Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20141111AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING November 11, 2014 4:30 PM Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT - NONE SCHEDULED. II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. October 7, 2014 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel - Potential Public Hearing VII.PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pitkin County Plaza - 506 / 530 E Main Street - Major Subdivision / Rezoning Hearing VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 16 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – September 9, 2014 Mr. Erspamer felt a sentence was incorrect on p 2, last paragraph. Ms. Tygre provided a spelling correction that was acceptable to Mr. Erspamer. Mr. Gibbs moved to approve the September 16, 2014 minutes with the requested spelling correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNellis. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, except Ms. Tygre who abstained, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated he has known Mr. John Sarpa for a long time and his wife assisted his children with school in the past. He also stated he recently hired Mr. Alan Richman to address a personal real estate matter. None of these issues have a bearing on the Sky Hotel hearing. Public Hearing – 709 E Durant - Sky Hotel – Planned Development Mr. Erspamer continued the hearing for the Sky Hotel – Planned Development. Ms. Garrow proposed for staff to complete their presentation and then allow the applicant to complete their presentation. Mr. Erspamer agreed. Ms. Garrow continued staff’s presentation including a number of land use reviews. She displayed a vicinity map of the area identifying the location of the Sky Hotel. She entered into record the site visit which occurred earlier in the day. There were a number of neighbors in attendance along with P&Z members including Mr. Walterscheid, Ms. Tygre, Mr. McNellis, Mr. Erspamer, and Mr. Gibbs. There was detailed discussion regarding the alley and she expects it to be brought up in the meeting as well as discussion from the applicant regarding the proposed changes to the alley. There were also questions related to public amenity space. Ms. Garrow noted the Sky’s current location at the base of the mountain next to other lodges including Aspen Square, Alps, St. Regis, Hyatt and Little Nell. 1 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 In terms of the review, P&Z is a recommending body on seven different reviews: 1. Planned Development 2. Commercial Design 3. Conditional Use Review 4. Special Review 5. Timeshare Review 6. Subdivision Review 7. Three Growth Management Reviews The current Sky Hotel has 90 hotel rooms and the proposal includes 102 new lodge units and keys. There will be 103 lodge bedrooms. They are proposing 3,380 sf of commercial space which is a slight decrease from the current sf, so they are not required to obtain a growth management allotment for the commercial replacement. They are proposing five affordable housing units set as a category 3 which will be rental units so lodge employees could live there. Eight free market residential units are proposed. Seventy subgrade parking spaces proposed as well as just over 15,000 of public amenity space including a combination of ground floor space, first floor or site space, second floor as well as a roof top deck. All the space will be permanently publicly accessible. There is a dimensional data chart (Table 1) located on p 16 & 17 of the packet showing accurate and up- to-date values. Overall, the proposal includes just over 97,000 sf of floor area. In the lodge zoned district for a lot of this size, 92,783 sf would be allowed. They are requesting a slight increase through the planned development process. The lot allows for 2.5:1 floor area and they are requesting 2.6:1. Sixty (60%) percent of the building is proposed be lodge, four (4%) commercial, five (5%) affordable housing, twenty (20%) will be free market residential and there is between eleven and twelve (11-12%) that is non-unit space including corridors, lobby, and similar type of spaces. In terms of ratios for the different uses, the proposal is under the amount allowed for the lot. In terms of height, the project is proposed to have varying heights. The lodge zoned district allows heights of 38-40 ft. The applicant is requesting 45 ft at the highest point as the code measures the height. There are varying heights she believes the applicant will discuss further. The proposal also includes one setback reduction for the east side yard. They are requesting 2.8 ft when 5 ft is identified in the code. She provided a drawing displaying the area in the setback difference. In regards to the net lot area calculations, there is a detailed discussion in the memo related to net lot area. Net lot area determines the allowed floor area ratio. In today’s code, areas that were formally vacated right-of-ways are not included in the net lot area calculation. Areas in easements are also not included in the net lot area calculation. For this property a number of street and alley vacations occurred in 1961 and 1962. At that time the code did not require those areas to be deducted from the effective net lot area. Staff and the applicant have gone back to research what happened at that time. Staff is recommending City Council amend the original vacation ordinances to clarify the issue regarding the exchange of property at the time. What was Spring St is now where the Sky Hotel is built. And where Spring St is currently located used to be property. This is an example of the exchange that occurred between the City and property owners at 2 P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 one time. It is staff’s position those areas should be included in the net lot area calculation. In terms of the floor area numbers, staff included those areas. The net lot area does not include an Alps easement which included some parking on the Sky Hotel property. Another area not included in the net lot area calculation is an area partially used by the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The applicant has agreed to remove this area from the net lot area calculations. There are three areas the applicant has requested to vary from the planned development process including floor area, height and the east side yard setback. For the commercial design review, it is a chalet inspired design including varying roof forms. Staff has suggested some simplification of some the roof forms. Staff likes and supports the direction of the chalet inspiration and feels it fits within the character of the area and within the community. The application exceeds the public amenity requirements by quite a bit. Staff feels this is an appropriate location for some lodging massing. Staff is comfortable with the direction of the massing proposed in the floor area and height, but they do think the applicant needs to take a look at the east wing abutting the Aspen Alps, Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont properties. Staff would like to see additional height mass and height variations. Staff does not want them to simply decrease ceiling heights. They would prefer to see additional decks, setbacks. The conditional use review is required for the replacement of the commercial space in a lodge zoned district. There is currently just over 5,000 sf of commercial space in bar areas, restaurants, kitchen, and ski shops. These are all proposed to be replaced in smaller size for a total of just over 3,000 sf. Staff supports the replacement of the commercial space. The special review is required for the parking calculations. There is an easement for Aspen Alps including 13 parking spaces proposed to be maintained. There are 51 parking spaces required for the project and the applicant is proposing 70 spaces in the garage. However, 22 of the spaces are stacked, so only 48 spaces are calculated based on the code. Staff supports the special review request based on the assurances from the applicant that all 70 spaces will be available for visitors of the lodge utilizing valet parking as it is today. There is a conditional approval that each affordable housing unit receives a parking space in the garage. Subdivision and timeshare reviews are required for the timeshare or fractional units. There are three fractional units with a proposed 1/10th interest for a total of 30 interests available for sale. Each interest owner would have five weeks of use and they are required to be available for rental to the public when they are not being used by the owner. Staff supports the timeshare proposal. It is very typical and meets all the applicable code requirements. There a number of growth management reviews. They are required to receive allotments for the 26 new lodge pillows, eight free market residential units and five affordable housing units. There are adequate allotments available to accommodate the request. In terms of mitigation, for the new lodge and free market component, there are 2.15 FTEs required for mitigation of the lodge (additional 26 pillows) and there are just over 3,000 sf of net livable area required to mitigate the additional free market residential space. The applicant is providing five units, including 1.75 FTEs in a one bedroom unit to mitigate for the lodge requirement. There is a .4 FTE deficit the applicant is proposing to make up thru either a cash in lieu of payment or thru housing credits. In terms of the free market residential requirements, the applicant is exceeding the required amount of sf mitigation requirement. The housing board has reviewed the application and recommended in favor of their proposed mitigation and for the applicant to using housing credits instead of the cash in lieu of payment to make up the .4 FTE deficit. 3 P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 There were a couple of issues raised by the Development Review Committee (DRC) during its review. One issue is related to parking along Durant as mentioned in the memo on p 23. The packet went out prior to meeting with the Engineering Department. The original DRC comments received from the parking department included five on-street parking spaces at the corner of Durant and Spring, which they wanted to be maintained. In speaking with the city engineer, one of those spaces does not meet our model traffic code or the engineering code in terms of sight lines. The space should probably not be there now. The applicant’s proposal includes significant enhancements at this location including removing the ‘illegal’ space. From the planning department’s perspective, there is not an issue because the applicant will be replacing the four spaces that currently exist per code. The second issue is related to the subgrade garage entrance located on Spring St near the Alps. The Engineering Department has concerns related to access of the garage because it requires traffic to go in a direction it is not supposed to go. The applicant and Engineering Department have met this week to work on alternatives. The Engineering Department is supportive of the direction the applicant has indicated they are going. More detail will be presented on the October 21st meeting. Ms. Garrow provided two additional public comment letters in support received as well as a letter from the applicant’s attorney, Gideon Kaufman (Initially entered as Exhibit E.3, subsequently re-entered as Exhibit E.5 on the October 21st agenda packet). Mr. Kaufman’s letter is in response to Mr. Jody (Joseph) Edwards’s letter included in the packet in Exhibit E.2 (p 102). Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners had any questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Garrow to further describe the location of the variance on the east wing at the end of Dean St that is 2.5 ft. Ms. Garrow described the variance as being in the alley and pointed it out on a drawing displayed on the screen (Exhibit C from September 16th packet). The proposed building extends out further than the existing building. Ms. Garrow described it as the east side yard setback. Mr. Gibbs pointed out it is identified as the easy wing setback in the table, at which Ms. Garrow replied it would be corrected. Mr. Gibbs referred to p 20 of the packet under the Lot Area – Alps Access Easement section. He asked if the 38,913 sf figure represented effective lot area and if it is different from net or gross lot area. Ms. Garrow explained the figure represents the area of the Alps easement. The effective lot area is the same as the net lot area and the actual number is 37, 113 sf. The 38,913 value was an intermediate calculation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) upgrades are required or not. Ms. Garrow responded there is a new transportation mitigation system which was approved by City Council in April, 2014. This is the first application brought forward under the new system. The applicant has included a transportation analysis in the back of their application for the TDMs and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) plan. Their plan has been reviewed by both the Transportation and Engineering Departments and the applicant is exceeding their requirements. Part of the mitigating points for their trips they are receiving stem from the enhanced sidewalk areas, crosswalk areas, and bike racks. Mr. Erspamer asked what qualifications the city requires for those creating the TDMs. Ms. Garrow stated council wanted to in part ease the burden on applicants in the sense they didn’t have to hire their own traffic engineer or set up a situation for dueling traffic engineers at City Council. The city conducted traffic counts for all the land use types and there are standardized trip generation numbers 4 P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 for all the land uses. An applicant can plug in the land use types into the interactive tool to obtain trip generation TDM and MMLOS measures to be selected for mitigation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the resolution included fractionals or not. Ms. Garrow referred Mr. Erspamer to Section 3 of the resolution in which timeshares are explained. Mr. Erspamer asked about employee housing included in Section 5.2 of the resolution on p 28 of the packet. Regarding item d., he wanted to confirm if the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) made the proposal, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed it was an APCHA condition. She stated they typically do this for hotels. Mr. Erspamer wanted to confirm who is responsible for submitting the Subdivision/PD agreement. