The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.122 E Durant Ave.0032.2012.ASLU0032.2012.ASLU 122 E. DURANT q 2735131 04 004 3 Commercial Design Review - - Â«ca'ou,1-0 5/ 18 . .. R 4 THE CITY_OF AsPEN FINANCE DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREF.T ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 1 Ad/lillilillillillill'll./..../.Ill.........IM .: External Media Located Here M-001140 ~ M-001141 ~ 11Â£-".-B M-001142 - 1., 142..1, .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0032 2012.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735.131.04.004 PROJECTS ADDRESS 122 E DURANT PLANNER SARA NADOLNY CASE DESCRIPTION COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE LUIS MENENDEZ DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4.9.13 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 5/3/13 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: | 2 2- E . P) C \ E AIOT , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) Â£ ffAC Q.1,16198.) A , 14.<Ap,Arf M (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V 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 fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official Paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. -1 -- Al, 0-#iklibj~~A~ttj.1,144.A- / Sigft*.-3 , % M i JAL#<BU j The fgregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknow*lg'td b?fote mt jillis ~ ~ day of (,/ t. r-3 PogTE - , 201-21 by ..9162 L/A-40j.... A.LKA<A 1*~ACA . r Vf c 7 -9932 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notice is hereby glven to the general public 02 1he I approva~ of a site spectic development plan. and 1 the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 1 24, AMIcle 68, Colorado Revised Statutes. pertain- Mycommission expires: 04+ / 1 -201< ing to the following described propeny: 122 E. Du- I rant Ave, Parcel ID 2735-131-04-004, by Commer- 23<lub gtda--2 cial Design Review, pproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution 17, Series 01 2012. The Applicant received approval for a re- model and expansion of the existing Hotel Durant. 1 The prolect includes the construction of a third h#tary Public story. and the add lion of approximately 35001 square feet. No ado,tional lodge units will be add- ed as a result of this approval, rather the existing rooms will be expanded and reconfigured within the lodge's Interior. For further information contact Sa ra Nadolny, at the City of Aspen Community De- velopment Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colo ATTACHMENTS: rado (970) 429-2739, COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 5/ city of Aspen Publish jn The Aspen Times Weekly on October ~ 18,2012.[8497320] .. DEVELOPMENT ORDER City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site-specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three (3) -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless the change is accomplished or a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site-specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number: Brian Schaefer, 970.618.9033 Legal Description and Street Address of Subiect Property: Lots P&Q, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, and Fractional Lots 6&7, Block 2 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen; 122 E. Durant Ave, Aspen CO 81611. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan: Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Commercial Design Review related to the remodel and expansion of the current lodge building known as Hotel Durant, located at 122 E. Durant Ave, Parcel No. 2735-131-04-004 in the City of Aspen. Land Use Approval Received and Dates: Planning & Zoning Commission granted approval for Commercial Design Review on October 2, 2012. Effective Date of Development Order: October 18,2012. Expiration Date of Development Order: September 18, 2015. (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 1 lth of October 2012. by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon Community Development Director City of Aspen .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02, 2012 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 122 East Durant - Hotel Durant Commercial Design Review 2 South Aspen Street 7 1 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02,2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Waiterscheid, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny, City Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer reminded the Commissioners about the State Planning Conference in Snowmass Village; the bulk of the conference was Thursday and Friday. November 6th is Election Day. LJ, Jasmine, Jim and Ryan said no to meeting on November 6th and agreed to meet on October 30th. Jennifer asked who was available for the meeting on November 22nd (Tuesday of Thanksgiving