includes all the proposed uses, as does the adjacent Little Nell Hotel. The
Applicant is proposing to relocate the existing ground level outdoor lounge space to the roof of
the property, and will continue to be open to the general public. All other commercial uses are
interior to the hotel. The property is not subject to any adopted regulatory plans. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
C. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses and enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development; and
Staff Findings: The proposal is consistent with the character in the area. The existing hotel
includes all the proposed uses, as does the adjacent Little Nell Hotel. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
D. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
and
Staff Findings: The proposal minimizes adverse impacts on neighbors by locating most of the
commercial spaces inside, and by relocating the outdoor area from the ground floor to the roof.
The applicant is proposing a screen wall along the second floor terrace to reduce off-site
impacts. The project will be required to comply with all city nuisance regulations, including
noise regulations. Staff finds this criterion is met.
E. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but
not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and
P44
VI.A.
Exhibit A.3 – Conditional Use Staff Findings
Page 2 of 2
Staff Findings: All required public infrastructure is available and will be updated, as necessary,
as part of this project. Staff finds this criterion is met.
F. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
Staff Findings: There is less commercial space proposed than exists today. Therefore no
employees are generated by the proposal. Staff finds this criterion is met.
G. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning
Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the
integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies this Chapter and
this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities.
This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space,
landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the
construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating
characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use.
Staff Findings: At this time, staff does not propose any additional conditions related to the
commercial uses. The applicant will be required to meet all city codes, including noise
regulations. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P45
VI.A.
Exhibit A.4 – Special Review Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.4 – Special Review Staff Findings
26.430.040. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards
and requirements set forth below.
D. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine
a change in the off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the
standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
26.515.040. Special review standards
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
Staff Findings: The parking requirement for the project is fifty-one and a half (51.5)
spaces. The project proposal includes seventy (70) spaces for the project located in the
sub-grade garage. Forty-eight (48) have unobstructed access from South Spring Street,
and twenty-two (22) are stacked. The parking garage is served by valet, so all seventy
(70) spaces are available for the project and meet the needs for the project. Staff
recommends that each affordable housing unit be assigned a parking space in the
garage, and that they be in the unobstructed spaces so the residents do not have to use
the valet to retrieve and park their car. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Findings: The project has included as much parking in the sub-grade garage as
possible, given the need to also have lodge back-of-house operations in the garage. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
P46
VI.A.
Exhibit A.4 – Special Review Staff Findings
Page 2 of 2
Staff Findings: The proposed off-street parking will meet the needs of the development.
Including the stacked parking spaces, the project includes eighteen and a half (18.5)
more parking spaces than is required. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P47
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System
Sec. 26.470.050.B. General requirements: All development applications for growth
management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall
approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based
on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific
type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Findings: The Application includes a request for six (6) free-market residential
allotments, thirty-four (34) lodge pillow allotments, and five (5) affordable housing unit
allotments. There are adequate allotments available for the requests. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is compatible with the land uses in the
surrounding area. The proposed development includes a mix of lodge, commercial, and
residential uses. All of these uses are located adjacent to the project site. There are no
adopted regulatory plans that affect this parcel. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findings: The proposal meets the dimensions of the underlying Lodge (L) Zone district,
with the exception of height and a side yard setback. These are proposed to be varied
through a Planned Development Review. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Findings: The project is requesting conceptual Commercial Design and Planned
Development Project Review as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
P48
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 2 of 6
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
Staff Findings: Employee generation and mitigation figures for the lodge component are
discussed in more detail below. The Land Use Code requires mitigation based on the
average lodge unit size. For this case, the mitigation is 30.8% of the lodge net livable square
footage. The proposed affordable housing units will be deed restricted at Category 3. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied.
Staff Findings: Employee generation and mitigation figures for the free-market residential
component are discussed in more detail below. The Land Use Code requires mitigation
based on the average lodge unit size. For this case, the mitigation is 25.4%. The proposed
affordable housing units will be deed restricted at Category 3. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Findings: Adequate public facilities exist and will be upgraded at the owner’s expense.
This includes updates to the water and sewer lines, as well as shallow utilities (cable, holy
cross, etc). The applicant has submitted a Minor Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), as
required by code, and is providing Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) and
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) upgrades to accommodate the additional trips
generated by the development. The proposed drainage systems will meet the requirements in
the City’s URMP. Staff finds this criterion to be met at this time.
Sec. 26.470.070. Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
P49
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 3 of 6
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively.
26.470.070.4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the
following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findings: The proposed units have been reviewed by APCHA and comply with their
guidelines. Three of the four 1-bedroom units contain at least 800 sq ft of net livable area,
while the remaining 1-bedroom unit will contain 700 sq ft of net livable area. The 2-
bedroom unit will contain at least 1,000 sq ft of net livable area. The applicant proposes to
deed restrict the units as Category 3 and to have them as rentals that can be used by the
lodge employees. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be
provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing built units on the development site. The five (5)
proposed units will meet the entirety of the affordable housing requirement. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
Staff Findings: All of the affordable housing units are located above grade. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
P50
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 4 of 6
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Findings: The affordable housing units are proposed to be owned by the Sky Hotel and
rented to qualified employees of the hotel. As a lodging operation, the city encourages the
affordable housing units to be rental and staff supports the request. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
26.470.070.7 New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
The development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above.
Staff Findings: The applicant meets the standards in 26.470.050. In addition, the employee
mitigation calculations are pursuant to section 26.470.080.8, Lodge Development, which is
detailed below. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
26.470.070.8 Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a
new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the following criteria:
a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet
of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size
table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Staff Findings: Based on the table below, the applicant is required to provide 25.4% of
the net new free-market residential net livable area as affordable housing. The
calculation is as follows:
P51
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 5 of 6
Provide 25.4% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
10,322 sq ft * 25.4% = 2,622 square feet net livable area required as affordable
housing
The Applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing mitigation requirements through
the provision of five (5)on-site units. The proposed two-bedroom and two (2) of the
proposed one-bedroom affordable housing units include 2,666 sq ft of net livable area,
meeting the mitigation required for the free-market component.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the
additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial
development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Average Net Livable
Area of Lodge Units
Being Added to the
Parcel
Affordable Housing Net
Livable Area Required
(Percentage of Free-
Market Net Livable
Area)
Percentage of
Employee Generation
Requiring the
Provision of Mitigation
600 square feet or
greater
30% 60%
500 square feet 30% 40%
400 square feet 20% 20%
300 square feet or
smaller
10% 10%
When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required
affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For
example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square
feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees
generated.
Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4
rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation.
Staff Findings: Based on the table above, the applicant is required to mitigate 27.6% of
the FTEs generated by the lodge component. The calculation is as follows:
Mitigate for the additional 17 lodge bedrooms @ 30.8%
17 lodge bedrooms * 0.6 FTEs = 10.2 FTEs generated
10.2 FTEs @ 30.8% mitigation = 3.14 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
P52
VI.A.
Exhibit A.5 – GMQS Staff Findings
Page 6 of 6
The remaining two (2) one-bedroom units will house 3.5 FTEs, meeting the mitigation
requirement for the lodging component.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P53
VI.A.
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Staff Findings
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Staff Findings
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations
in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate
or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a
Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate
public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are
prohibited.