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant is responsible for this task. This is their project review for the planned development. The applicant goes from P&Z to City Council to obtain approval and then they have to make a second application for a planned development detailed review and final commercial design review which is reviewed by P&Z. Mr. Erspamer asked if there are any regulations for operating a roof-top deck. Ms. Garrow stated there are noise regulations specifying hours. She stated some applicants in the past have stated there would be no usage after a specified time, but it was not a city requirement she is aware of. Mr. Erspamer asked how the city approached identifying Dean as a street or alley. The North of Nell has windows and entrances on the south side. How did the city approach that as according to their definition of streets and alleys, now we have storefronts on an alley or street? Ms. Garrow stated on that side it is a street. She referred the commissioners to Exhibit E.3. An attachment (last page) to Gideon Kaufman’s letter is from a 2006 staff memo addressing this issue during the applicant’s last request for redevelopment. There is detailed information related to how Dean is sometimes labeled on maps, but this is an alley between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont properties. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Garrow was familiar with the Fox Crossing instance when Race Alley was changed to Race Street and wanted to know if it was the same philosophy. Ms. Garrow did not believe it was. This instance was part of the 1896 Willits map, so it was just how it was platted and how areas were annexed. From a city perspective, this is an alley. Mr. Erspamer asked if any of the requests are memorialized under DRC. Ms. Garrow stated the applicable comments have been incorporated into the resolution. Requirements related to oil and gas, separators and other technical requirements are included. Mr. Erspamer referenced on p 111 the drainage number one is in the mudflow zone. He asked if the applicant would have to mitigate the request. Ms. Garrow stated something like the example provided would be reviewed in the detail review. She referenced p 30 of the packet, Section 8.1 of the resolution which includes a detailed requirement for the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. If there were any issues it would be caught either during the detailed plan review or building permit application. Mr. Erspamer asked about the DRC comments referencing something being illegal. Ms. Garrow stated it was the fifth parking space on Durant mentioned earlier in the meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked what determines a lodge. Ms. Garrow stated it’s the usage. A lodge is meant for short-term rental. The land use code has some limitations on how long you can stay in a lodge unit, which is 30 consecutive days at one time and up to 90 days in a calendar year. For a residential unit, 5 P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 there is no such limitations. He asked for a clarification on fractional or free market be considered a lodge unit. Ms. Garrow stated a free market condominium is a free market residential unit. The fractional units are considered lodge units or fractional lodge units. Mr. Erspamer asked if they would need a front desk, at which Ms. Garrow confirmed. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals only require 30 days advance notice of availability at which Ms. Garrow stated she believed that to be correct. She further stated in a proposal like this, the fractional units are taking advantage of and using the same front desk, food and other services of the traditional lodge units. Mr. McNellis asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement on the calculations at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He also asked if both staff and the applicant are in agreement about the requirements for fractionals being used at which Ms. Garrow replied yes and that it was included in the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if all the numbers are correct at which Ms. Garrow replied yes. He then asked if there was any six month availability on the free market condominium units. Ms. Garrow replied the free market residential units are wholly owned and one person can live there full time. They may rent it if they want under the short term rental program, but they are not required to rent the unit. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa is representing the applicant. He recapped their partial presentation from the previous meeting starting with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls out for lodges including a diverse bed base, diverse price point which this project is all about. The obsolescence of the build was discussed. He displayed a picture of the roof that needs to be fully replaced. In summary regarding the architecture, they want the building to look like it belongs in Aspen. A couple of key points covered previously include their desire to keep the same clientele and the mid-priced rate. The hotel is all about public spaces including the roof and second floor. He mentioned APCHA has already unanimously approved their affordable housing plan. About 66% of the building in regards to height, meets the current dimensional requirements which means it is 40 ft or less. The highest peak on Durant St. is 52 ft and has a 45 ft by the City’s measurement. He re-emphasized the Triumph report, commissioned by the Community Development Department. He feels it is a good look what is required to build a 100 room hotel and make it mid-priced at the base of the mountain. The report looks at height, floors, composition of units. The eight residential fit the current code. They are either 1,500 sf or 2,000 sf done with transferrable development rights (TDRs). They are not asking for variances. Their outreach was discussed previously including hundreds of people using their website. They have had extensive outreach with the Glory Hole and the Nell. The applicant was able change a few things objected to by the Glory Hole and the Nell. He wanted to encourage the commissioners to look at the letters coming from a broad range of individuals that have come in since the last meeting. Ms. Sara Broughton, principal of Rowland Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the proposal. She walked thru their design process by first displaying the 1896 Sanborn Map showing the existing Sky Hotel and neighboring properties including the Little Nell, Aspen Alps, Glory Hole, 6 P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. The team viewed this early vicinity map to determine the pattern of development at the time. She showed there was a zero lot line development. They then performed a figure ground study displaying the footprints of the buildings in the City core and analyzed their heights. From the map displayed the buildings in gray are one to two story. The buildings in yellow are three story structures. The buildings in red are four story structures. The buildings in purple are five story structures. She pointed out landmark or iconic buildings defining Aspen including the following. • Court House (3 story, 47 ft); • Hotel Jerome (3-4 story, 54 ft) • Elks Building (3 story, 48 ft) Buildings neighboring the Sky Hotel included the following. • Aspen Square (4 story, 41 ft) • Limelight Hotel (4 story, 42 ft) • North of Nell (4 story, 35 ft) • Residences of the Little Nell (4 story) • Little Nell Hotel (45 ft) • St. Regis (58 ft) • Mountain Chalet (combination of 4 & 5 story, 52 ft) The pattern of development as you move south and closer to Aspen Mountain, the building are taller and particularly as you move up Galena St, there are some four and five story buildings including the Gant and the Aspen Alps. She also pointed out the Wheeler which is 64 ft tall. The next comparison she shared was an analysis of the lot of the Sky Hotel. The viewed the size of other Aspen hotels on the Sky Hotel lot to make sure they are compatible. She displayed the footprints of several hotels including the Hotel Jerome. This study pointed out they were consistent in regards to size and mass with other hotels. She then showed a diagram used to analyze different size rooms. Currently the Sky Hotel has an average size of 342 sf which does not meet current hotel standards. They are proposing 417 sf hotel rooms, which is still considerably smaller than the Limelight’s rooms. She then discussed their approach to the architecture was to bring back the chalet style. This was a popular for early American ski towns in the 1950’s. They wanted to bring a modern interpretation of the chalet style back in the design. She identified and displayed examples of the characteristics of the chalet style including wooden balconies, horizontal design features, stucco and wood, sloped roofs, open views, wood siding. She also displayed examples of modern interpretations of the style throughout Europe. They also looked at nature to inform them on patterns, scale, and textures. She then provided slides showing design perspectives. It was important to fit it in with the context of Aspen Mountain. It was also important to fit the architect with the context of the local neighborhood. The design utilizes horizontal designs, balconies, and sloped roof lines to break up the mass of the building. The front door opens to a double height lobby and lounge space including a community living room. The pool sits below the roofline so it is not visible. 7 P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 She then walked through the floor plans. On the ground level, they are increasing the width of the sidewalks, resolving some of the current grade issues. On the second level, there is an indoor/outdoor lounge area. It is reduced in size from the current outdoor pool area and it is moved west and up one floor. A buffer wall has been included as a sound buffer and visual separation from the neighbors. On the roof top, the area is never less than 10 ft from the side of the building. It is separated in to three zones, all accessed through the elevator and the stairs. There is a main lounge area and further east there is a relaxation area and continuing east is the quite area. This will be a public area. She then discussed the uses for each level. The basement level which will include parking, public ski lockers, meeting areas, fitness area and lodge and hotel uses. On the ground level there is the front door entering into the public area, lobby, affordable housing units and hotel lodge use. On the second level, there is the indoor/outdoor lounge, kitchen, public areas and hotel lodge use. On the third level is mainly hotel and lodge with some public area. On the fourth floor there is more public area, hotel lodge use and residential units. She then discussed the lobby space and displayed visuals of the space. John Sarpa then discussed the neighborhood compatibility including views, height and mass. In this lodge zone there are quite a few other buildings 45 ft and taller. This project is in the lodge zone where it belongs. It’s not a lodge preservation area where the criteria is much different. He then read the definition of a lodge zone from the code. High occupancy lodging is the primary purpose of zone. When trying to balance the community interests, they started by looking the underlying zoning. He stated they have tried to work with staff and be sensitive to the issues of height and mass. In regards to views, he recognizes there are protected view planes in Aspen, but this not one of them. He then walked thru the shadow study view planes based on three times in a year and three times during one day. The view planes showed the existing and new shadow areas. He recognized the alley is icy and dangerous now from the existing building. In regards to heights, he stated they worked with a number of neighbors to improve the building from when it was first submitted. It was submitted in June. The Glory Hole residents asked them to consider pulling a unit back to open sight lines. The current application reflects this request. They are very aware of discussion of concerns from other neighbors based on a previous consideration of the hotel. Knowing this, they pushed back the units on the alley side. In regards to mass, their current mass is 43,000 sf. The new mass is 97,000 sf based on the following. 