week) Ryan and Bert will not be able to attend. Jackie Lothian stated the City Attorney's office was having an Ethics Training Class on October 23rd from 10- 11 am; please send Jackie an email. Minutes - Bert said on the 18111 he asked a question about the cost of the hotel. Jackie Lothian explained that P&Z's job was not to review monetary things so we really don't comment on that. Bert said that is was stated by the applicant's and that was why he asked if they had a printing press for the money. Debbie said that it was still part of the record. LJ said that we hear from the applicant' s that we have to do it so why can't we ask for a Performa. Debbie answered because it was not part of the criteria from the land use code on which you make your decision and that can't be made as part of your decision. th MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from September 19 with corrections from Bert; seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Cliff said someone from the Hotel Durant contacted an associate of his and it did not change his thinking about it. Continued Public Hearing: 122 East Durant (Hotel Durant) Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Hotel Durant. Sara Nadolny entered Exhibit H into the record (a letter from Larry Mages, Lift One); she received this today and Larry said he has an issue with the glass. Sara said this was a consolidated conceptual/final review continued from August 21 st. 2 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02, 2012 Sara stated some issues from the last meeting that you asked the applicant to address were the calmness of the overall design of the building, forms and materials, to create a better relationship between the stair and the towers, create a better relationship between the decks of the front facade, the applicant was asked to showplans for the trash and recycling area and the commission was split on the desired roof form over the 4th floor story (gabled or flat roof). Sara said the number o f roo f styles have been reduced and relate better architecturally to each other and the materials have been limited and relate better to the overall design of the building as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Sara said the relationship between the towers has been achieved and reduced the height o f the front stair tower helps integrate with the rest of the building. To create a better relationship between the front decks the applicant has used some of the same glass material as the safety rail on both sides of the decks. They have carried the stone material to the east which balances off the front faQade and the roof over the side deck mirrors the roof over the west side and they opened up the sides of the deck which gives the design a lighter airier feeling. Sara said the applicant has agreed to bring the trash/recycling area up to code; they may have to redesign to be shifted to face the alley. Sara said the roof from and heights and at the last hearing the commission was split on the roof form; staff directed the applicant to provide 2 different designs that would depict a gable and flat roof over the 4th floor rooms. Comparing the flat roof to the gable roof will not allow the flat roof to be possible unless the 2 feet in height variance is allowed, which will bring the total height of the building to 40 feet. This additional 2 feet may be granted by the commission by this process of design review. Staff supports option 2 with the flat roof for the 4th floor because it better reflects the design of the building and adds less real height and mass to the building. The 4th floor is not visible from the street for this option and creates a better pedestrian environment and scale. Sara stated materials are a final design issue and the stone design turns the corner from the front faÂ¢ade and kind of abruptly to the east side and it affects the quality of application and looks more applied than the actual building; staff feels there should be a more definite point oftransition at this point. And after meeting Ken from the design team they have come up with steps to alleviate this and overall staff is pleased with this design. 