Staff Findings: All portions of the Sky Hotel property and redevelopment have access to the
public right-of-way. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat . The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to
the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as
applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate
significant features of the site may be approved.
Staff Findings: No new lots are created. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to
this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique
circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision
review.
Staff Findings: No new lots are created. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities . A subdivision shall not create or increase
the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to
correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the
structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for
subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure
spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the
subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-conformities
will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a
development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be
time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Findings: There are no existing non-conformities on the property and none are proposed.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
P54
VI.A.
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Staff Findings
Page 2 of 4
26.480.070. Major subdivisions.
The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City
Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Major
subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards and
limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the standards
and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not defined as
administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions.
Staff Finding: Timesharing is considered a Major Subdivision, as it is not defined as an
administrative or minor subdivision. No other portions of the development are subject to the
Subdivision Review.
A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating
individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the
following standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 –
General Subdivision Review Standards.
Staff Findings: All General Subdivision Review Standards are met or are not applicable.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the
use of the limited amount of land available for development.
Staff Findings: The proposal includes five (5) timeshare units located on the third and
fourth floors of the hotel redevelopment. The applicant is appropriately utilizing the land
available. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and
structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: There are no known geologic features or features with historic, cultural,
or ecological significance. There is some vegetation on the site which will be removed to
accommodate construction. Extensive replacement landscaping is proposed. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides,
mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in
excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm
the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as
suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City
Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards.
Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details
P55
VI.A.
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Staff Findings
Page 3 of 4
and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to
Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: The project site does not include lands unsuitable for development. The
applicant has completed an engineering report that indicates a portion of the property in
the southwest corner falls within the mapped “Blue” mudflow zone and that a portion of
the property on the east is located in the “Yellow” zone. The City’s Engineering code
requires a 100 year mudflow analysis be conducted. This will be completed as part of the
PD Detail Review. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques
necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The project will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the URMP.
The applicant has completed Conceptual engineering drawings and a Water Quality
Plan. Staff finds this criterion is met.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to
serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findings: Public infrastructure, including water and sewer lines, will be upgraded.
All costs associated with infrastructure upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including
compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement
development as applicable.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has requested all requisite growth management allotments
as part of the application, and the Applicant is meeting all affordable housing mitigation
requirements. Staff finds this criterion is met.
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter
26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance
pursuant to said Chapter.
Staff Findings: The Applicant will pay all fees associated with the School Lands
Dedication Fee. Staff finds this criterion is met.
9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: The Applicant will provide a draft Plat as part of the PD Final Review,
and a Plat will be recorded should approvals be granted. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P56
VI.A.
Exhibit A.6 – Subdivision Staff Findings
Page 4 of 4
10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: The Applicant will provide a draft Development Agreement as part of the
PD Final Review, and a Development Agreement will be recorded should approvals be
granted. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P57
VI.A.
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Chapter 26.590, TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.590.070. Review standards for timeshare lodge development.
An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are
in addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision
applications.
A. Fiscal impact analysis and mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an
existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the
proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order to
demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall prepare
a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application.
Staff Findings: The proposal does not include conversion of existing lodge rooms into
timeshare units. The timeshare units are new units. Staff finds this criterion to not be
applicable.
B. Upgrading of existing projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted
to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The
extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the PUD
review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to make
the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to extend the
useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be
brought into compliance with the City's adopted Fire, Health and Building Codes.
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
Staff Findings: The proposal does not include conversion of existing lodge units into
timeshare units. The new development will be required to meet all City health, fire, and
building codes. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable.
C. Preservation of existing lodging inventory. An express purpose of these regulations
is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to
convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short-term accommodations to a
timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the
property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the existing
number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace the existing number
of bedrooms on the property or the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal
complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge
will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms.
P58
VI.A.
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Page 2 of 5
Staff Findings: The proposal does not include conversion of existing lodge units into
timeshare units. The new development will bring additional lodge rooms to the City’s
Lodging stock. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable.
D. Affordable housing requirements.
1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable
housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the
standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing
requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock
out rooms in the development and shall also take into account any retail,
restaurant, conference or other functions proposed in the lodge.
Staff Findings: While this section requires affordable housing mitigation to be based on
the number of lock-off rooms, updates to the land use code require mitigation be based
on bedrooms. Section 26.470.070(8) of the Land Use Code requires lodge projects to
provide mitigation based on the average size of the lodge units. The average lodge unit
size in the proposed project is 454 sq ft, which requires mitigation of 30.8%. Section
26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .6 FTEs generated per lodging bedroom.
This project’s twelve (12) units include seventeen (17) bedrooms, creating an employee
generation of 10.2 FTEs (17 bedrooms * .6). Therefore, the mitigation requirement is
3.14 FTEs (10.2 FTEs * 30.8%). The free-market component requires 2,622 sq ft of
affordable housing mitigation. The Applicant proposes to meet the affordable housing
mitigation requirements through provision of five (5) on-site units. The proposed two-
bedroom and two (2) of the proposed one-bedroom affordable housing units include
2,666 sq ft of net livable area, meeting the mitigation required for the free-market
component. The remaining two (2) one-bedroom units will house 3.5 FTEs, meeting the
mitigation requirement for the lodging component.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions
of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when
there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit.
Staff Findings: There are currently no multi-family dwelling units on the property. Staff
finds this criterion to not be applicable.
E. Parking requirements.
1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by
applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The
parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of
proposed lock out rooms in the development.
P59
VI.A.
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Page 3 of 5
Staff Findings: The parking requirements have been calculated using the standards for
lodge units (.5 spaces per unit). There are five (5) fractional units, including four (4)
lock-offs, for a total of nine (9) timeshare units. The parking requirement for the
timeshare units is therefore 4.5 spaces (9 units * .5 spaces). Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest
transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an
alternative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has provided a detailed Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan which meets the requirements of the Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines. The plan includes van service for the hotel units and fractional
units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a
parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate.
Staff Findings: The timeshare owners will be prohibited from storing their cars in the
garage when they are not staying in their unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Appropriateness of marketing and sales practices. The marketing and sale of
timeshare estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61,
C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing
entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall
not be permitted:
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street,
mall or other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead
potential purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or
to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local
Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen,
restaurants in Aspen and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips,
etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are
not permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective
purchaser that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation
as a condition of receiving the gifts; and
c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement
to attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information
on the gift being offered.
P60
VI.A.
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Page 4 of 5
Staff Findings: The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements
in the final timeshare instruments. These requirements are incorporated into the draft
Disclosure document. The timeshare instruments will be recorded simultaneously with
the PD/Subdivision Agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Adequacy of maintenance and management plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be appropriately
managed and maintained in a manner that will be both stable and continuous. This shall
include an identification of when and how maintenance will be provided and shall also
address the following requirements:
1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve
any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare
development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that
management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately.
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure
that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout
its lifetime.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements
in the final timeshare instruments. These requirements are incorporated into the draft
Disclosure document. The timeshare instruments will be recorded simultaneously with
the PD/Subdivision Agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12,
Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.;
including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales
contract and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has committed to incorporating all the above requirements
in the final timeshare instruments. These requirements are incorporated into the draft
Disclosure document. The final timeshare instruments will be recorded simultaneously
with the PD Agreement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Approval by condominium owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred percent (100%) of the
owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including
any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all
mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development and
that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the same
sales and marketing program.