1. Increased average size of rooms 2. Removal of exterior hallways 3. Inclusion of four affordable housing units 4. Addition of residential component In regards to noise, Mr. Sarpa stated it is an important concern. He wanted to point out there are good codes in place. The Sky needs to be lively fun place, but with a sensitivity to the neighbors and community in general. The operator in Kimpton is seasoned and have been running the hotel for 12 years. They have also been working with acoustic engineer for many weeks and will submit a study by next meeting including what is projected in decibels and the impacts to all the neighbors. They are also 8 P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 working with sound specialists on the equipment to minimize the projection of the sound. The plan includes a quiet zone on the roof. He also reminded the commissioners the pool deck is 42 in below the roof line which will act as a barrier. Mr. Sarpa then discussed value & fairness. There has been discussion about the applicant stealing dollars and value from neighbors and putting it into the Sky building. He stated there are no code provisions for economic transfer from neighbors. He believes building a new hotel is a positive impact. Mr. Sarpa then discussed traffic and parking. They have been making good progress with the City Engineer. They are refining the plan and they will be providing a plan once the engineering staff approves it. The area in the alley is very busy with 19 surface parking spaces, underground parking entrance, trash trucks and delivery trucks. They plan to eliminate their parking spaces in the alley and once the entrance is moved to the other side of the building, the traffic will be reduced dramatically. Based on a request by a Chateau Dumont owner to make the alley much more park-like. Mr. Sarpa proceeded to plan with this request in mind. The design team proposed to both the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont to move three parking spaces and leave one. They offered to put the three spaces in the garage for free. The other owners did not want this and wanted to keep the surface parking spaces. The design team had also proposed changing the direction of the traffic. The design team is open to taking whatever direction determined by the City and the neighbors. They have no strong preference. Another issue was the determination of Dean Street or Dean Alley. He stated it has been defined as an alley. Mr. Sarpa stated when they first applied, they did not request a floor area ratio (FAR) variance. After Mr. Edwards and his clients stated they have the right to drive over the Sky’s land which he pointed out on a map displayed. Mr. Sarpa stated they took that part of land out of the FAR calculation and by doing so, it requires them to ask for a variance for roughly 5,000 sf. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions of the staff and the applicant. Mr. Gibbs asked staff about the research into the 1960 thru 1962 ordinances, did they get a sense of the land exchange ratio. Ms. Garrow stated unfortunately not because the records in the 1960’s are less than complete, the minutes are not clear and the actual text of the ordinances simply declare an emergency and the land is exchanged. There are copies of the ordinances in the agenda packet and the application. She further stated it is clear from the records we do have, there was some reason City Council felt it was important to move the location of Spring St and that is when the exchange mainly occurred. Mr. James True, City Attorney, also added that it is hard to tell what the ratio was but it appears the Spring St right-of-way was wider than the new Spring St. It doesn’t look to be equal, but it is hard to tell because there is not enough data on it. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant how they will enforce the quiet zones. Mr. Sarpa stated management is aware and when an event is booked, they have to know what the regulations are involved and share that information. If and when an event exceeds acceptable levels of noise, then management will directly deal with it. So part of it is contractual and part of is management must be vigilant to ensure they are adhered to. 9 P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to confirm there will be three levels of sound for the three zones on the rooftop and how would the standards be set for the zones. Mr. Sarpa described the two zones, one being public and the quiet areas as non-public. The non-public areas are designed to be quiet. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant to repeat the shadow studies, not assuming the footprints of the buildings. He wants to see the shadows as they show on the buildings. Mr. Sarpa replied they could provide the study. Ms. Tygre asked if the pool would be open to the public at which Mr. Sarpa replied yes. She asked what would happen if the public became so popular in the summer that everyone brings their kids to play and it interferes with enjoyment by the guests. Mr. Cory Enloe stated they currently deal with this now and it depends on the time of day. There are also spend requirements during peak usage times. He it regulates itself. If it gets too rowdy, parents will leave. The new design provides a quiet area for the guests. Ms. Tygre has a concern about conflicts between public and private. She also wanted to clarify if the free market residential units on the top floor include TDRs. Mr. Sarpa stated there are five units that need TDRs and three that do not. The displayed footprint includes the units requiring the TDRs. Mr. McNellis asked the applicant if the neighboring properties including the Alps and the Chateau Dumont deal with similar spring runoff issues including seepage of water into foundation areas. Mr. Sarpa stated he cannot answer for how the surrounding properties deal with the issues. Mr. Sunny Vann relayed the story about part of Aspen being evacuated from a threat of mudflows from a very wet spring. Subsequent to that event, City undertook a 100 year mud flow evaluation and mapped various zones of increasing vulnerability. One small corner near the garage (southwest corner of the building) encroaches into the mud flow zone. All the engineering department asked the applicant to demonstrate the construction is sufficient to mitigate potential impacts. An analysis will be conducted to handle the pressures. A drainage plan will also address upslope draining as well. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Garrow if she had a copy of the map. Ms. Garrow stated she would ask the Engineering Department for a copy of the map including the entire runoff area. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant had considered snowmelting for Dean Alley. Mr. Sarpa stated snowmelting of that size is typically frowned upon because of the energy required. You can’t use solar so you would have to use boilers. From an energy standpoint it is not feasible. Mr. Sarpa stated they would be open to snowmelting certain areas to make it safer. Mr. Erspamer asked about the Triumph study and asked Ms. Garrow to confirm that staff had stated not to pay attention to the study. Ms. Garrow replied she intended to attach it to the packet, but had not. She will attach it for the next time. It was a report the City commissioned related to the feasibility of lodge development in the lodge zoned district. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant to confirm if the previously stated 60% was the percentage of units or floor area. Ms. Garrow and Mr. Sarpa both stated it was the floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any mechanical (elements) on the gabled roofs? Mr. Sarpa state it will be located on the ground. 10 P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked where the elevator overruns would be located. Mr. Sarpa replied they would be about 12 feet from the roof deck to the top. The roof deck is sunken 42 inches. Ms. Garrow stated they would look at this and clarify for the next meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be any LEED certification. Mr. Sarpa stated it has not yet been contemplated and they have not selected a LEED level yet. Mr. Erspamer asked if they know who the acoustic engineer is for the applicant. Mr. Sarpa stated the acoustic engineer is D L Adams from Denver. Mr. Erspamer asked if the top of the gable roof was lowered to 40 ft, would it eliminate the extra 5,000 sf they are asking for. And would it bring the edges below the ground? Ms. Broughton replied they would have to study it. Mr. Erspamer asked if the application needs to meet zoning and vacated areas code, specifically code section 26.710.024. Ms. Garrow stated that section does apply to the application that is why there is a discussion in the memo related to the vacated rights of way and the city’s code changed in 1988. Prior to 1988 areas in vacated rights of way were not deducted from lot area and after 1988 they were deducted. That is why staff is proposing the City Council amend those ordinances to clearly state the lot area should not be deducted. Mr. Gibbs then asked if we can make this a condition of the approval. Mr. True stated it would have to be done. Mr. Gibbs asked what if City Council decides not to amend the ordinances. Mr. True stated that would be a different issue. Mr. True stated you would have to assume City Council would amend the ordinances for the application to be approved. He stated P&Z could put it in as a recommendation. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant has firm sf numbers instead of approximate in regards to the net leasable square footage. Mr. Vann stated the amount of sf was reduced significantly, he stated approximately. It is irrelevant because they will be building back less than what exists today. Ms. Garrow stated they currently have about 5,200 sf and they are proposing 3,300 sf. Mr. Erspamer asked if the spa is for the public or for the owners. Mr. Sarpa stated there is no spa. Mr. Erspamer asked the height of the railings. Ms. Broughton stated 42 inches which is international building code. The rooftop creates a railing around the top to the building. Mr. Erspamer asked if the fractionals would be made available 30 days before to the public. Mr. Vann stated it is a requirement of the city code. Their time share use plan must be in compliance with the City’s timeshare regulations. They are not requesting any variances. Mr. Erspamer asked if they have a computer rendering of the neighborhood including Dean and Spring. Mr. Scott McHale stated they have not been fully rendered. Mr. Sarpa stated they have one looking down at the Chateau Chaumont looking from original back down the alley toward the building. Mr. Gibbs wanted to clarify on the shadow studies to see the west side of Dumont as well as the south. Ms. Broughton agreed. Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment. 11 P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Ms. Kathy Weiss has a unit in Chateau Dumont on the northwest corner. She asked Mr. Sarpa if the shadow study included the area between the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont. Mr. Erspamer stated Mr. Sarpa would address the question after public comment has been closed. She would like to see a shadowing on the restricted easement between the buildings. She also wanted to point out the new building would shroud the two Chateau buildings in shadow if built as proposed. She feels it is not being sensitive to the neighbors. The corner where the current entrance to the 39 degree bar is located is very busy. She stated there are many times with cars with local plates have parked in their four spaces. Mr. John Corcoran is the general manager of the Aspen Alps. He wanted to acknowledge he has worked with the design team and holds them in high regard. He referred to a letter their attorney sent to Mr. Sarpa back in June outlining some concerns of the Aspen Alps about the project. He wanted review a couple of them. Mr. Sarpa has met with Mr. Corcoran, the board president and the representative of building 100. The first concern is the height of the building, specifically on the east side. He was pleased to hear staff’s comments regarding the size and mass of the building. He fells it will have an excessive affect by eliminating existing views, ambient light and the residences in the 100 building are concerned about a tunnel effect that may occur. The architecture on the entire side was telling of accommodations made. He does not feel there have been any accommodations made on the Aspen Alps side of the building. He feels it is a bit monolithic and walling us off from community. The construction plan he viewed on August 8th included a fencing off of the parking spaces at the 100 building. He understands the applicant has proposed the parking arrangements for 10 months during the construction. But he has been told that the blocked access can only exist with an agreement and there is no such agreement. Mr. Corcoran then stated the noise is a big issue. He can hear the noise from inside the building. He acknowledged he and Cory have tried to work on the issue. Sometimes their mitigating efforts work and sometimes they don’t. He knows it is a difficult and negative element. There are people trying to sleep that are closer to the music than people working in the Sky Hotel. One of his concerns with moving the pools up without mitigation will be that the problem will be moved past the 100 and 200 buildings up the hill to the 500, 700 and 800 buildings. Mr. Corcoran