3 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02, 2012 Bert Myrin said the trash is not against the alley and asked if our code provides direction for that. Sara replied it has to be 15 linear feet and it has to be turned to the long edge to face the alley and the reason is the intent is in the code. Bert said so the intent is there so we might need to change the code so it is clearer. Bert said in the memo you had concerns about the stone corner and asked how does the memo come out and then the applicant gets it and he asked if it was a secret that you are just assessing these things. Sara replied no sometimes it is just a matter of timing and that came out before the memo was written and the design team said that was also a concern of theirs and they were working on and the memo which came out first and that was why she said something about it. Jim DeFrancia asked if Sara had a view on the glass balcony. Sara replied that staff talked about using the least reflective materials as possible for the glass. Jennifer Phelan stated that this was the material that you are seeing throughout town using glass that is a material for the railing; staff thought that the materials that they were picking made the fagade a better overall fagade. Ken Adler used power point to show the changes as they were also exhibit F in the packet. Phil Ring said the owner Brian Schafer was also present. Phillip said that since we last met we have been able to address the concerns that were brought up and we are pleased with the progress made and done the best that we can addressing concerns and pleased that staff has recommended approval. Phillip recapped a couple of points that they are not capping their FAR, it is important for the hotel that we are adding amenities something to help finance the project which is difficult for you but needed for our financing. Phillip said one of the benefits of the project was the major energy efficiency improvements and have been working with engineers and the city electric department to maximize those efficiencies. Phillip said this was reinvesting in a lodging base in Aspen. The elevator moved away from the street and reducing the height of the stair tower and matching in pitch; simplifying the roof forms so they better relate to one another. Staff encouraged them to bring forward 2 options with the roof forms; a pitched roof form that will match the 38 foot zoning requirement and the 40 foot flat roof version that would require the variance approval from this board. Ken said that Sara and Phil covered it with the lowering of the stair tower; going back to the shed roof and tying the materials together and to pick up on that vocabulary on the front favade. Ken said additionally as Sara mentioned we made a few changes in response to that material turning the corner. Ken showed on power point the wrap of stone on the southeast only on the first floor and on the southwest getting rid of the glass rail with a half wall wooden material. Ken said 4 ReEular City Plan~niz & Zoning Meeting - Minute~0ctober 02,2012 they preferred the flat roo f version and it was actually 220 square feet less space o f the roof top deck and the flat roof ties in better with the surrounding buildings and the character of the building itself. Ken said if the commission felt the flat roof was better they had one small change to the back of the building at the stair tower and penthouse to gain about 50 square feet and are still under the FAR limit from 1400 to 1600 below the FAR limit. Cliff Weiss asked what is glass and what is not. Cliff said the balcony rails on the cover pictures are glass. Ken said that right now they don't know what those railings will be at the end of the day; they might be glass and maybe something else and will come down to a budget issue. Cliff asked ifthere was glass railing on the roof. Ken responded there was a little portion in the front and on the eastside; the addition of the sides eliminates the glass railings. Ken said they have pulled the railing back about 49~ feet back. Cliff asked what was the stone wrap all the way up or on the bottom stone with wood above; he asked ifthey preferred the flat roof. Phil answered they prefer the flat roof for a number of reasons: it will be less expensive to build; it will be far more energy efficient; it lays out better; the roof forms are much simpler than the gabled roof and you won't be able to see it from the street. Bert said the staff memo on page 8 (Resolution page 2) mentions the height allowances. Jennifer stated the actual underlying zoning allows a height of 38 feet which may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. Bert said the 40 foot was just more appealing. Sara replied that the Mountain Design Guidelines that she talked early about were these 5 guidelines to create a building with an overall energy efficiency; the 40 foot option creates a more pedestrian friendly environment. Jennifer said there were design objectives that this helps meet. Bert said on the same page number 9 do those encroachments become dedicated to the Hotel. Jennifer said for clarity right now there is no type of license; anyone can park there. Jennifer said they have the ability to ask for an encroachment license from the Engineering Department and that would be an exclusive encroachment license if it was granted. LJ asked what was between the hot tub and the south side of the building; is there a wall there. Ken replied that it was basically a 42 inch high roof, the entryway and the guardrail. Public Comments: 1. Paul