Staff Findings: The project currently does not have condominium owners. Staff finds
this criterion to not be applicable.
P61
VI.A.
Exhibit A.7 – Timeshare Staff Findings
Page 5 of 5
J. Prohibited practices and uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement
contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the
following practices:
1. The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other timeshare
concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the
requirements of this Section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g., lease-holds
and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare
approval, timeshare development instruments or disclosure statement.
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another
who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest.
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in
violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant
hereto or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter
or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter. (Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 (part),
2002; Ord. No. 13-2005, § 5)
Staff Findings: The Applicant has committed that they will not knowingly engage in any
of the above mentioned activities. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P62
VI.A.
P63
VI.A.
P64
VI.A.
P65
VI.A.
P66
VI.A.
P67
VI.A.
P68
VI.A.
P69
VI.A.
EMILY P. PETRILLA
September 11, 2014
Attention:
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Dear Jessica Garrow,
I am writing this letter in support of the re-development of the new Sky Hotel project.
As a young professional in this community I firmly believe that maintaining a mid-priced
hotel that continues to attract a young vibrant crowd is another critical element to the
overall appeal of visiting Aspen.
It is in every community’s best interest to provide options for a consumer, including
where to stay when visiting a resort community. Aspen is such a highly desirable town
but if we continue to move in a direction that is out of reach to visitors and the average
local as we run the risk of losing a dynamic portion of what adds to the vibrancies of this
community!
Having worked for both a local architectural firm and developer and worked on a few
multi use projects, I understand and I am pleased with the proposed plans. The mixed
use of the residential and hotel is critical for the economics that allow a property to be
competitive and mid-priced while also providing an outstanding experience with
excellent amenities.
The current Sky Hotel has not only provided one of the best gathering places for myself
over the years but also has been a great location for out of town friends to stay. The
current state of the hotel needs to be revitalized yet keep its current integrity so that
young professionals will continue and myself continue to want to frequent what has
always been such a fun and accessible spot.
Thank you for your consideration.
Emily Petrilla
P70
VI.A.
P71
VI.A.
COMMINt
K C KLEIN COTE EDWARDS CITRON LLC 10 IJ20Iq
EC ATTORNEYS
HERBERT S.KLEIN` hsk@kceclaw.com 101 SOUTH MILL STREET
LANCE R.COTE,PC" cote@kceclaw.com SUITE 200
JOSEPH E.EDWARDS,III,PC' lee@kceelaw.com ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
KENNETH E.CITRON'-- kcitron@kceclaw.com TELEPHONE:(970)9258700
MADHU B.KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kceclaw.com wwwAceclaw.com
-also admitted in Hawaii
••also admitted In California
`••also admitted in New York and Massachusetts
October 16, 2014
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Jessica GaJrow
Re: Sky Hotel–Planned Development Project Review Application
Dear Commissioners:
My office represents the Chateau Du Mont Condominium Association ("CDM`) and
Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association ("CC'.') as well as Skegby Holdings, S.A, the
owner of the private residence at the east end of the east/west wing of the Sky Hotel.
At the end of the hearing Held on October 7, 2014, comments were made to the effect that
the Commissioners should not consider interference with views and impact on the values of the
surrounding properties as a part of the review, -1 \want to rentind you that the-proposed "
development is required to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. City of Aspen
Land Use Regulations ("LUR"), § 26.445.050D.3. In this case, the Project is not compatible
with Chateau Du Mont, Chateau Chaumont, Glory Hole Condominiums, the Skegby residence
east of the Sky Hotel east wing, and Aspen Alps Building 100, with respect to height, sunlight,
noise or scale. A distinct part of not being compatible is that when a massive monolithic
structure is inserted withrin a group of two and three story condominiums (and a single-family
home) it will negatively affect views, sunlight, noisc and values of five of the six neighboring
properties. The views Martin Mata presented for you at the hearing glaringly demonstrate the
lack of compatibility. This is further evident given that staff "encourages the Applicant to
examine if height can be reduced." Staff Memo, September 16, 2014, page 7 of 10. And. the
negative impacts of a new huge Sky Hotel on these neighboring small lodges will certainly
diminish their attractiveness to rental guests and result in an actual decrease in the rentals of
apartments in these small lodges that will not at all be offset by the few additional rental rooms
in the proposed new Sky Hotel.
Very truly Yours,
KLEINXTE EDWARDS CITRON OLC
B Q
Vr*--Z&5q
E. Edwards, III 7—
M
Jessica Garrow
From: jeffries68@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:51 AM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Projected plan of Sky Hotel for porte-cochere
Dear Ms. Garrow,
It has come to my attention the "porte-cochere" unit planned to go over the Dean St. extension from
the west wing of the Sky to the west side of Dumont condominium has not been addressed. Asan
original owner (1968) in the Dumont with a unit on the west side, I find the addition of this type
structure horrifying. It is too close to the building and will block any light from the west which comes
into the building. But almost worse than light is the infringement of privacy from such a close
structure. I cannot imagine anyone's willingness to compromise the rights of Dumont owners if they
are aware of this problem. I trust you will bring it to their attention.
In addition the height of the proposed elevator is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Aspen
has already approved increased height for building. To grant an additional height seems
unconscionable.
I wish I could come to the hearing, but Michigan is a long way! Thank you for your consideration.
Janet Jeffries
t
Jessica Garrow
From: Kathy Weiss <kdwranch@kellin.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:54 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Proposed Sky Hotel Comments
I agree that the Sky Hotel needs to redeveloped.
I do not agree that every possible variance asked for should be agreed to. The City Land Use Code came up w/these regs
after many years of study and all for good reasons.,
After reading staff suggestions-you are still allowing variances for increased height, increased mass,change of use and
reduction of setbacks beyond the City regs.
I have a unit in Chateau Dumont on the West side.The "Porte-Cochere" planned for on the East Side of Sky Hotel on the
"Dean St.—Alley" will block all Sun and ambient light from the West, as the rest of Sky Hotel will do from the
South. The Porte-Cochere will put the entire West side of our building in the Shadows.This Porte-Cochere is extremely
insensitive to its neighbors (13 units) and the effect on ALL FOOT&VEHICLE TRAFFIC. This Porte-Cochere is not even for
a HOT HOTEL BED!I I l 1 brought this up at the first meeting Oct. 7, 2014.The meeting ran overtime and this subject was
never again addressed by Mr.Sarpa, nor in his Shadow-Study at the 2nd Meeting.
Having had a Unit in the Building since 1992, 1 cannot stress enough how Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont's only
"Street-Alley" front-door access has very little sunlight as it is. During the Winter, there is always snow, ice, and black
ice at night. Less sunlight and visibility will mean more black ice, slush, etc.That in turn will lead to more slipping,falling
—(esp. from Patrons leaving 39 Degrees on foot after 2 am.)This is not a guess. I know because I have heard the 39
Degrees Bar Patrons screaming, barfing, shouting, laughing, arguing and.fist-fighting while walking through the "Street-
Alley" every night since the Bar has been open.