is also concerned about the stability of the soils. The Aspen Alps has experienced movement in the buildings in the past. His final concern is in regards to the traffic on Spring St during the season is a nightmare. Delivery Trucks, vans, cars. Mr. David Perry with the Aspen Skiing Company, is representing the Aspen Skiing Company. They also own and operate the Little Nell Hotel as well as the Limelight Hotel. He feels there is a very strong need for redevelopment, replacement of the lodging sector. The minimum figures show for the past 20 years or so the community has lost in the excess of 2,000 pillows of rentable bed space and more than 20 small lodges. The lodging base has been in decline. Comparable areas have had their lodging base increased. In tracking the next generation of visitors, we need moderate priced lodging and a young, vibrant property. He also described his three bubble chart as it covers the tourism economy. The three sectors that have to be in balance for everything to work properly include access (air, roads, etc.), facilities (mountain, restaurants and activities), and lodging. Lodging is slipping out of balance. They hear it from guests, surveys, international tour operators. The offerings here are inconsistent. He is also speaking on behalf of the Little Nell, the Sky’s direct neighbor. The Little Nell is a four story building that is 45 ft high. The third and fourth floors facing the Sky Hotel will absolutely be directly impacted by the size of the buildings. He anticipates the construction to impact and the view planes will be negatively 12 P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 impacted. He expects noise from the roof to be an issue and he stated the project team has been receptive to comments. He stated they support the Sky Hotel development and will accept the tradeoffs of the issues. Mr. Michael Neuman owns a unit in the Chateau Chaumont and has been coming to Aspen for 50 years. He and his wife have skied all over the country and Europe and the chose Aspen when they decided to buy. He asked Ms. Garrow if she could display a picture of Spring St towards the mountain as it exists today. She replied she did not. Currently he is thrilled to see the mountain as he drives up the street. He feels people come to Aspen to see the mountain, not the hotels. He has noticed over the years, the buildings are getting larger in height and mass. He stated it was ‘Vailinating’. He stated the displays shown by the applicant of other buildings in Aspen did not show the distance between buildings. He is purporting the vertical side of the proposed hotel is very close to the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He thinks it should be part of the discussion. He also noticed the applicant was kind enough to set back the fourth floor. He also noticed the setback does not run the entire length of the building. Mr. Sarpa asked if he was referring to the top or the bottom. Mr. Erspamer stopped the conversation and asked Mr. Neuman to phrase a question the applicant can respond to later in the meeting. He also wanted to know if the setback on the top floor runs the entire length of the east-west wing of the building. His last question was in the dramatic increase of sf of the proposed building, it provides for an increase of 90-102 beds or pillows. It seems like an awful lot of new space for a relatively small percentage gained in rooms or pillows. Mr. Martin Mata, an architect in the valley for twenty-something years, referred to a shadow study completed at the request of the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont. The study shows some of the impact the Sky Hotel will have on the two neighboring properties. The study was divided into three categories including visual impacts, shadow impacts, and urban space impacts. Although there are not protected corridors, the impacts to the two properties are very, very real. No matter where you are looking at the new building from the two properties (third floor, first floor, inside, outside, etc.), the existing views of the ski trails and gondola are pretty much gone. In addition, the new building has in effect a fifth story roof top deck. The emergency stair towers, elevator shaft, the shaped structures will be visible from the second and third floors of the Chateau buildings. The largest impact they believe will be sound. It will be interesting to see what the engineers say about it, but we all know sound carries extremely well, especially on a quiet night. All it takes is two people have a conversation can be very annoying to someone trying to sleep. With the Sky looking for the young clientele, it doesn’t combine with the family oriented uses in the surrounding neighbors. The shadow impacts show the shadows interact with the façade of the two buildings. The things to note here are these impacts will start sometime in late September through March. The impacts cover the entire winter season, forever. The microclimate of the Dean St. will be colder and the ice situation worse. The urban space impact involves the main entrance to the Chateau buildings. He compared Dean (alley/street) between the Sky Hotel – Chateau and the more open North of Nell and residences of the Little Nell building. He commended staff for asking the applicant to address the height. Mr. Gibbs then made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:30 pm. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs, Mr. McNellis, and Mr. Erspamer vote yes. Ms. Tygre votes no. Motion carries with a vote of 3:1. Ms. Cindy Dillon lives on the third floor of the Chateau Chaumont. She and her husband chose their condominium to relax and to obtain rental income. She feels the Sky’s proposal will eliminate both of these reasons. She leads a busy life and needs the tranquility her unit provides. Many of their reviews on 13 P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Vacation Rental by Owner (VRBO) mention the views and how quiet it is. They usually rent their unit to one to two families or eight people. The proposal eliminates the two reasons for purchasing unit. She spoke with CJ Oliver regarding the noise ordinance. He stated from 7am to 11pm, there is a 65 decibel level in Aspen. It drops to 60 decibels from 11pm to 7am. According to CJ, just two people have a normal conversation is 60-65 decibels. She stated 45 decibels can wake a sleeping person. She provided other examples including a dance club with 110 decibels, rock music has 110-130 decibels, and idling truck has 72 decibels from 24 ft away. This is a very big concern for her. The noise carries more in the mountains due to the low humidity. Currently she can be awakened by two people talking outside at 2am. On Labor Day, the police were called at 2am because 5-6 people were talking in the court yard. There were also called on the same day because maybe 10 people were sitting in a Jacuzzi playing music. Their buildings are very subject to the noises with elderly and families. They don’t want their views to disappear or the noise to be heard. They understand they need to renovate, but not at their financial and emotional expense. Mr. Todd Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit purchased in 1975. He has the same concerns that have been mentioned about height, size, views, and sound. Another concern he has is the amount of setback from Dean St for the proposed building. He doesn’t feel they can marshal all their building equipment, supplies and activities on the proposed setback without shutting down Dean St which their only means of access. Previously, his wife had to call the rescue squad for him. The ambulance came down Dean St for him. If in the future an ambulance cannot access the building and someone dies, it will be because of the Sky Hotel and the P&Z commission allowing the building without the setbacks. Ms. Carrie Vieregg owns a Chateau Chaumont unit #14. Everyone visiting their unit enjoys the views of Aspen Mountain. The bedrooms have views and light coming in. She is an artist and often paints with the light. Years ago, their 90 year old Mothers visited and she cannot imagine walking down Dean St if it were any icier. She is concerned about the shadows affecting the melting ice and snow. Several years ago her husband collapsed and she called 911. If the street had been blocked by vehicles, it’s questionable if he would have received the timely treatment he needed. Dean Alley is their main access. Mr. Jody Edwards is representing Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont. He will not regurgitate the letter on p 102 of the packet, but he asked P&Z to please read it. He wanted to comment on the Triumph Report. It seems to be very short on detail but it appears to assume you are buying the land and you need the free market units to make it work financially. That is not the case here. More importantly regarding the assumption of the mid-priced hotel unit, there is nothing in the application stating they are going to deed restrict the price of the units. What they are going to do, is that they will charge whatever the price they can get. If it’s $1,000 per night or $400 per night, that is what they will charge. This is not a mid-priced location. In regards to compatibility with the neighborhood, Gideon’s letter he received at 3:35pm, he quotes the standard stating the project should be compatible with or enhance the cohesiveness of the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development pattern. He told that is what P&Z should be thinking about. The development patterns are a little different than the other 40 ft tall buildings. The patterns here include 2-3 story buildings on three sides. In regards to Dean St, an eight year old staff memo does not operate to set aside or trump existing code. He referenced his letter describing the code as defining Dean as a street and not an alley. Given that it is a street, the applicant should address the special review criteria for trash and delivery areas. If it is done it will make more sense to relocate the trash and delivery area. On the direction of travel, during the site visit representations were made that the applicant does not care which direction the traffic flows. The Chateau owners need clarity. If the traffic goes clockwise, it will force exits onto Durant which would be 14 P14 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 dangerous. The eastern wing should remain the height it is today which is compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Casandra Foister is the Director of Marketing at the Sky. She wants to follow up on what Mr. Perry stated previously. She travels everywhere to sell the Sky and she always sells the destination first. The way it sits right now, she is having a difficult time selling it. She is losing it to other resorts, not competitors. We are not getting the young crowd. She knows others are worried about it, but that can’t keep going with the way it is. Mr. Peter Grenney agrees with Casandra. The town doesn’t match the building and it is a dated facility. It is a progressive community and we need to work with the owners and rehab the building. It is a vital asset for visitors and locals. He supports the application. Mr. Skippy Mesirow has lived here nine years and lives a couple blocks from the Sky. He understands this is not a perfect project. He sees a continued encroachment on height on the town as well as free market residential in yet another building. It is the economics and the laws that we have. We have gone into a direction of incentivizing projects that we need as a community. In this way, the applicant has approached this within the letter of the law and we need to respect that and perhaps revisit this as a community. As it stands, it is a great project that speaks to the history and future of Aspen. This project speaks to bring back the vitality that is part of Aspen’s soul. If this project is not built, there’s going to be something that is shorter and smaller but will be prohibitively expensive and keep young people from coming to this town and will continue the trend of the aging of Aspen. He encourages everyone to work with the applicant. He supports the project. Ms. Crystal Logan, director of the Aspen Community Programs at the Aspen Institute, is representing the nonprofit sector from the ACRA board. She grew up here in the valley and she agrees with Mr. Mesirow, Mr. Grenney, and Mr. Perry. She feels the city staff has been thoughtful and responsive. She feels we need to find ways to update the bed base. She feels we have lost a considerable amount of moderately based lodges in town. Instead of leaving things to market forces, we should be proactive in supporting the lodges that are in a position to upgrade. She is in favor of the project and feels it ads vitality to the resort. Ms. Briana Von Ohlen is the Food and Beverage Director at the Sky Hotel. She has worked there for five years at 39 Degrees. She feels it is a unique property in that it welcomes locals and tourists making it a unique place to blend and for everyone to interact. In regards to the lounge, there are multiple times it will rain during après ski inside, not outside. The building and product no longer reflects who they are and they cannot stay competitive. She is in favor of the project. Mr. Malik Enloe is the son of Corey Enloe who is the general manager of the Sky Hotel. He agrees with Mr. Mesirow and feels we should focus on the big picture aspect because we are competing with the big resorts. A lot of what he has heard tonight is that some want to keep Aspen as it has been for many years. He has learned lately that humans do not like change and what they want Aspen to be may not what Aspen needs to be. Mr. Erspamer then asked the board for any questions or clarifications regarding public comment. Mr. Erspamer requested that Mr. Edwards client’s issues were included in the minutes. 