Taddune thanked the commission for considering Larry Mages email; he was the president of the association. Paul read from Lift One 5 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02,2012 concerning the Hotel Durant increasing its height and installation of a recreation area on the roof across the street from Lift One. Paul said he met with Phil and Ken and they seemed to think that the hot tub hours could be limited to times, which would help the neighbors and the Hotel. Lift one does not want to see any additional height in the area because they were prohibited by City Council from having some increased height roof elements and having said that I think that everyone is in agreement that the flat roof works better for everybody. Paul asked about the solar voltaic panels on the roof and about the reflective material and the railings and glass on the building being reflective. 2. Mack Boelens asked if they were adding parking as well. Jennifer replied the same number of units were being proposed so the same parking was proposed. 3. Juana White lives across from the building and voiced concern for the hot tub on the roof and Brian said they were going to limit times. Commissioner Comments: Jim said it was a good project and enhances our lodging base; the applicant has shown some sensitivity. Jim said he was for option 2 which staff recommended. Cliff said they shouldn't have people in the hot tub late at night and it is probably a safety thing. Cliff said the solar panels are at a 12 x 3 angle so even if the sun hits those panels it will not reflect into the eyes of the units across the street. Cliff liked where the stone doesn't overlay all the way up and he likes a gabled roof but the neighbors like the flat roof and you say it is cheaper and more energy efficient so he will go with the flat roof. Stan asked the angle of the solar panels. Ken replied it was about 18-19 degrees. Stan said it just was not possible to reflect the sun back. Stan said the issue about the hot tub and the distance to Lift One and the city has a noise ordinance. Stan said he was sure there were treatments of glass to reduce their reflectivity. Stan said the flat roof was less massive for the neighborhood. Keith said that he was in support of the staff recommendation. Bert said that he could support Stan's suggestion about the reflectivity of the balcony railings and the stair towers. Bert asked staff is there was concern of the glass rooftop railings being more reflective. Jennifer responded not that we know of. Bert did not bring anything about the noise levels and time. 6 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes October 02,2012 Ryan asked from process to operation that if we recommend approval and you change a material how does that tie in with that approval. Jennifer replied there were minor changes that staff can approve; the railings and how they can keep the transparency with an alternative material and if it felt like it was really going away from the spirit of the approval we would send it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ryan liked the building and could support it. Jasmine said that she had nothing to add. LJ said he didn't think it was in their purview to impose a curfew on the roof top. LJ said with option 2 the flat roof was less offensive. LJ asked if we approve the resolution and then add an amendment about the glazing. Debbie stated there was a suggestion to add a condition to the resolution to add glazing be as non-reflective as possible and if they need to come back for a change there is a process to use. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend approval of the request for a commercial design review at 122 East Durant, Resolution 17-12, adding all South facing glass surfaces be minimally reflective, seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll Call: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Continued Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on South Aspen Street Lodge Conceptual PUD. Chris Bendon stated this was a continued hearing from last week, September 25th and during that meeting there was a request for some additional information, which has been provided and he will hand that out. Chris stated presented on the 25th was an amended site plan that shifted the parking garage entrance over to South Aspen Street because South Garmisch was unworkable. Chris recapped that this was the 3rd hearing and we are focusing on a conceptual PUD and focusing on the uses within the project, the site plan and massing with the idea o f presenting City Council points so they can go through that same exercise at a conceptual level and see if the project is workable and then it would come back in through final review for the specifics of architecture, parking ratio, more detailed review that this board is used to seeing. On the 25th we reviewed a summary of what he characterized as P&Z criticisms and suggestions for the fine tuning and he has incorporated the language into the resolution. Ideally this is a way for City Council with some guidance on the project that it more 7 . 