To add insult to injury,Staff is happy to allow Sky to have a ROOFTOP BAR and POOL(serviced by an elevator that will
protrude yet another 12' upon the skyline) open all day long encouraging the HIP,YOUNG and STYLISH to GO there and
be SEEN. When Patrons step outside the elevator to Party to the Music and Scene on the top floor,the last thing they
will be thinking about is the peace and quiet of the neighbors.
Before, the Bar Patron's antics were limited to inside the building and by the outdoor pool (weather permitting). Now,
we,the Condo Owners, will be at their mercy day in and day out, 365 days a year.
In conclusion,for a measly increase of 12 pillows in HOT HOTEL ROOMS,the Staff is overlooking Sky Hotel's neighbors,
their substantial investments in Aspen property, and their hopes and dreams of living peacefully where they are.
CD and CC compromise 52 Units. At the minimum,that represents 208—to 312 PILLOWS.
As an Owner of one of these Units, I respectfully ask you to re-consider and downside the scope and magnitude of the
changes proposed for the Sky Hotel.
Sincerely,
Kathy Weiss
Chateau Dumont#17
Kathy Weiss
Crystal Springs Ranch & Saddlery
1609 County Road 112
Carbondale, CO 81623
Ranch (970) 963-1505
Fax (970) 963-1695
1
ASPEN CHAMBER
RESORT ASSOCIATION
RESOULTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association is the only business advocacy.group in the
Aspen/Snowmass area with over 730 member businesses representing local business and resort
perspective and interest;
WHEREAS, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board of Directors and member businesses have
energetically sought to participate in lodging renewal efforts since October 23, 2012, starting with the
City-sponsored Lodging Charrette and continuing over the course of the next two years by actively
engaging with the City staff and City Council on this issue;
WHEREAS, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, in the 2013 Report and Recommendations of its
2013 Economic Sustainability Committee, recommended that the City of Aspen and the Aspen
community commit to lodging renewal, as called for by the 2010 Aspen Area Community Plan,
emphasizing the importance of lodging renewal to the local businesses and our resort economy;
WHEREAS, the Aspen Chamber Resort has reviewed the Sky redevelopment project, and finds that
it meets certain needs and challenges that were identified as important to the sustainability of our
local economy in the 2013 Economic Sustainability Report;
WHEREAS, the Sky redevelopment project meets the need of attracting a diversified lisitor-base_for_—..-
future generations;
WHEREAS, the redeveloped Sky will provide new lodging inventory in an ideal location that will
replace outdated and inefficient inventory;
WHEREAS, the new Sky will enhance the Aspen resort brand and help keep Aspen competitive within
the resort travel and tourism industry;
WHEREAS, the Sky redevelopment project provides community spaces and the opportunity for
visitors and locals to interface;
WHEREAS, the Sky redevelopment project provides appropriate on-site affordable housing;
WHEREAS, the varied room types will offer a range of pricing options; and
WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Sky may prevent further loss of lodging inventory;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Aspen Chamber
Resort Association supports the Sky Redevelopment project as it is designed to achieve various
objectives that are essential to Aspen's economic sustainability and does so consistent with Aspen's
community values;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Aspen Chamber Resort
Association supports any and all process that will facilitate the fruition of this effort,
425 Rio Grande Place,Aspen,Colorado 81611
T 970 9251940 F 970 9201173 aspenchamber.org
( CHAMBER
ASPEN
RESORT ASSOCIATION
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution are disseminated to the City of
Aspen and members of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association and the Aspen Lodging Association
requesting that they endorse this resolution.
Adopted this 20th day of October, 2014
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association.
DDn�n.,r.'PiLePi 17eWii�iBraury
Donnie Lee Debbie Braun -
Chairman of the Board President and CEO
Aspen Chamber Resort Association Aspen Chamber Resort Association
425 Rio Grande Place,Aspen,Colorado 81611
T 970 9251940 F 970 9201173 aspenchamber.org
Jessica Garrow
From: Robbie Terry <rrterry@me.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:40 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Sky Hotel
October 20,2014
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Robbie Terry,and I am from Paris,Texas.My husband and I have been enjoying summer and winter vacations in Aspen
for several years. We have stayed at the Sky Hotel on more than one occasion for many reasons. First, we are frequent guests at
Kimpton properties, so it was our initial choice when making reservations for our first trip in 2010. We prefer a boutique hotel, and the
Sky fits the bill with its intimate size,contemporary vibe,modem decor,and ultra-personal service. The staff and management are
among the best we've ever encountered while traveling.Lastly,the location and views at the Sky are the best in the city!
The Sky is an affordable hotel with the ambiance expected,when visiting Aspen; however,the current property is lacking in several
areas in order for tourists to continue to make the Sky their hotel of choice when vacationing.As mentioned earlier, we are frequent
guests of Kimpton properties, and the Sky's structure is very disappointing upon comparison. Updates have occurred,but the state of
the building itself cannot be changed.The scent of the interior is remnant of an older building that is not welcoming upon arrival. The
ceilings are terribly low and the corridors are narrow. Modem hotels have large, luxury, spa-like bathrooms,and those at the Sky are
far from possessing the quality we expect when traveling. Another obstacle that cannot be corrected with remodeling is the lack of an
elevator to half of the building.
We are so excited about the possibility of the new Sky! We feel that the development would enhance the city,and locals would feel
pride in the new property.
Thank you for your time, and please consider supporting the new Sky project for the city of Aspen, its citizens,and visitors.
Most sincerely,
>;W&-e ]array
1735 Northeast 30's Street
Paris,Texas
903.2272770
rrterrVna,mac.com
1
Page 1 of 2
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
Revised Sky Hotel submission 4 document summary/highlights
14 October 2014
Architectural revisions:
Plan revisions
- Main Level - revised/reduced entry, lobby, and hotel rooms on North wing per site plan reconfiguration of
arrival/departure parking. Special Events space added for containment of louder events.
- Second Level – revised hotel rooms and west façade revisions due to site plan reconfiguration.
- Third Level – minor hotel room revisions & west façade revisions per site plan reconfiguration.
- Fourth Level – East wing north side Fractional/Lodge Units (2) reduced from 1500 to 1250 sf, per
increased setback on Alley, allowing more sun penetration into Dean alley. East wing (2) south FM
Residential units are changed from FM units to Fractional/Lodge units and also reduced from 2000 to
1500 sf to accommodate building setback on the Alps Alley side. This will give the Alps a less imposing
façade. See facade comments below. SF calculations also revised to reflect this change. See revised
calculation memos from Sunny.
- Roof Level – roof deck revised/reduced per roof revisions and unit changes below on East wing. The
East wing quieter zones are further strengthened by crating smaller more intimate areas and also being
setback further from the north/south building facades.
West/Spring Street entry façade:
- Revised per Engineering comments and traffic studies, site plan reconfiguration per traffic movements.
- Main entry door relocated slightly north per better alignment and between car arrival/departure parking.
- Main level entry/lobby/offices/hotel rooms reconfigured and reduced SF per moving building face east to
allow for 8’ sidewalk and car arrival/departure layouts.
- Added balcony Chalet aesthetic features above entry area to promote more Chalet design.
- Improved sidewalk and exterior entry area.