15 P15 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Erspamer then opened for staff rebuttal and clarification of the evidence presented by the applicant. Given the remaining time available, Ms. Garrow requested the commission provide direction so she can provide clarification at the next meeting. Mr. Sarpa agreed. Mr. Erspamer closed staff and applicant rebuttal Mr. Erspamer stated it was an awesome presentation. He finds it challenging to know when you provide a benefit to one party, it takes something away from another. The project is good and has all the bells and whistles for what the community wants. He feels they have no criteria to evaluate regarding the views. He encouraged the applicant to listen to the requests of the neighbors as stated by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Erspamer stated he would like to see a 10pm deadline on the roof top. He feels it would be the only way it would fly in the community. He understated the Sky wants to provide a fun atmosphere, but neighbors want to sleep. He encouraged the applicant to be aware of the quality of life as included in the AACP. He is also concerned about circulation and wondered what would happen if the building was dropped five feet. Mr. McNellis likes the project and the direction it is going. He felt the site visit revealed a lot to him. He hears what the adjacent property owners are saying and agrees there should be a greater nod the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. He’s not sure what that is, but would like to see the applicant accommodate their needs better. He likes the possibility of the vitality the project could bring to the area. He is likely to vote in favor if some of issues could be accommodated. It was stated the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont don’t want their surface parking removed. He would like to know if there could be improvements made to Dean St to make it a social and community amenity for the Sky Hotel, Chateau Chaumont, Chateau Dumont and the entire community. He would also like to see it explored if there are any mud flow accommodations that could be made for the Aspen Alps as a nod to them. Mr. Gibbs feels the shadowing on the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont are the biggest issue in his mind. He thinks quality of life is important. While they don’t have an explicit criteria in the code, it’s certainly part of the AACP which underpins all P&Z considerations. He wants to look at the shadowing in more detail. Ms. Tygre has a real problem with the roof pool. She feels there will be real conflict between public and private uses of the building. It seems to her the building is upside down. A lot of the problems would be resolved if the applicant did not have the roof top pool. She also questioned the amount of free market space and would like to hear a justification of how selling free market units one time will continue to fund a hotel operation for the next 20 years. This has never been answered to her satisfaction. She would also like to see story poles. Mr. Gibbs moved to continue the meeting to October 21, 2014. Ms. Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 16 P16 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 7, 2014 Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 17 P17 IV.A. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney RE: 709 E Durant (Sky Hotel) – Clarification of Shadow Studies and Potential Reconsideration of Resolution No.14, Series of 2014 MEETING DATE: November 11, 2014 BACKGROUND : On October 21, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission Approved Resolution No. 14, Series 2014 by a four to one (4-1) vote, recommending City Council approve the Sky Hotel redevelopment (attached as Exhibit A). At that meeting, the applicant presented shadow studies that illustrated the existing hotel and the proposed hotel and the shadows that will be cast into Dean Alley and along the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont. Following the meeting, attorney Jody Edwards asked for clarification on the shadow studies presented, as it appeared the studies showed the existing eastern wing of the Sky Hotel as a three (3) story building, rather than a two (2) story building. The eastern wing is a two (2) story building. The applicant examined their model, and discovered that the Sky Hotel was accurately modeled, but that the elevation of the Dean Alley and the Chateaus was incorrect – they were shown at a lower elevation than they actually are. The Applicant has written a letter explaining the error, and has included the revised shadow studies, all attached as Exhibits B - F. Staff felt it was important to present this information to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as a number of Commissioners referenced the shadow studies in their comments. Staff has examined the revised shadow studies, and believes they illustrate that the new hotel casts a similar shadow, and often times less of a shadow, as the studies that were presented at the October 21st hearing. OPTION TO RECONSIDER: The Planning and Zoning Commission has the option at the November 11 th public hearing to reconsider the approval of Resolution 14, Series 2014. In order to do so, someone who voted in favor of approval (Commissioners Gibbs, Goode, McNellis, and Walterscheid), must make the motion to reconsider. If that motion is made anyone can second it. Please note, if a Commissioner did not attend the October 21 st public hearing, they may not vote on reconsideration UNLESS they obtain and listen to a recording of the proceedings. Any Commissioner wishing to do so may pick up a copy of the meeting recording from the City Clerk’s office. If the Commission votes to reconsider the matter, it should be reconsidered at the November 11 th meeting. Proper notice has been made for November 11 th in the event P&Z votes to reconsider. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z not reconsider the action. Staff does not believe the updated shadow studies are substantially different than those presented. P18 VI.A. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Resolution 14, Series 2014 Exhibit B – Applicant memo outlining shadow changes Exhibit C – Original Shadow Plans shown at 10/21/14 meeting Exhibit D – Updated Shadow Plans Exhibit E – Original and Revised Alley Shadow Studies Exhibit F – Aspen shadow views from Aspen Skiing Company cameras shown at 10/21/14 meeting P19 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 1 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. 15 (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. P20 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, 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, in response to feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 2014, the Applicant revised the proposal to include: P21 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 3 of 11 106 hotel units with 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 2 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.); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 21, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 14, Series of 2014, by a four to one (4-1) vote recommending 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 in Sections 2-22. 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 Timeshare Documents and shall contain a provision that this requirement cannot be eliminated from the Condominium Declarations 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. P22 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 4 of 11 b. A commercial reconstruction credit of 5,259 square feet of net leasable area is credited toward the Project’s 3,380 sqft of commercial net leasable area. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are recommended to be granted to the Sky Hotel Project: a. 17 lodging bedrooms = 34 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 107 lodging bedrooms or214 pillows. b. 6 free market residential allotments. c. 5 units of affordable housing. Section 5: Affordable Housing 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 sqft * 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 sqft 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-market 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. P23 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 5 of 11 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. i. The Condominium Declaration shall include language, to be reviewed and approved by APCHA, 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/PD 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. P24 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 6 of 11 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. 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. f. A Condominium Map shall be competed for the development in accordance with Section 26.480.050(A), Condominiumization. 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. P25 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 7 of 11 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 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 P26 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 8 of 11 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 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. P27 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 9 of 11 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. 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: Building Department The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit. The elevator accessing the roof is required to meet ADA requirements. The ground floor affordable housing units shall have doors that provide access to the interior corridor, in order to meet ADA requirements. Section 19: Noise Study The Applicant shall provide a detailed noise study, including ambient noise information, in a form acceptable to the Environmental Health Department prior to City Council Project Review. Section 20: Vacated Rights of Way The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council amend the Vacation Ordinances for Spring Street, Ute Avenue, and the alley in Block 102 (Ordinance 12, Series 1961, Ordinance 2, Series 1962, and Ordinance 3, Series 1962) such that the portions of vacated rights of way on the Sky Hotel property be included in the net lot area calculation. P28 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 10 of 11 Section 21: Dean Alley Snowmelt The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council and the Applicant consider snowmelting the Dean Alley located in Block 107 between the Sky Hotel and the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont. Section 22: 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 23: 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 24: 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 21st day of October, 2014. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R True, City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements P29 VI.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Reso No. 15, Series 2014 Page 11 of 11 Exhibit A – Approved Dimensional Requirements Lodge Dimensional Requirement Proposed Development Lodge Units and Net Livable 106 units in 48,095sqft net livable Commercial Net Leasable 3,380sqft net leasable Affordable Housing Units and Net Livable 5 units in 4,301 sqft net livable Free-Market Residential Units and Net Livable 6 units in 10,322sqft net livable Minimum Gross Lot Size (sqft) 42,645 sqft Minimum Net Lot Size (sqft) 37,113 sqft Minimum Net Lot Area per Free-Market dwelling unit (sqft) 4,639sqft 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 - 5ft 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 sqft (30.5%) Allowed Floor Area Overall 96,133 sqft (2.59:1) Lodge 62,449 sqft(1.68:1) Commercial 3,459 sqft (.09:1) Affordable Housing 4,615 sqft (.12:1) Free-Market Residential 13,617 sqft (.37:1) Minimum Trash/Recycle Area 400 sqft for lodge; 213 sqft for residential P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. P32 VI.A. PREVIOUS P&Z DOCS 8/19/2014 P33 VI.A. TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 5 : 3 0 p m TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 5 : 3 0 p m PREVIOUS P&Z DOCS 8/19/2014 P34 VI.A. TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 p m TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 p m PREVIOUS P&Z DOCS 8/19/2014 P35 VI.A. REVISED P&Z DOCS 10/31/2014 P36 VI.A. TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 5 : 3 0 p m TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 5 : 3 0 p m REVISED P&Z DOCS 10/31/2014 P37 VI.A. TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 p m TH I S P A R T O F A S P E N IN S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 p m REVISED P&Z DOCS 10/31/2014 P38 VI.A. P39 VI.A. P40 VI.A. P41 VI.A. P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. (T H I S P A R T O F A S P E N I N S H A D O W 5 : 3 0 p m ) P44 VI.A. P45 VI.A. P46 VI.A. (T H I S P A R T O F A S P E N I N S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 p m ) AL L I N S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 AL L I N S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 AL L I N S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 AL L I N S H A D O W 2 : 3 0 P47 VI.A. P48 VI.A. P49 VI.A. (T H I S P A R T O F A S P E N I N S H A D O W 4 : 1 0 p m ) AL L I N S H A D O W 4 : 1 0 p m AL L I N S H A D O W 4 : 1 0 p m AL L I N S H A D O W 4 : 1 0 p m AL L S H A D O W 4 : 1 0 p m P50 VI.A. SEPT 5:30 pm P51 VI.A. OCT 4:50 pm P52 VI.A. NOV 2:40 pm P53 VI.A. DEC 2:30 pm P54 VI.A. JAN 3:20 pm P55 VI.A. FEB 4:10 pm P56 VI.A. MAR 6:00 pm P57 VI.