0 1& P1 MEMORANDUM TO: 4 Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: October 2, 2012 RE: 122 E. Durant Ave - Commercial Design Review SPECIAL NOTE: At the first continuation hearing for this project (August 21, 2012), Planning and Zoning Commission members voted to again continue the hearing to a future date in order to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to revise their design plans for the remodel and expansion of Hotel Durant. Specifically, the Commission asked the Applicant to examine the project in light of the following issues: 1. Height. The design presented at the August 21St hearing met the 38' height limit for a lodge of the proposed density within the Lodge zone district by introducing a gabled roof design over the fourth story. Commissioners were divided on the preferred roof form for the fourth story (flat v. gabled). 2. Stair/Elevator Towers. The Applicant was directed to examine the north and south stair towers and the western elevator tower with the intent of creating a more integrated relationship between these elements. 3. Calm the design. The Commission directed the Applicant to revisit the design of the building with the intent of reducing the number of different roof forms and the number of different materials used on the building to create a calmer and more cohesive design. 4. Front facade decks. The Commission directed the Applicant to provide a better sense of relationship between the second and third story room decks on the east and west sides of the building's south faga(le to create a more balanced look to the front facade. 5. Trash/Recycling area. The Applicant was instructed to provide plans for the trash/recycling enclosure area at the rear of the building that is designed in accordance with the Land Use Code. In response to direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission the Applicant has submitted two new design plans for consideration that Staff has reviewed. The variation between plans focuses solely on the fourth floor roof style. In light of these new design plans, Staff suggests the following items be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission for points of discussion with the Applicant at the October 2nd hearing. 1 . 0 0 1. Height. Issues with the former design include the height of the stair tower at the front (south) facade, as well as the fourth story roof. The Applicant has provided a design that reduces the height of the front stair tower from 38' to 36' 6". The Applicant has provided two plan options for the roof of the proposed fourth floor. Option 1 (Figure A) includes a fourth story gabled roof which meets the 38' height limitation. According to the Code, a roof with a pitch greater than 7: 12 is measured to a point 1/3 the distance from the eave point to the ridge. Therefore, although the roof is physically taller than 38' in this option, it is in compliance with the Code. â‚¬ 4-24= , =* = Â· . :433.i?LtUOQ./Â·i: ft- - .0. Imi*131: A-c di U!--- -2 44 7 I~- 4 ..A VpriA 2 2. . t - 'Â· .9 't: #. 4 -4 . 19,1- 4-2, 47.LE.- - 4TJAM..4*~3-5-Rt' A<WLil\ 12'2 -All- 90 <~ Leer: 12< ~ 4:/4,-2-v ~ r..912.11.11&1 '0" 1., 7 1 9 ..1.. i 4,/90 - .59X -~L - 2,6'.: REW.' All//0. . te crl, -129Â» I -2/ * ViDA'll'lilli Figure A: Optionl with fourth floor gabled roof Option 2 (Figure B) includes a flat fourth story roof, measuring at its highest point at 40'. This option would require the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase the height limitation to 40' for this design, which may be permitted through Commercial Design Review. 2 .. P3 ---2. .,â€žJiFF,3.-325: 1 - .4 -; -- : t-47'tulf;,=24==7 4#jÂ¢ Ead"".Ill~.;ie.-~ trial - ...:4.#.*.7.0, hi~42*6 -11%; 8 ."/ Â· 44/1/'/Imiio4t -349 , - . 2 . P.2 4 '11 4 1 I ? I . . 1 : ~141 '.5 3,14*.'**32 - , .7, r ' .....,999 4- 1 Ilia - Â· .irt> 14 M 0Â·â€ž - e I .: -I- r. . 2. p .*4 0,411,1.h Y 7 '4Â«46'Â° 124 . 4.91 Â· ... .#R*gu-1.lei..... : 45. A- 4*9#Lic... 1,2 ...,1. : : #%52' .4 -.1,Il~ - Figure B: Option 2 with fourth floor flat roof 2. Roof forms. The consensus between Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission at the August 21St meeting was that the design presented included a variety of roof forms that did not relate well to each other within the design, and created a busy feeling to the building. The Applicant has responded by presenting a design that includes roof forms which better relate to each other. Slope-style roofs are used on the front stair tower and cover the balconies on the south, street facing faâ„¢le. A sloped roof has been added above the third floor balconies on the east side of the south fagade which compliments that found over the west side balconies on the same fagade, creating a more balanced look to the building's front. The pitched roof found over the elevator tower compliments the slope style roofs used elsewhere. As discussed previously, two different roof styles are proposed over the fourth story rooms - flat and gabled. 