North/Durant Street façade:
- Tallest project Chalet gable peak roof element revised/lowered by 1’-8”. (52’-0” to 50’-4”)
- Long sloping roof form adjacent to Chateau Dumont also lowers by 1’-8”. This allows more light through
to the adjacent Dumont unit.
North (Dean) Alley façade:
- 3 story Chalet roof form revised from 5:12 to 4:12 and peak is lowered by 5’-0”.
- 4th level lodge units (2) reduced in size (1500 sf to 1250 sf each) and setback further from Alley for relief
and better sun penetration to the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont. Setback increased by 6’-0”, now 13’-
0” stepped back from north building face at this location.
East/Glory Hole façade:
- East end unit upper roof revised to accommodate better sun angle penetration to Alley/Chateau Dumont
and Chaumont. Sloping roof form instead of taller gable element facing North casts a smaller shadow in
the alley.
South Alps façade:
- 4th level upper (2) free market residential units reduced in size (2000 sf to 1500 sf) and setback from
Alley for relief and better ambient light per Alps neighbor comments. These units are also changed from
FM units to Fractional/Lodge units.
- South façade facing Alps now has 2.5 story Chalet façade elements in middle with re-design. The other
primary roof form is the deck/flat roof of the upper level exterior deck area. This revision demonstrates
less mass and scale per this alley facade.
P72
VI.A.
Page 2 of 2
Shading studies:
Attached please find the requested Dean Alley shadow studies of existing conditions and revised Sky Hotel
design conditions.
Traffic study and findings:
See traffic memo’s from LSC Traffic Consulting. Three options were presented to Engineering for review and
comment. All 3 options are legal arrival/departure scenarios. The shown arrival/departure plan (alternate 1 in
the memo) works well for arriving guests and valet service. The shown solution was preferred by City
Engineering, the Sky Team and consultant preferred alternate 2 with diagonal departure parking spaces. This
plan also minimizes conflicts with Little Nell parking garage turning movements.
- Overall reduction in traffic around the Sky Hotel reduced due to main entry and garage entrances being
on Spring Street. This equates to a 21% reduction in traffic on Spring Street and a 56% reduction of
traffic in the Spring/Ute cul-de-sac.
- Per the Dean Alley/access traffic, the reduction in traffic in the Alley by Sky use is being reduced by
89%.
Sound/Noise Concerns:
(4) Exhibits attached for graphic analysis/studies of sound (SPL dB) levels from Sky Hotel and impacts on
neighbors. Per the exhibits:
- Lower level 2 patio (Sky-L2 Patio Music 3.5ft wall.pdf) demonstrates the potential music & speech dB
levels with 3.5’ high walls as drawn per submission docs. This shows sound received at the Little Nell only will
need to be mitigated.
- Lower level 2 patio (Sky-L2 Patio Music 7ft wall.pdf) demonstrates one possible solution by using a 7’
high wall/barrier to meet local noise code of neighboring properties receiving less than 60dB. An option may
include a solid 4’ wall with 3’ transparent panel on top of wall. A custom engineered, managed and monitored
sound system solution may also be a possible solution.
- Upper roof top deck (Sky Roof Music 3.5ft wall.pdf) demonstrates the potential music & speech dB
levels with 3.5’ high walls/roof walls as drawn per submission docs. This shows sound received at the Little Nell
and Dumont will need to be mitigated.
- Upper roof top deck (Sky Roof Music 8ft wall.pdf) demonstrates one possible solution by using an 8’
high wall/barrier to meet local noise code of neighboring properties receiving less than 60dB. An option may
include a solid 4’ roof/wall with 4’ transparent panel on top of wall. These locations would be on the east side
and west sides of the north roof patio wing only. A custom engineered, managed and monitored sound system
solution may also be a possible solution, see below.
Roof top AV sound system design:
The custom solution design, engineering, management and monitoring of the roof deck audio system will allow
the Sky Hotel to constantly be within the City’s noise ordinance unlike some of the other wildcat solutions, which
are unmonitored systems we are accustomed to seeing. Our solution will be just like some high quality hotel
solutions seen around the county.
Special Events Space: Please note a Special Events Space is also added to the Main Level plan to
accommodate louder events that can be held indoors and/or at night. The roof top events can move inside after
a specified time to better accommodate those needs and be more contained.
We are confident we will be able to work to design a solution that will accommodate local noise ordinances and
satisfy all parties.
Thank you,
Sky Team
P73
VI.A.
P74
VI.A.
P75
VI.A.
P76
VI.A.
P77
VI.A.
P78
VI.A.
P79
VI.A.
P
8
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
4
V
I
.
A
.
P85
V
I
.
A
.
P86
VI.A.
P87
V
I
.
A
.
P88
V
I
.
A
.
P89
V
I
.
A
.
P90
V
I
.
A
.
P91
V
I
.
A
.
ORIGINAL STREET
G
L
O
R
Y
H
O
L
E
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
S
SPRING STREET DURANT AVENUE
C
H
A
T
E
A
U
D
U
M
O
N
T
THELITTLENELLHOTEL
C
H
A
T
E
A
U
C
H
A
U
M
O
N
T
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A
S
P
E
N
A
L
P
S
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
0
0
(
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(
2
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(
2
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(4 - STORY)
S
C
A
L
E
:
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
A
2
.
5
0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
L
A
N
N
O
R
T
H
T
R
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
2
A
5
.
0
1
2
A
5
.
0
1
1
A
4
.
0
1
1
A
4
.
0
2
2
A
4
.
0
2
1
A
5
.
0
2
2A4.01 1A5.02
2
A
5
.
0
2
2A5.02
1
A
5
.
0
1
1
A
5
.
0
1
S
T
R
1
P
O
O
L
E
Q
U
I
P
.
P
O
O
L
E
Q
U
I
P
.
BAR
F
L
U
E
*
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
S
A
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
A
R
E
A
M
E
E
T
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
O
R
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
A
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
D
E
C
K
B
E
L
O
W
D
E
C
K
B
E
L
O
W
D
E
C
K
B
E
L
O
W
GREEN
ROOF
42" GUARDRAIL
O
P
E
N
T
O
B
E
L
O
W
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
/
W
A
L
L
PROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SOUTH SPRING STREET DURANT AVENUE
D
N
D
N
D
N
S
T
R
2
13'-0"
7'-0"
1
2
'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
12'-0"
12'-0"
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
/
W
A
L
L
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
/
W
A
L
L
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
/
W
A
L
L
R
O
O
F
TRELLIS ABOVE +10'
42" GUARDRAIL/WALL
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
/
W
A
L
L
42" GUARDRAIL/WALL
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
F
L
A
T
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
PROPERTY LINE
5' SETBACK
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
5' SETBACK
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
E
L
E
V
E
L
E
V
E
L
E
V
E
L
E
V
1
5
'
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
I
N
E
5
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
1
'
-
3
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
3
3
'
-
0
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
5
'
-
2
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
4
1
'
-
1
0
"
GREEN
ROOF
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
8
'
-
4
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
0
'
-
0
"
MID
P
T
+44'-
8
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
7
'
-
5
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
4
4
'
-
9
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
5
0
'
-
4
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
4
5
'
-
0
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
6
'
-
1
1
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
6
'
-
7
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
4
3
'
-
1
1
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
1
'
-
6
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
8
'
-
5
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
3
'
-
8
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
4
0
'
-
8
"
D
E
C
K
/
F
L
A
T
R
O
O
F
+
3
0
'
-
0
"
D
E
C
K
/
F
L
A
T
R
O
O
F
+
2
9
'
-
8
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
3
3
'
-
6
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
2
5
'
-
7
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
0
'
-
7
"
R
O
O
F
+
2
9
'
-
5
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
2
.