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Pitkin County Center Subdivision, 506 E. Main St – Major Subdivision, Rezoning Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 – Public Hearing DATE: November 11, 2014 APPLICANT /OWNER: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clausen Associates LOCATION: 506 & 530 E. Main Street CURRENT ZONING 506 E. Main - Public (PUB) 530 E. Main – Commercial Core (CC) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission a recommendation of approval to merge the lots and rezone the entire resultant property to Public. The Applicant is also requesting the City of Aspen vacate a portion of right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council APPROVE a lot merger and rezoning, and vacate the remaining portion of right-of-way. Locator Map LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The following land use recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are being requested: • Major Subdivision – to merge two lots and for vacation of a right-of-way, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480.070 (City Council is the final review authority after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Rezoning – to rezone the entire resultant lot to Public, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). P58 VII.A. BACKGROUND: The property containing the County Courthouse and Jail (West Lot) is known as Lot 1 of the Pitkin County Center Subdivision. This subdivision was originally approved in 1982. A lot line adjustment in 2002 and a lot merger in 2010 created the current boundary of Lot 1. This property is currently zoned as Public. Approximately 110’ of the south portion of this property (the Original Townsite lots and half of the vacated alley) is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Figure A The Courthouse was designated as historic in 1981 under Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1981. The Ordinance only stated the address (506 E. Main) and did not provide any legal boundaries. When the Pitkin County Center Subdivision was created, the specific designation boundary became unclear since there are currently 2 addresses on the property. The property containing the Plaza Building (East Lot) includes just a little more than 2 Original Aspen Townsite lots. This property is currently zoned as Commercial Core. This property is located entirely within the Commercial Core Historic District. The City of Aspen vacated the alley per Ordinance 59, Series of 1975. The first Pitkin County Center Subdivision plat from 1982 labels the portion of the alley located behind the property containing the Plaza Building as “alley not vacated”. Also, survey work done by the Applicant identified that area was not vacated. West Lot East Lot COURTHOUSE JAIL PLAZA Page 2 of 5 P59 VII.A. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant would like to merge the two lots into one lot and rezone the whole resultant property to Public. Additionally, the Applicant is petitioning the City of Aspen vacate the remaining portion of right-of-way that exists north of the East Lot. The purpose of this is to create one lot on which the Pitkin County facilities are located resulting in a property that can be easily managed and designed. Additionally, upon Staff request, the Applicant is looking to clearly define the historic designation boundaries of the Courthouse. This project will go to City Council for final review after receiving a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission. STAFF EVALUATION: The proposed merger of two lots and vacation of a right-of-way are both classified as Major Subdivision reviews according to the Land Use Code. The purpose of the Subdivision Chapter is to: (a) assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; (b) ensure the proper distribution of development; (c) encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; (d) safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; (e) provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluffs, hillsides or similar geologic features or edges of rivers and other bodies of water; and (f) promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Land Subdivision (Exhibit B): The Applicant proposes to merge two lots into one resultant lot. The West Lot is already a part of the Pitkin County Center Subdivision. For the purposes of simplicity, the East Lot is being added to the west lot, and the resultant lot will still be called Lot 1 of the Pitkin County Center Subdivision. There are many existing utilities that fall outside of the platted easements. Staff recommends that easements be established or relocated to align with the existing utilities on this property. Staff finds that the proposed merger meets the review criteria found in Exhibits A & B, and allows a more holistic design approach for the County facilities. Vehicular Rights-of-Way (Exhibit C): The Applicant is petitioning that the City of Aspen vacate the remaining portion of alley that is located directly north of the East Lot. The entire alley was intended for vacation according to City Ordinance No. 59, Series of 1975. However, a subsequent plat for the Pitkin County Center Subdivision from 1982 indicates that this portion is not vacated. Additionally, survey work completed by the Applicant also indicated that this portion of the alley is not vacated. Pitkin County has been using this area for parking and maintaining it for over 25 years. Whether the entire alley was actually vacated or not, Staff recommends the complete vacation be memorialized as part of this approval to provide clarity to both Pitkin County and the City of Page 3 of 5 P60 VII.A. Aspen that full ownership, right, title and interest of that area belongs to Pitkin County. Staff finds the proposed vacation meets the review criteria found in Exhibits A & C. Rezoning (Exhibit D): The West Lot is zoned as Public, while the East Lot is zoned as Commercial Core. The merger of these two lots would create one lot with multiple zone districts. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting to rezone the entire resultant property to Public. This creates a cleaner resultant property if and when Pitkin County decides to redevelop. The dimensional requirements for the Public zone district are set through a Planned Development review that would be specific to this site. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning meets the review criteria found in Exhibit D, and is to the benefit of the community by allowing a more holistic design approach for the County facilities and simplifying City reviews. Historic Designation: When the Courthouse was originally designated, it was probably not anticipated that the property would merge with other properties, and so only the address was designated. With potentially three addresses located on the same parcel, it would be beneficial to have clarity around what land and structures are designated. The Courthouse building occupies four Original Townsite Lots, which was most likely the original property. For simplicity, Staff is recommending that those four lots (K, L, M, and N) serve as the physical boundary for the designation (Figure B). This protects the Courthouse building, which is the important feature of the designation. This does not affect the Commercial Core Historic District boundary which still covers the Courthouse, Veteran’s Park, and the current Plaza Building. Figure B Page 4 of 5 P61 VII.A. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: Engineering, Utilities and the Sanitation District have reviewed the proposed application and any comments have been provided in Exhibit E, and will be included in any ordinance reviewed by Council, as applicable. Utilities and Sanitation would like to see proper easement locations for service lines documented in any future plats for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council approve a Major Subdivision and Rezoning to combine two lots and rezone the resultant lot to Public with conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. __, Series of 2014, recommending approval of Major Subdivision and Rezoning for the Pitkin County Center Subdivision with conditions.” EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria – General Subdivision B. Review Criteria – Land Subdivision C. Review Criteria – Vehicular Rights-of-Way D. Review Criteria – Rezoning E. Referral Comments F. Application Page 5 of 5 P62 VII.A. RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND REZONING FOR THE PROPERTYS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 506 & 530 E. MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R, AND THE WESTERLY 7.5 FEET OF LOT S, BLOCK 92, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, LOTS 11, 12 AND THE WESTERLY 7.5 FEET OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; AND LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 93 AT PAGE 56, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 2737-073-24-004 and 2737-073-47-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (Applicant), represented by Stan Clausen Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Major Subdivision and Rezoning reviews for the properties commonly known as 506 & 530 E. Main Street, legally described as Lots Q, R, and the westerly 7.5 feet of Lot S, Block 92, City and Townsite of Aspen, Lots 11, 12 and the westerly 7.5 feet of Lot 10, Block 19, East Aspen Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and Lot 1, First Amended Plat of Lot 1, Pitkin County Center Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 93 at Page 56, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the property at 506 E. Main Street is currently zoned Public (PUB) and the property at 530 E. Main Street is currently zoned Commercial Core (CC); and, WHEREAS, the properties are located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 506 E. Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks and Structures; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 26.480.070, Major Subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 26.310.060, Rezoning shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 Pitkin County Center Subdivison Page 1 of 4 P63 VII.A. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 11, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2014, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Major Subdivision Review and Rezoning; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Subdivision 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 approve Major Subdivision Review for the merger of the two lots legally described above into one, and the vacation of all right-of-way contained within said lot, with the following condition: Easements shall be established or relocated to align with the existing utilities within the proposed property. Section 2: Rezoning 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 approve Rezoning of the resultant Lot 1 of the Pitkin County Center Subdivision to Public (PUB). Section 3: Historic Designation The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to City Council that the historic designation boundary for 506 E. Main Street, originally designated under Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1981, shall be defined as: Former Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 92, City and Townsite of Aspen, as represented in Exhibit I to this Resolution. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 Pitkin County Center Subdivison Page 2 of 4 P64 VII.A. development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 11th day of November, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ______________________________ _____________________________ James R True, City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit I – Historic Designation Boundary Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 Pitkin County Center Subdivison Page 3 of 4 P65 VII.A. EXHIBIT I Former Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 92, City and Townsite of Aspen Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 Pitkin County Center Subdivison Page 4 of 4 P66 VII.A. EXHIBIT A GENERAL SUBDIVISION 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: Both current lots have unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. Both lots face Main Street with 506 E. Main accessible from Galena Street as well. Parking access to both lots is from Rio Grande Place to the north. None of these accesses will be eliminated as a result of the merger. There are no streets retained under private ownership and no gates are proposed for the existing driveway. Staff finds this criterion to be 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: The proposal is to remove a lot line that is currently aligned with the Townsite. All other lot lines will remain which is already a part of an approved subdivision which is generally in line with the Townsite where applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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: The proposal includes a request to rezone the entire merged lot to Public. There are no minimum lot size requirements for Public. The rezoning will ensure that the entire lot is only located in one zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. 