3. Materials. The proposed design has reduced the number of different materials used on the building's facades. This reduction helps to create a calmer building. Also, the Applicant has used the same glass material for the guardrail on the front balconies, creating a sense of balance on the building's front faâ„¢le. A light color palette is maintained in order to help reduce the perceived mass of the building. 3 .. P4 2*. -:= 32433 ' - Ibidi, 1, Ii:*0.1 ~7.--fr - . - 1l , 9 4 - C iâ€¢Â·Â· 76 4 6 Â· + si , **M . $1 ..14 - 4.17..4 - , :1 T , 1.. r / :PÂ·t . 4,4â€¢: 6,1: - 4 ., 103 1.> - . 7 I - ., . 1, ttr...4 .. . I. E. t.: 1 r 1 â€¢e- 4@*k?*Â· -- .:~ 3'IffÂ·Â·Â·4- ' ' . 1 1, :' Iii!d111|I'll/*04Â· â€¢ â€ž I '1111'W"11Â·,~, I I I I Figure C: Materials on front fagade, as seen on Option 2. 4. Trash/Recycling area. The Applicant has proposed a trash/recycling area along the alley at the north fagade of the building that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code, measuring 15' long and 8'6" wide, and will accommodate the trash and recycling needs for the lodge. STAFF DISCUSSION: Staff feels that there has been marked improvement in the design of the building as compared with the designs presented at prior hearings. In response to feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21St, the Applicant has created a design that better reflects the pedestrian scale, is more balanced with its fagade materials and roof forms, and meets the criteria as outlined in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The current design includes a front stair tower that is slightly reduced in height, which aids in creating a more pedestrian friendly scale. The wider entryway and doors to the upper floor patios on the western side of the building's front fagade help in creating a lighter, airier feel to the building, which is further enhanced by the use of light colored materials, the glass safety guards on the balcony, and the open sides of the balconies. The design has been calmed by the reduction in the number of materials used on the facades as well as the roof forms. The perceived linear massing of the front stair tower was a major 4 qj*i ' .. P5 The design has been calmed by the reduction in the number of materials used on the facades as well as the roof forms. The perceived linear massing of the front stair tower was a major concern of Staff's during previous iterations of the design, and has been alleviated by the reduction in height of the current design as well as the fagade treatment. Staff is concerned with one aspect of how the materials are used on the = afcÂ« url ~ ,/'/.:.. r. :r V ': building. The quality of the exterior b Mme/ -1 + materials and detailing should be . ~.~,t ~,~~# 4 21 0 . -1.;~-f*-1 9 0 consistent around the facades of the 0,11 4*8; , ~..:401 . building that are visible from the - 11 g 11 street. T' T lill Staff is concerned that the stone , < veneer that is proposed for the front , fagade of the lodge terminates too , abruptly as it turns the corner to the & 4 east facade. To maintain the quality 4 of how the materials are applied to , 4Â£ 1-.419 the building, we recommend that it 1 4"11 billi ' 11 11 + 9111%41 11 - 1.-1111 8* be extended further back along the 1 111:1, sides of the building and a stronger + d 411111 -Liri"fi'":,<l~&I concept for transitioning to a stucco &T~ va'* Air"':' ' ''" li '1 material be developed in order to 4 P~ ~ h,1 "11 9Â«i '' '4'~144'#9 present the stone as a substantial Figure D: Stone material wraps front building's front to east side. building material rather than a thin applique. Staff feels overall that the improvements in the design serve to create a lodge that better reflects the goals of the Mountain Base Character Area, adds to the City's lodge base, and compliments the surrounding neighborhood. Staff supports the design, and is making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve Option 2, with the flat roof style over the fourth floor. Although this design will necessitate the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an additional two feet of height for the design, Staff finds this roof form to be preferred over the gabled roof as it is a more integrated design and better compliments the slope styled roofs found at the building's front faga(le, and is less visible from the across the street. Furthermore, Staff finds the gabled fourth floor roof option to add height and mass to the building. Due to the way the gable-style roof is measured, this design meets the Code's height limitation for the Lodge zone district. However, it measures at just below 45' at its apex. The flat-style roof in Option 2 measures at 40'; however the flat roof minimizes height and mass created by the fourth story. 