4
2
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
8
'
-
3
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
2
.
5
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
3
4
'
-
5
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
2
.
3
7
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
3
0
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
4
.
2
0
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
9
'
-
1
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
4
.
2
0
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
6
'
-
1
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
1
.
4
4
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
6
'
-
9
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
1
.
3
5
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
7
'
-
1
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
1
.
2
5
'
)
D
E
C
K
+
1
7
'
-
1
0
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
6
1
.
9
8
'
)
R
O
O
F
P
A
T
I
O
+
2
2
'
-
6
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
6
8
.
8
1
'
)
R
O
O
F
P
A
T
I
O
+
2
2
'
-
6
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
6
8
.
8
1
'
)
R
I
D
G
E
+
3
4
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
9
.
1
1
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
3
'
-
9
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
0
.
7
2
'
)
R
O
O
F
+
2
4
'
-
9
"
+
/
-
(
7
9
7
0
.
7
2
'
)
RIDGE+44'-1"+/- (7981.35')RIDGE+41'-1"+/- (7981.46')ROOF+17'-5"+/- (7957.74')RIDGE+41'-3"+/- (7981.19')RIDGE+39'-6"+/- (7981.19')RIDGE+43'-1"+/- (7981.19')
E
L
E
V
R
O
O
F
A
R
C
H
1
5
4
'
(
+
1
2
'
)
R
O
O
F
D
E
C
K
A
R
C
H
1
4
2
'
-
0
"
(
7
9
8
4
'
)
R
O
O
F
D
E
C
K
A
R
C
H
1
4
2
'
-
0
"
(
7
9
8
4
'
)
A
L
L
E
Y
A
L
P
S
A
C
C
E
S
S
/
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
R
O
O
F
T
O
P
P
A
T
I
O
A
B
D
C
EF
G
I
H
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
8
'
-
9
"
J
K
L
M
P
O
Q
R
O
O
F
H
E
I
G
H
T
T
A
B
L
E
A
4
5
'
-
0
"
B
3
6
'
-
1
1
"
C
4
4
'
-
9
"
D
4
3
'
-
1
1
"
E
3
0
'
-
7
"
F
4
4
'
-
8
"
G
4
1
'
-
1
0
"
H
3
8
'
-
9
"
I
2
6
'
-
7
"
J
3
8
'
-
5
"
K
3
7
'
-
4
"
L
2
9
'
-
8
"
M
3
0
'
-
0
"
N
4
0
'
-
0
"
O
2
5
'
-
7
"
P
3
0
'
-
7
"
Q
1
4
'
-
0
"
4
'
-
2
"
1
0
"
2
"
UTE
A
V
E
Q
E
L
E
V
R
O
O
F
A
R
C
H
1
5
4
'
(
+
1
2
'
)
MID
P
T
+44'-
8
"
DECK
BELOW
D
E
C
K
/
F
L
A
T
R
O
O
F
+
2
7
'
-
3
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
8
'
-
6
"
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
R
O
O
F
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
7
'
-
4
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
4
0
'
-
0
"
R
I
D
G
E
+
3
2
'
-
4
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
1
'
-
2
"
M
I
D
P
T
+
3
0
'
-
7
"
D
E
C
K
/
F
L
A
T
R
O
O
F
+
2
6
'
-
7
"
S
E
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
E
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
2
"
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
L
I
N
E
O
F
4
'
T
R
A
N
S
P
A
R
E
N
T
S
O
U
N
D
W
A
L
L
O
P
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
O
P
O
F
4
'
R
O
O
F
(
T
O
T
A
L
8
'
)
22'-6"
19'-2"
19'-2"
A
2
.
5
0
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
File Path: P:\Proj-2014\21406.00_Sky Hotel\Drawings\21406_A2.50optB.dwgPlot Date/Time: October 15, 2014 - 10:58 am
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
2
0
1
4
R
O
W
L
A
N
D
+
B
R
O
U
G
H
T
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
U
R
B
A
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
T
H
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
O
N
T
H
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
I
S
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
F
R
O
W
L
A
N
D
+
B
R
O
U
G
H
T
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
U
R
B
A
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
.
N
O
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
I
S
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
Y
B
E
U
S
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
P
R
I
O
R
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
O
F
R
O
W
L
A
N
D
+
B
R
O
U
G
H
T
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
U
R
B
A
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
.
R
O
W
L
A
N
D
+
B
R
O
U
G
H
T
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
U
R
B
A
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
H
A
L
L
R
E
T
A
I
N
A
L
L
C
O
M
M
O
N
L
A
W
S
T
A
T
U
T
O
R
Y
A
N
D
O
T
H
E
R
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
D
R
I
G
H
T
S
,
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
T
H
E
R
E
T
O
.
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
I
s
s
u
e
:
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
D
W
G
F
I
L
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
2
1
4
0
6
_
A
2
.
5
0
o
p
t
B
.
d
w
g
7
0
9
E
.
D
U
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
2
1
4
0
6
1
8
3
0
b
l
a
k
e
s
t
,
s
t
e
2
0
0
d
e
n
v
e
r
,
c
o
8
0
2
0
2
3
0
3
.
3
0
8
.
1
3
7
3
o
3
0
3
.
3
0
8
.
1
3
7
5
f
2
3
4
e
h
o
p
k
i
n
s
a
v
e
a
s
p
e
n
,
c
o
8
1
6
1
1
9
7
0
.
5
4
4
.
9
0
0
6
o
9
7
0
.
5
4
4
.
3
4
7
3
f
r
o
w
l
a
n
d
+
b
r
o
u
g
h
t
o
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
/
u
r
b
a
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
/
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
0
6
.
1
2
.
2
0
1
4
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
0
8
.
0
8
.
2
0
1
4
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
0
9
.
0
5
.
2
0
1
4
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
3
1
0
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
4
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
4
P92
V
I
.
A
.
P93
V
I
.
A
.
P94
V
I
.
A
.
P95
V
I
.
A
.
P96
V
I
.
A
.
P97
V
I
.
A
.
P98
V
I
.
A
.
P99
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
3
V
I
.
A
.
!
∀#∀#
∃%&&
!
∋(
)
∗
+,
∗
∗
−
∗
!!
∗∗
&!
∗&
∗
+#
+#
+#
+# +#
∗&
+#
!
∗
&
−.
∗
∗
&
∀#∀#
!
&
/..&∃
/&∃
/∗&&∃
/∗&∃
/&&∃
/&∃
/&&∃
/&∃
/−&&∃
/−&∃
/&&∃
/&∃
Proposed Patio Music with 3.5' Barrier
Exhibit J.6
P124
VI.A.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Sky Hotel
P
1
2
5
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Aspen Alps
Sky Hotel
P
1
2
6
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
P
1
2
7
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Chateau
Dumont
Chateau
Chaumont
P
1
2
8
V
I
.
A
.
!