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. Exhibit A – General Subdivision Page 1 of 2 P67 VII.A. 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 will be no new nonconformities created by the proposed lot merger and rezoning. The proposal is not to correct any existing nonconformities. The proposal will create a more cohesive plan and flexibility for the County facilities in the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A – General Subdivision Page 2 of 2 P68 VII.A. EXHIBIT B LAND SUBDIVISION 26.480.070.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: The proposed lot merger complies with the General Subdivision Review Standards. See Exhibit A. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 proposed lot merger will enable an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the land. The merger unifies County properties and will allow for more efficient operations and development of a cohesive “government campus” into the future. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 important geological or ecological features on these properties. The Courthouse serves as an important historic, cultural and visual structure. The designation boundary to protect the Courthouse will be more clearly defined as part of this approval. No mature vegetation is being affected as part of this proposed lot merger. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The land on these properties is suitable for development. There are no natural or man-made hazards present. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 Exhibit B – Land Subdivision Page 1 of 2 P69 VII.A. 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: No engineering design or mitigation techniques have been identified that would be necessary for the proposed lot merger. The applicant understands that specific designs, techniques or implementation timelines may be required by the City Engineer. Staff finds this criterion to be 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: It is not anticipated that the proposed lot merger will require any upgrades to the public infrastructure and facilities. There is no new development proposed at this time for the resultant lot. Facilities and infrastructure will be addressed in any future development application for the property. Many of the existing utilities are not located within easements. Staff recommends that easements be established or relocated to align with the existing utilities. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 proposed lot merger does not require any growth management allotments. New allotments would only be required if and when new development is proposed on the resultant lot. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 proposed lot merger will not require any School Land Dedication requirements. There will be no residential development involved. Staff finds this criterion to be 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: A draft subdivision plat was submitted with the application. It will be reviewed and recorded pursuant to Chapter 26.490 upon approval from City Council. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 has agreed to submit a Development Agreement for recordation if required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit B – Land Subdivision Page 2 of 2 P70 VII.A. EXHIBIT C VEHICULAR RIGHTS-OF-WAY 26.480.070.B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen. Staff Findings: The alley in its entirety was vacated according to City Ordinance No. 59, Series of 1975. However, subsequent plats and survey work indicate that the portion of alley behind the Plaza Building was never vacated. Clarifying the complete vacation in this application will provide clarity to the County for future operations and provide for better overall site design. The City no longer uses this right-of-way (as it was believed to be vacated) and likely has no use for it in the foreseeable future. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability for a property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as a primary street access plus alley access, is preferred. Staff Findings: The proposed change does not affect access to any properties or restrict the ability to develop. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is currently used for County vehicle parking. The County facilities are accessed either off the roundabout at the end of Galena Street or along an access drive from Rio Grande Place. These accesses will remain. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved projects for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project, an infrastructure plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like). Staff Findings: The proposed change complies with any applicable requirements of the Engineering Design Standards. There are no identified plans for the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating needs of the City including snow removal. Staff Findings: The right-of-way to be vacated has no integration with any existing rights-of- way and is currently used as parking. An existing sanitary sewer line exists in the proposed vacation area, and several utilities are located outside of the platted easements. Staff recommends that easements be established or relocated to align with the existing utilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C – Vehicular Rights-of-Way Page 1 of 2 P71 VII.A. 5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the design and construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of- way improvements shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer. The City may require a performance warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall be reflected in a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: No new right-of-way is proposed as part of this application. Once vacated, this will no longer be considered right-of-way and physical changes will be reviewed as a separate development application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development, or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the applicant and the City can be achieved through a “closure” of the right-of-way. Staff Findings: The right-of-way to be vacated has no connection to any other existing right- of-way. It was intended to be vacated in 1975 with the portion of alley immediately west, but never actually happened. Vacation of this portion of right-of-way will complete the intended vacation. There is no reasonable use of this alley for any of the uses described. Pedestrian and bike paths, as well as utilities and drainage will be located on the property in a manner that is appropriate for the development of County facilities in the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. The plat shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of-way shall accrue to adjacent parcels in compliance with State Statute. Staff Findings: The applicant shall provide a vacation plat that will be recorded demonstrating how the land shall accrue to the adjacent parcels (which would become one upon approval from City Council). Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. 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. This requirement may be waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed. Staff Findings: No right-of-way construction is proposed. Staff recommends that this requirement be waived. Exhibit C – Vehicular Rights-of-Way Page 2 of 2 P72 VII.A. EXHIBIT D REZONING 26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findings: The Pitkin County Center Subdivision is already currently zoned as Public. If the properties are merged, a rezoning would prevent a single parcel from containing multiple zone districts. This is compatible with the surrounding land uses, as many of the surrounding uses are governmental and/or public, including the jail, courthouse and library. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Findings: There would be no additional demand created on utilities that would result from the proposed rezoning. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findings: There would be no adverse impacts on the natural environment that would result from the proposed rezoning. The lots are already heavily developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed rezoning provides a cohesive zone district and plan for the Pitkin County facilities and allows for more coordinated development in the future. These facilities are directly related to the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit D - Rezoning Page 1 of 1 P73 VII.A. EXHIBIT E REFERRAL COMMENTS ACSD The Annex building would need to relocate their sanitary sewer service line that currently exits their building to the north and then flows east through the alley way across the Zupancis property. They would have to do this once the COA re-develops the Zupancis property anyway. Once we can see the development plans, we can comment in more detail. Utilities Easements need to be preserved or established to cover all water mains and electrical primary facilities within the platted area. The actual location of these facilities will need to be confirmed by the development by requesting locates and documenting those locations. Exhibit E – Referral Comments Page 1 of 1 P74 VII.A. EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: i-Okv. G,,,t9 CII-v Lf S1"kA c Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: N�y 1\i L+ : _ _R inn 12011+ 20 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, 4' �eA.ti (name, please print) being or representing an Apple to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: y Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the_day of , 20� to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid,U:S:'}nail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the ' property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of �jrope-ty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared nQ Snore than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A Copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this 23 day Of Oc�_O�PwS 20L4,by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Puauc nroncE My commission expires: I te1 (�1p RE:PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION- MAJOR SUBDIVISION th REZONING NOTICE HEREBY OVEN that a will he hellm Tuesday.NovembeIt.2C)"1111 C) g meeting ro begin a1 4:30 p.m.before thG Aspen Notary Public Planning ano Zoning Commission.Sister Cities, Qtycati, 130S.Galena hL fikinctocottgdarori KAREN REED PATTERSON Coi+ntwatCommissiw,eist 3(3E.Main stre�3rd NOTARY PUBLIC Flow.Aspen. Co 8161 1). raprasented by Stan STATE OF COLORADO Clausen Associates,.iw the properties located at NOTARY ID tCOLO ADO que and 530 E.Main street. The zoningapplicallle is ra- CACHIVIENTS AS APPLICABLE: questing fvbja Subdivision arra Rezoning revie02767 ws My Commission res Febru 15,2018 to merge the two lots into wa.and rezone the en- CATION tire new kA to Public.The profterties are legally de- L r S 6 as:k 9 S 0, itv and aridthe of iAspen,Lots ' THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) IL 12 and East AspenhAtldtaon Ie the Cl}itandt o Block �ikatoi ERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Aspen,County al Pitkin,state of eoioraci,:and Lot 1,Firs Amendw Plat d Lot 1.Pitkin C ulty Cen- terBooksubdivision3t according to the piat recorded m �FICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE Plat rad 93 at Pale 56,County 37- d Pitkin,State d Colorado. Part ID5?737-0rmatio 004 and C.R.S. §24_65.5_103.3 2737-G73-47-85t Fw further irYorrna[ion,a.>nlact J' Justin Barker at the City of Asp Community De- velopment Department, 130 s.Galena St..Aspen. C O { 9;7 G ) 4 2 5 2 7 9 7 juslnbarker ikityolaspen.corn. sr LJ Erspamar.Chair Aspen Planning any Zoning awmisaon Published in the Aspen Times on October 23,2014 (10G52830j _ PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: Tuesday, 11 November 2014 I TIME: 4:30 pm PLACE: Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S . Galena Street, Aspen PURPOSE: r Applicant (Pitkin County Board of _ - • County Commissioners, 530 E. main Street, Aspen , CO 81611 ) req uests the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Major Subdivision and Rezoning reviews for this property to vacate a right-of-way, merge with the lot and located theo the to P blic rezo TON,OONT>1GT THE PLANNING OFFIGC Af p'`� FOR FURTHER INFORMA ` f n 4 • Y i PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: Tuesday. 11 November 22014 TIME: 4:30 pm PLACE: Sister Cities, City_Hall, 130 S. Galena Street. Aspen PURPOSE: Applicant(Pitkin County Board or County Commissioners, 530 E. Main Street, Aspen an o 816 g )requests the Planning ZonCommission approve Mayor •� Subdivision and Rezoning e aeviews for this property nght-of-way. merge with the lot located directly to the west,and rezone the new lot 10 Public. - 1 r • r r IAS 1 L . • ry � A >k .'