∀
#∃#∃
%&∋∋
∀
()
∗
+,
−
∀
−∋∀
−−∀
+∃!
+∃!
+∃!
+∃!+∃!
∋
+∃!
∀
−.∀
−−
.
−.∀
#∃#∃
∀
.∋
/∋%
/−∋%
/∋∋%
/−∋%
/−∋∋%
/−−∋%
/∋∋%
/−∋%
/∋∋%
/−∋%
/.∋∋%
/.−∋%
Proposed Patio Music with 7' Barrier
P129
VI.A.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Sky Hotel
P
1
3
0
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Aspen Alps
Sky Hotel
P
1
3
1
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
P
1
3
2
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Chateau
Dumont
Chateau
Chaumont
P
1
3
3
V
I
.
A
.
!
∀#∀#
∃%&∋∋
()
∗
+,
&
&
∋−
.
∋
−−
∀#/0!
+#!
+#!
+#!
+#!+#!
−
+#!
.
.
−
−
∀#∀#
1−−∋∃
1∋∃
1∋∋∃
1∋∃
1∋∋∃
1∋∃
1∋∋∃
1∋∃
1.∋∋∃
1.∋∃
1∋∋∃
1∋∃
Alternate Speaker Layout - 3.5 ft barrier around DJ
P134
VI.A.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Sky Hotel
P
1
3
5
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Aspen Alps
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
P
1
3
6
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
Aspen Alps
P
1
3
7
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Chateau
Dumont
Chateau
Chaumont
P
1
3
8
V
I
.
A
.
!∀
#
∃%∃%
&∋((
#
)∗
+
,−
#
#
(
.(
.(
#
..#
∃%/0∀
,%∀
,%∀
,%∀
,%∀,%∀
,%∀
(
(
.(
.
#
∃%∃%
#
1(&
1(&
1((&
1(&
1((&
1(&
1.((&
1.(&
1((&
1(&
1((&
1(&
Alternate Speaker Layout - 8 ft barrier around DJ
P139
VI.A.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Sky Hotel
P
1
4
0
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
The Little Nell
Aspen Alps
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
P
1
4
1
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Aspen Alps
Aspen Alps
P
1
4
2
V
I
.
A
.
1−−&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1&&#
1&#
1.&&#
1.&#
1&&#
1&#
1,&&#
1,&#
Sky Hotel
Chateau
Dumont
Chateau
Chaumont
P
1
4
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
4
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
5
2
V
I
.
A
.
i
IvN y
t k f7
i
1
r
Qb
I
x
i4'
z
ml ::
F
l
r T
M
T
i C J . y . - 1 rf .
01
sa Nil
f F7
sh-
r
r 3r 3v 5l t v Q1 .i•
II
a'.a - ~`1
I . i . I
aF
L
k.
a .' ;. -,
1 . _ : '
4 ' .. '"
fit
Y - `
T, d•Yji
i a 1 , :'" v
j1
a ; Vii• ,
n rr 4 t. •
1 li,TI .. .+ k } '
i p .. '
4
RIP
IZ
iA4
A .. '.'T h 7 `s fv > 1. . .• S Kr .q '{Z bi- •term •
w.; , ` ors '
a ,.. , ;'; •, ! ej!
Y ' .. ,t -t yc:
r< t 1 (fA 'r,s: r: z.} t n'' `• 3.
rt
y i':.-
5 3. s hr .pd ':.1' "• - .. 1r la" 2 _ Ss. .a ''
i'°
P153
VI.A.
P154
VI.A.
r ".
a'. * 2t tan `^ ,, / • .a ki
P155
VI.A.
PA
JV
r017AJ
14 -
141f W
21,
ovor.
4k
b-,
let—
Alt
b
Ilk
h
N
1,4V
e. + ` +4"' 1` '' .. 1.f - 7 `tik.- y ti l ' 'r ; I . % .. 't; M i', -
r :
W*
4 -ZV
V
ip
WON,
1-4
Aim
W
Alt,
Z6
Ak
7-
A
Avc,
17
Tj
p
Ott
4L
lo I7,44
IF t
VL
r if
Al 41L
4t
00
A
N
P156
VI.A.
P. 970.479.9990
F. 970.479.0619
12 Vail Road, Suite 700
Vail, CO 81657
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, City of Aspen
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner, City of Aspen
From: Travis Coggin, Development Director, Triumph Development
Date: July 14, 2014
Subject: Aspen Hotel Feasibility Study
Overview
Earlier this year the City of Aspen Community Development Department approached Triumph
Development and presented the challenge the City of Aspen was facing with understanding
the feasibility of developing new hotel products in Aspen. The following parameters were
provided as a target for zoning constraints and type of hotel the City was interested in
investigating feasibility given existing code requirements and a potential lodge incentive
program:
Zoning & Lot Area:
• 40,000 square foot lot – this is similar in size to the lot areas of the Limelight Hotel, the
Lift One Lodge parcel, The Sky Hotel Parcel, The Lift One Townhomes parcel.
• The parcel is zoned “Lodge” and has the associated zoning requirements related to
height, setbacks, density, FAR, etc.
Target Hotel Type
• Similar to the Limelight Hotel
o This is used for room size, occupancy, and Average Daily Rate (ADR)
assumptions in the model
§ The Average Daily Rate is the Total Room Revenue divided by the Total
Rooms Sold
o This also helps understand the finish level, amenity requirements, commercial /
restaurant spaces, etc.
STAR Report Summary
• Hotels Included:
o Limelight Lodge; The Sky Hotel; Aspen Meadows Resort; Snowmass Mountain
Chalet
• Metrics
o Reported Average Occupancy: 59%
o Reported Average Daily Rate: $258
P157
VI.A.
222222
2
Disclaimer: This exercise is dependent on numerous assumptions that we believe to be
realistic but cannot be relied upon as “fixed” for all scenarios. As with any “model” it is highly
probable that assumptions can fluctuate either in a positive or negative manner very quickly.
However, at this time we believe that the assumptions in this model are strong approximations
of cost and revenue based on developer, contractor, and operator information. The
programmatic elements of the hotel are based on existing hotel design prototypes from
Marriott that resembles a Limelight-like product.
When determining feasibility, the financial hurdles we used in this exercise would be the same
that we would use when evaluating a project and are standard to the industry when evaluating
real estate development deals. If someone were to present us the scenario described in Model
3 (described later in the memo) we would spend the time and money to pursue it.
Background on Triumph Development
Founded in 2002, Triumph Development is a boutique developer that has offices in Vail, CO
and Bethesda, MD. We have experience across numerous real estate types including office,
retail, commercial, industrial, mixed use, hotel, medical and residential. Additionally, we own a
property management company, a luxury vacation rental company, and a Sotheby’s brokerage
office in Vail, CO.
We are currently involved in the development of $30M of single family homes in Vail, a medical
facility in Pennsylvania and are under planning review for a new hotel in Breckenridge, CO.
The hotel we’re developing in Breckenridge is a partnership with Urgo Hotels. Urgo is based in
Bethesda, MD and they currently own and operate hotels around the United States.
Process
• Triumph ordered a Smith Travel Research (STAR) Report that provided information
related to rate and occupancy for the Limelight Hotel and comparable hotels in Aspen
and Snowmass Village.