�r >r DATE:Tuesday, I I November 2014 ,01 1 _pm Applicant(Pitkin County PLACE: Sister Cities, City Hall. 130 S.Galena Street,Aspen BoardCounty commissioners,530 E.Main 7T7 Street.Aspen,CO 8 1611)requ8sts the Planning and Zoning �` �t Commission approve Maio, I Subdivision and Rezoning reviews for this,property to vacate a ng h It o-way*merge with the lot ca ad directly to the west.and lot to Public. zone the new re ell AlN� _ Y AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 506 and 530 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 11 November, 2014 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Stan Clauson, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: n/a Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto., X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 27th day of October, 2014, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. n/a Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of. the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) n/a Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature C The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 11 day of November, 2014, by Stan Clauson. PATRICK S. RAWWITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL EY NOTARY PUBLICUBLiC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID#19994012259 My commission expires: —1 �� G My Commission Expires July 26,2016 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE.POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION—MAJOR SUBDIVISION&REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 11, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (530 E. Main Street, 3 d Floor, Aspen, CO 81611), represented by Stan Clausen Associates, for the properties located at 506 and 530 E. Main Street. The applicant is requesting Major Subdivision and Rezoning reviews to merge the two lots into one, and rezone the entire new lot to Public. The properties are legally described as: Lots Q, R, and the westerly 7.5 feet of Lot S, Block 92, City and Townsite of Aspen, Lots 11, 12 and the westerly 7.5 feet of Lot 10, Block 19, East Aspen Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and Lot 1, First Amended Plat of Lot 1, Pitkin County Center Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 93 at Page 56, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel IDs 2737-073-24-004 and 2737-073-47-851. For further information, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429.2797,justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. s/LJ Ersuamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 23,2014 City of Aspen Account 14 WEST COOPER LLC 311 ASPEN LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC NE 63RD ST#220 2317 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 5301/2 E HOPKINS )KLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 ASPEN, CO 81611 25 MAIN ASPEN LLC - 625 MAIN INVESTMENTS LLC ALH HOLDING CO 65 N MILL ST STE I2-113 1482 E VALLEY RD#463 435 E MAIN ST .SPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ASPEN, CO 81611 .-LEN CARROL A REV TRUST ALPINE BANK ASPEN ANDERTON JAMES L 5495 SW ALDERBROOK CIR ATTN ERIN W IENCEK 100 OBERMEYER PL#4101 IGARD, OR 97224 PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 RCHDIOCESE OF DENVER ARENELLA BETH & FRANK III ARTIM LLC HINT MARYS 101 N SPRING ST#107 PO BOX 30106 300 S STEELE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10011 iENVER, CO 80210 SPEN BLEEKER STREET LP ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN LEGACY LLC 20 S MAIN ST#178 420 E HOPKINS AVE 17740 E HINSDALE AVE ROVE, OK 74344 ASPEN, CO 81611 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 ,TWOODSTANFORD H JR& PAMELA S AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC BALLINGER ELIZABETH F WING TRUST 532 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 10205 6125 GREENWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 1ONTE SERENO, CA 95030 :ANK MIDWEST N A BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP BASSI PETER A AND BARBARA J 1996 111 MAIN ST#2800 1616 ORCHARD AVE FAMILY TRUST ANSAS CITY, MO 64105 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 18 CHANNEL VISTA NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 ;ERG KRISTOFOR BIG BOY LLC BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST 02 FOUNDERS PL#202 106 S MILL ST#202 10780 NAVAJO WAY ,SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OREGON CITY, OR 97045 ;OMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BOSELY MARY ANNE REVOCABLE TRUST 601 HIGH DR 1555 WASHTENAW PO BOX 26 11SSION HILLS, KS 66208 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 ROUGH STEVE B& DEBORAH A BRYAN ROY MD PA PROFIT SHARING BULKELEY RICHARD C&JULIE J 99 TROUT LK DR PLAN 600 E MAIN ST#401 ANGER, CA 93657 5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 EDINA, MN 55439 :ALHOON THOMAS C CANTINA BUILDING LLC CAREM LLC 15 LAVACA ST PO BOX 1247 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FL ,USTIN,TX 787013036 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10065 :ICUREL CARY CITY OF ASPEN COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 615 N LAKEWOOD 130 S GALENA ST 2026 N MOHAWK :HICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 :OMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P 111 MAIN ST#2800 PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 :ANSAS CITY, MO 641052154 BASALT,CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 :RUMMER KLEIN TITLE TRUST 2008 CWAREI LLC DANIELS SIMON B 305 N BEVERLY DR 3030 HARTLEY RD#350 431 E HYMAN AVE ;EVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32257 ASPEN, CO 81611 iIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC DML REALTY LLC DOCKEN ANDREW 690 HOMESTAKE DR PO BOX 305 101 N SPRING ST#106 ,SPEN, CO 81611 CHAVIES, KY 41727 ASPEN,CO 81611 )ONAHUE ELIZABETH DORAN RALPH EMCAR LLC 02 FOUNDERS PLACE #2302 2600 WOODWARD WAY 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FL ,SPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 NEW YORK, NY 10065 MPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY ERNEMANN ANDREW&ASHLEY FAREY SIOBHAN C 50% 925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D 39 POLECAT DR 7903 CURTIS ST ,ENTHOUSE 11 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 IIAMI, FL 33129 ELDMAN JONATHAN FESUS GEORGE J &SUSAN C FICKE FAMILY REV TRUST 00 OBERMEYER PLACE DR#102 PO BOX 9197 15 W ARRELLAGA ST#3 .SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-9197 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 IRST 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST FORTIER TIMOTHY FURTHUR CANCUN LLC ;ECOND 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST 601 RIO GRANDE PL#102 PO BOX 2199 ,0 BOX 8982 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 .SPEN, CO 81612 ;&G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC GALANTER YALE&ELYSE GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% 520 S GRAND AV#114 525 S ANDREWS AVE 1449 E 56TH ST ;LENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333012831 CHICAGO, IL 60637 ;LATHAR KIMBERLY J GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC GOLDFEIN MICHAEL ,0 BOX 12197 435 E MAIN ST 1724 BRAESIDE LN ,SPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 ;RAHAM NARELDA GRIMES DAVID L GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC 01 N SPRING ST#203 3510 BROMLEY WOODS LN PO BOX 4491 ,SPEN, CO 81611 GREENSBORO, NC 27410 ASPEN,CO 81612 =M PROPERTIES LLC HANEY PERRY L&SHEA NOREEN M HAUSER MARY JANE ,0 BOX 4146 5455 LANDMARK PL#408 1540 BOHNS POINT RD ,SPEN, CO 81612 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 WAYZATA, MN 55391 IENDERSON JAMES C HENRY WILLIAM STONE REV TRUST HICKS GILBERT W &PATSY K UCK KATHERINE M 3382 TURNBURY DR 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 880 HARLEM RD RICHFIELD, OH 44286 HONOLULU, HI 96822 ;ALENA, OH 43021 IOLLAND AND HART HUNTER ALEXANDER HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% ,TTN: CONTROLLER PO BOX 1638 PO BOX 2 ,0 BOX 8749 ASPEN, CO 81612 SONOMA, CA 95476 iENVER, CO 80201 IUTCHESON LAURA TRUST JARDEN CORPORATION JENSEN CARLY J 4 RAINEY ST PH02 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR 15 S WILLOW CT ,USTIN,TX 78701 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611 OSA LLC JURINE LLC 10% K&J ENTERPRISES LLC ,0 BOX 10147 PO BOX 2 601 RIO GRANDE PL#119A ,SPEN,CO 81612 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81611 .IMPLE 2004 TRUST KLEIN JAMES J &SALLIE R LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% 505 TURTLE CREEK BLVD#PH20A PO BOX 12022 1449 E 56TH ST iALLAS,TX 75219 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60637 ANE TAMMIE LARSON MARIA M LAZAR FAMILY TRUST :RUNSWOLD KIRK PO BOX 8207 5342 ALDEA AVE 01 RIO GRANDE PL#118 ASPEN, CO 81612 ENCINO, CA 91316 .SPEN, CO 81611 CC ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC LEBARRE FAM LLC LEITCH B BRYAN III 01 RIO GRANDE PL 7518 MIDDLEWOOD ST 2606 STATE ST ,SPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77063 DALLAS,TX 75204 EONARD FAMILY TRUST LESTER JIM LIEBOWITZ BRYNA S REV TRUST '0 BOX 710 395 SOUTH END AVE#29N 3 SUNSET SUMMIT ;ANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 NEW YORK, NY 10280 ASHVILLE, NC 28804 INDENAU SCOTT A REV TRUST LUCKYSTAR LLC MAESTRANZI ALEXA LEE 01 RIO GRANDE PL#104 PO BOX 7755 1736 PARK RIDGE PT .SPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PARK RIDGE, IL 600681311 1ANN KATHLEEN A REV TRUST 99% MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA 10 BOX 1455 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446% :ARBONDALE, CO 81623 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 1ARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTINEZ RITA 53 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR PO BOX 380 ;RAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81612 N 1CCUTCHIN GENE P MCGAFFEY FAMILY&CO O C LLC MILL& MAIN LLC 4833 MIDWAY RD 2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH 3235 HARBOR VIEW DR ,DDISON,TX 75001 SEATTLE,WA 98109 SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 11LLENNIUM PLAZA LLC MILNE SHEILA MOSCOE THOMAS D 0 BOX 1247 PO BOX 8286 14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD .SPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNETONKA, MN 553453718 1URPHY GEORGE W NEWLON LLC NGS LLC 0 BOX 4146 C/O DANFORTH 101 FOUNDERS PL#109 ,SPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1863 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 IGUYEN MICHAEL TAM NIBLACK SCOTT OBERMEYER 204 LLC )AO OANH KIM 101 N SPRING ST#3109 2727 ALLEN PKWY STE1400 30 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 816111560 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ,SPEN, CO 81611 )BERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC OSP LLC OLITSKY TAMAR&STEPHEN IBERMEYER PLACE SALES GRP LLC 101 FOUNDERS PL#104 PO BOX 514 15 AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 ,SPEN, CO 81611 >P LLC ORR KEITH PAM LLC 24 PARK CIR#6 4545 N STATE LINE PO BOX 4446 ,SPEN, CO 81611 TEXARKANA,TX 75503 ASPEN, CO 81612 'ARDEE JAMES LEE III REV LIV TRST PEARSON DOUG PITKIN COUNTY ,0 BOX 4153 101 N SPRING ST#3105 530 E MAIN ST#302 ,SPEN,CO 816124153 ASPEN, CO 816111518 ASPEN, CO 81611 'R ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC RAMOS WALTHER JR& MARJORIE R RAYTON RENEE ,0 BOX 1006 133 TALL TREES DR PO BOX 12104 ,SPEN, CO 81612 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 ASPEN, CO 81612 :10 GRANDE PARTNERS 88 LLC RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROCKHILL BRITTANIE 008 E HOPKINS AVE 5934 ROYAL LN#250 PO BOX 10261 .SPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 :OY ADAM C&SARAH G SATTLER SANDRA A SCHENKELBERG LLC 25 E MAIN ST#203 101 NORTH SPRING ST#3204 140 VISTA GRANDE .SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 :EGREST DAVID H SEYFFERT STEVEN J SHAPIRO FREDERIC M&SUSAN 606 STATE ST 102 FOUNDERS PL#201 101 N SPRING ST#3108 iALLAS,TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SINTA SCOTT SMITH GAILEN B FAMILY TRUST 840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 2872 520 S MAIN ST#178 'ARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 ASPEN, CO 81612 GROVE, OK 743443439 MITH GARY W SMITH H W III SMITH JAMES F&N LINDSAY 416 MT BONNELL CIR PO BOX 10914 600 E MAIN ST#302 ,USTIN,TX 78731 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -TAPLE GREGORY C 50% STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% TASTERS RESTAURANT INC 903 CURTIS ST 12738 W 84TH DR PO BOX 6211 :HEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ARVADA, CO 80001 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 RACY KATHLEEN TREDER CAROLE A TSE HOLDINGS LLC 25 E MAIN ST#202 101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 601 RIO GRANDE PL#120 ,SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 USCANA LLC UNIT 106 OP LLC UNIT 109 OP LLC 90% 01 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 106 S MILL ST#203 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 107 .SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816112497 ASPEN, CO 81611 INIT 5E OP LLC DBA BIG BOY LLC VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C REV TRUST VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC 06 MILL ST#202 1% 0490 ASPEN OAK DR ,SPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1455 ASPEN, CO 81611 - CARBONDALE, CO 81623 VAGAR RICHARD H WASKOW SUSAN A TRUST WELLS FARGO BANK 00 S SPRING ST#3 PO BOX 4975 C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX ,SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SERVICES PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 VELSCH SUSAN FLEET REVOCABLE WILSON FAMILY TRUST RUST 11/30/1983 13513 RIVERS RD 01 N SPRING ST#201 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 .SPEN, CO 81611