• Triumph developed a model for a hotel similar to the Limelight Hotel and then spoke
with several local developers, contractors, lenders, and our hotel partners about the
assumptions.
o Where appropriate we adjusted our assumptions to account for local construction
prices, entitlement expense and local market factors.
• Triumph reviewed the assumptions and model with the Community Development
Department to present the feasibility / unfeasibility of the hotel and options for bridging
the feasibility gap.
• Triumph analyzed several iterations of the models that changed multiple assumptions
before presenting the final three models.
P158
VI.A.
333333
3
There was also significant discussion related to how to address any deviations from current
city requirements including fees, affordable housing, height and free market residential.
Ultimately a decision was made to finalize three models:
Model 1
• Conforms with all current zoning requirements including 3 story height limit
• Pays full weight of city mitigation including fees and affordable housing
• Is “pure” hotel, meaning no free-market residential component is included
Model 2
• Allows for a 4th floor and uses all the SQFT on that 4th floor
• Allows for free market residential square footage to be equal to 50% of the hotel rooms
square footage.
• No city fee reductions; no affordable housing mitigation reductions
Model 3
• Took Model 2 and adjusted it the following ways:
o Reduced the Affordable Housing Mitigation requirement by 60%
o Filled that space in the building that was formerly affordable housing with hotel
rooms and free market residential units
Hotel feasibility was determined based on financial returns standard to the real estate
development industry and the product type.
Summary
Model 1
While it was made clear that the city was most interested in encouraging a hotel that is similar
to the Limelight Hotel because of it’s lower price point and ability to cater to a broad range of
guests, a new hotel with no free market component and an ADR similar to the Limelight’s failed
to achieve the required return. Based on the information in the STAR Report we modeled our
similar hotel to have an initial ADR of $270 and occupancy of 56%.
Pursuing the idea and feasibility of a pure hotel with no free market residential or deviations
from city requirements, we wanted to understand at what ADR a pure hotel becomes feasible.
As we increased the ADR we also had to increase several items including room size,
restaurant size, construction costs and finish allowances to account for someone paying a
significantly higher room rate. Additionally, we ordered a second STAR Report of luxury hotels
in Aspen and Vail so we could have a benchmark for our ADR and occupancy. Those
benchmark hotels included:
• The Little Nell; The St. Regis; The Arrabelle; The Lodge at Vail; The Sonnenalp Hotel
• Key STAR Report Metrics:
P159
VI.A.
444444
4
o Reported Average Occupancy: 51%
o Reported Average Daily Rate: $495
In order to deliver a feasible hotel that only generates revenues from hotel rooms, we had to
achieve an ADR of $875 and occupancy of 48%. Compared to the luxury competitive set which
achieved an ADR $495 and an occupancy of 51%, our ADR is astronomically higher and
unachievable. This equates to an ADR more than triple the Limelight’s comp set as shown in
the STAR Report and nearly double the ADR of the STAR Report’s luxury hotels. No
developer, equity investor or lender would pursue a project with those assumptions.
Model 2
In this iteration we returned to the rate and occupancy assumptions based off the STAR
Report we generated for the Limelight and it’s competitive set. We added free market
residential at a rate of 50% of the hotel room square footage. There was no reduction in city
fees or mitigation requirements. For the sales aspect of the model, we reached out to the city’s
real estate broker, Andrew Ernemann, for his thoughts on what new condos would sell for. This
model also increased the building’s height from 3 to 4 stories.
This model also failed to deliver the returns necessary to attract equity and debt investors.
Model 3
The final iteration of the analysis took Model 2 and made the following adjustments:
• Reduced the affordable housing mitigation requirement by 60%
o This opened up 10,700 square feet in the building
• Capped mitigation once the reduction was in place so that any new hotel rooms or
residential square feet would not generate any new affordable housing requirement
• Backfilled the 10,700 square feet with new hotel rooms and free market residential
The ADR and occupancy remained the same and there was no reduction in city fees.
This version delivers a return that makes this a feasible project and it would be a project that
our development team would seriously consider pursuing if it were to pass across our desk.
Conclusions / Challenges to Feasibility / Observations
A pure hotel that fits within the current City of Aspen zoning requirements is not a feasible
project. However, should the community be willing to deviate from its height, free market and
affordable housing requirements there is the opportunity to close the feasibility gap.
P160
VI.A.
555555
5
Feasibility is purely a function of revenue and expense. As a pure hotel, the revenue is not
substantial enough to cover the expenses and provide a return to the equity investor and to
pay the annual debt expense.
Since there is a limit to how much you can raise the revenue through rate and occupancy
increases – as we see in the STAR Reports - the focus turns to reducing costs. There are
several ways to reduce the cost of the project. One way is to reduce the fees, and other
requirements like affordable housing. The other is to allow for the construction of free market
residential units where the revenue from the sales is used to pay down the cost of the project
to a point where the hotel can service the debt.
Reductions in fees and affordable housing requirements are beneficial, but those reductions
alone are not substantial enough to deliver a feasible project. It will require a combination of
increased height, allowed FAR, and free market residential, as well as decreased fees and
affordable housing mitigation to create a feasible hotel.
A few observations stuck out to us as we analyzed the challenge the city faces:
Land Price - This is a significant barrier to entry and is the same cost regardless of what is
developed.
City Fees & Entitlement Uncertainty - Several of these fees seem to be disproportionate with
the actual impact on the city. The parking fee / encroachment fee is one example. Just during
this exercise the parking fee was doubled from $25 per day to $50 per day for the duration of
the project. Additionally, having a solid understanding from the outset of the timing for city
approvals is critical to estimate cost and attract capital. The more uncertain the project is from
the outset, the higher the return the equity investor will require.
Parcel Size - The parcel size that we modeled applies to a small number of existing sites. It
could be extremely difficult, and expensive, to assemble a parcel of this size in the future.
Employee Generation - The generation and mitigation seem disproportionate to what may
actually be. Commercial uses vary widely and so do the employees they require. Additionally,
the generation and mitigation requirements for a free market residential unit that is within a
hotel development seem high. Hotel employees would certainly have more than enough
capacity to handle any maintenance, housekeeping, management, and service requests of the
free market units therefore this mitigation seems like something to be evaluated.
Summary Table of Models 1-3 on the following page.
P161
VI.A.
666666
6
Model
1:
Pure
Hotel
Model
2:
Limelight
Style
–
No
Reductions
Model
3:
Limelight
Style
-‐
Modified
Hotel
Rooms
109
126
144
Hotel
Sqft
49,050
50,400
57,600
Condo
Units
-‐
17
20
Condo
SQFT
-‐
25,200
28,800
Affordable
Housing
SQFT
12,000
18,500
7,800
Affordable
Housing
Reduction
0%
0%
60%
ADR
$875.00
$270.00
$270.00
Occupancy
48%
56%
56%
Allowed
FAR
in
Zone
District
110,000
110,000
110,000
Building
Footprint
32,851
32,851
32,851
Stories
3
4
4
Height
-‐
Approximate
34.5
46.0
46.0
Total
SQFT
based
on
footprint
98,553
131,404
131,404
Building
SQFT
-‐
Above
Grade
98,074
131,328
131,442
Parking
-‐
Below
Grade
22,575
34,930
35,070
Total
-‐
Above
+
Below
120,649
166,258
166,512
P162
VI.A.