5 e 0 *NA#r .. ?5 I Z~' '4% 9~ ..1Â¥ 1 - A 3 . i.....2.'T#:71'7*Zy':- :45%. j./.- .7=73--'-I- 7- . - 4,1,2 ---- AL .1 -- 0 102+~-1 ./........ 5% 90 6 1*Jib~ili.it lit. bub--A/- ~2'6'7~ Uniwit#U #'I~~i . . ..M.Â· Bummm,Mi.ZO , 4- 311 ?3 70 1 /ma&*1*Â·112â‚¬ ~/ .... -4.,63*71 -. m 12,1 ...Wb=.A,%4- 4 U 2Â¥ , f %7 40*UN>*av, -ir---i------- -.; ~ya j~fk. C m-, .Â· A. Evt v. Â· -7~43*6.f.-t~~ . -: ' r ..#*. 4, .2 2.Â· MY Â· 8%311/4---:- 3444 :... ' ak:.0=.19'44.12.Â·fhcl.,L V.,W - . ifil/6&7 1-*.'7: --.LAA<Â· ..~4 44'~*~Â·'-': . I. 48:. 1 y. LE-349{2.ii:124$444*Â·f~~~ 11.14;j~1.' r{â€ž - ; 1~'-~~~~~~ A- 22,392*'./1 , 1 ' 14 24.Â·2â€¢eÂ·AC.. 1 -i'. Â¥r......4,ifY . m .ti:-rÂ·' ~*!.:I#; S.Â· Â· <1 '. , Â·. 'Â· E,Iâ‚¬~. 14 2.:,2.1=14- . 0 Â¢2*.. j;:8#%27 . 4*â‚¬334 Â·: IE"" < -'. 4 4. Wi.fe A. 1,~ 1 - Ii. 1 ~ ~ rk! Mu-<94Â·~ fla 'r.Â·'Â·r;;?b'*9 %'- IM--/4$. - i . h~Â· -,/ - eÂ·-4,/In'/% 1/1- . â€¢r.,Â·~-i'l,-, A ,,,1' ,'1Mpli'll,Â· i: Figure E: Option 1 (left) and Option 2 (right), side-by-side comparison. Staff prefers Option 2 with the flat fourth StOIy roof form that is not visible from the street. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application for Commercial Design Review, and recommends approval of Option 2, with the flat-style fourth story roof. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the request, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Commercial Design Review Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards Exhibit C - Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Exhibit D - Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines Exhibit E - Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines Exhibit F - Application Addendum, 9/27/2012 6 - .. RESOLUTION N~ (SERIES OF 20121-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN FOR LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND FRACTIONAL LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 2 OF THE EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS HOTEL DURANT, 122 E. DURANT AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-131-04-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hotel Durant LLC (Applicant), represented by Phillip Ring, RDS Inc, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Commercial Design for a remodel and expansion of Hotel Durant; and, WHEREAS, pursilant to Chapter 26.412 of the Land Use Code, commercial design review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 2, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended approval of the consolidated final commercial design with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a hearing regarding commercial design review initially on August 7, 2012, and during a continuation hearing on August 21,2012. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Commercial Design Review, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for the Hotel Durant building, subject to the conditions listed below. Sectionl: Approval of the consolidated Final Commercial Design does not preclude meeting other requirements of the Municipal Code, such as Engineering and Parks standards. Drawings illustrating the approved design are attached as exhibits to this Resolution. Section 2: The building will be increased by a 0161 bf-3,Â¥1*#rhe unit count will remain unchanged at 20 units. The building shall be complkaht=4 iensional standards of the underlying zone district. *,i f 'JU 0-4 .. P8 Section 3: Building Height The building is approved with an additional two-foot height allowance, bringing the total height from 38' to 40'. This allowance is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission per Section 26.710.190(D)(8)(d) Maximum Height for the Lodge zone district in the Land Use Code. Section 4: Public Amenitv Space The approved public amenity space shall comprise 1,905 sf, or 31% of the total requirement, to be maintained on-site. The public amenity space will consist of a landscaped green area at the front and sides of the property, with a table and bench seating. Section 5: Trash/Recycling The trash/recycling area exists off of the north *ade alleyway. This area will be improved to meet the standards of the code as a space that is a minimum of 15 linear feet and can accommodate one trash dumpster and at least four recycling collection bins. Section 6: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements when a building permit is submitted. Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The design must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements. A construction management plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. Section 8: Sidewalk Curb and Gutter All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A final grading plan depicting the improvements in the right-of-way must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to building permit issuance. Section 9: Parking Parking that is within the public right-of-way will not be dedicated to the Hotel Durant without issuance of an encroachment license. Section 10: Parks Landscaping in the public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way requirement, Chapter 21.20, of the Municipal Code. There shall be no plantings within the City right-of-way which are not approved by the City Parks and Engineering departments. Per Municipal Code 13.20, an approved tree permit will be required prior to any tree removal or development within the drip line of the tree. All tree permits must be approved prior to approval o f building permits. 2 .. P9 Section 11: 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). Section 12: Public Works 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. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 13: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 14: Environmental Health 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. Section 15: Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 16: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees, as applicable. The amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section17: 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. Section18: 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. *l ud_ Luol quu# 4 Aa' 164 *U 4 RA nlp jbi l<z VE ,_- 0r~6Â·lt UL-%,Lf- sk, d 3 4% ?14*0 Â«Â£0A K #d-lfg 8*A~- .. P10 APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on October 2, 2012. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A- Site Plan Exhibit B- Elevations 4 .. Pll Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan Edge 0/Gm,Jel - ----- N Grriwel Allet, w-~-E Existing A/Crondensee te S Remain- No additional Me<h E+Lip. Proposed aiong Alley -- 8 7 FL=-==4, f -'1&,r + +Silit * 'r--7 r-' L + B 7'1- - - Gilanded 4 + nal v ... Â·Â·,-w_ L 1 - Readding/ 6 i. 4 /1/wde :/31 ~ Concrete 4, p Enclosed -; r Â· Driveway Fre Roo 0 +8/ J + E 400 , .+ A . I 1 9%,1.. - . 77;j*Ng:1% 2 : - (~ El i 2 t + e : 1 +1 + = *1 1 1. - U 2647-!-4, I g ,.01 4 p .... I i I| i XI ,rv~ 10. f u. i- 4 .* ~Â·r~.?Â·01.k-F+1 .> *Irl< ~0T7rf & 1 + Retaiang Adjoiwr 1././ 8 1 4 L. 2. .% /h won f *629 :4-ll LIi j r + 11 + * 1 1. IVIW . / V 4-1 * * ' / N r- oe@\1 1 At.4. - 0/res<. Ill Fip + I. t,- 12 - + 4 1,- 4 4.1 6 ..2~41 f y ... V f . J. Con..ete 4Â· 4 .1 4. 1/- Retaining -1,1 ' .4â€¢/ Wall ROOF ABO E. O,2 -L--1 h +1 2 . + Uâ€¢ V I ./-3 4.1. Hold Durant 4 Story Houd I 1,1 P.C . 1 22 E. l)umni Street - 1 P 1- 6 1..._, 4.1. .-1 I . -'.1 AJ-1 - WF L-'i F -<f Hi/ E-- .. I' 4 - r: - + . 1 41 + r-r- : = -41 1 r + R~t 4 L .1 r -1 4 4. 1 '19 Â» I ...1.~r--------k ..... 4 . + :-*Lreon=*TY#* I 9- p4. / 1 1, 14*' ------ --1 7 -, - - - - - -rn --v Â· ' -... 9~Â£40:49.1 7...%.:bitft* +.. Ir--LI.2.51,)41.Xi ,~ ~+ 4 1 7 New Concrele Side*walk, Â· â€¢ (brb & Outler Concreice Sid<,umik \ Existing(â„¢wei Areato be Paped Aspholt- - fo nech Sreet per Hngineer ng Depr 055 Eximing 3/mante, I East Durant Ave. iwls 31/Â·il'{33 009 6 UJea'ah Ar M..7,!r,Â·r Acces ", 1 ~/ APPROX 21'-0" ~ P13 Resolution Exhibit B-1 South Elevation FI FVATOR TOWFR FXCFFDS /----HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 10' NOTE: SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ALL PRIMARY MASSES J 40'ABOVE GRADEAS MEASURED @FRONT ~-- PLANE OF BLDG.-APPLICABLE FOR 30' K-r mi tt -Ii-- it r -li iii 2 ~- ..77.7. 1 ' 1*â€¢L .-9.21 r Â· Rl,.. , d.......;.*-;ClÂ·/L. , -4~2- 1 / -Â·IF Mt'-4.34-32 :.7%19~I- '. 1 ~ Â· /lk/*..2-Â· .Â·I ' '._3:, +.. - 4%22Â£11- t' 4%~~ 'w . i. - 1 .1 mil :;a=UbB:/ 22-agies.aa: cltaciak].$-3 'll/, T.O.ROOF DECK/. 1~ --1351/ l/.3~6712}Ff---ffr//Il//1//15 9,072*011'.7~:ir : 7.-7-Ft~---IMM- 11-]I-12-3 ~- - -- -15-Ea~ - U....1.,t _111-2L_11.--IL....ll - ' ' -1-i/&//,1 2.-Â·' =Â£..2 . -Il.'... --,*t-..... n-",fl --Â·Itti~~. f 71 4 - -AEIZe~~~ Aa Lb **t:=7' , il*El 3-m mi im -~4*2*]rmr--k= Mi:.=U---44 92@24 8'-10" 22 A _.â€ž.... .-'90EJLiTEÂ¥3[7ETrrzzy-*ar = -~ r 41 *- 16,L".- Â· .Â·Â·Â·Â·: Â· Â·- Â· 4 /=2 Â·-ir-TJ;int Ir- m-7-7 i_ ---Â·Â·-ur - 26/5629? .. 'Â·k:= .:,-Â· lifl - -f..-<R..~: i.j' ~ ..~.dE 131 Â«Â» Â· k ;~- ~C~ZaNG~hS~~~GmEnS~..%lE* T.O. FIN. FLR.- THIRD L~(~:Li~ .,%- 1â€ž-:1,=111 --11.52* ril m_JL 8'-7" '21 @ laa 1 7-lr . - 'kit; ti?. '-L L F- ZE 5- 1-Â®TE- .P frpr. ---Al#611.490=r---ZIE" ,...4-1..'rEF-Â·Â· zi- -Â·2=*... .99:i j 44&- 3 0 Flki._FLR,- SECOND_LEVEL_~ J~. ,~.fr2-0,Â·-2~1-T~-11 ~~Ic--~~'~ ~~7 *C.Â·Â·Â·Â· - Le,Â·Â· . -, Miw - . ifie.il 01= .-az-/WEBA---=17-7 108'-7"'- 12--11 -IN-0/1.lip'/Imil'lillia Er== 1, I -1==121 Â· Â·- ..pr-Na:J[*==21 L_ .-2.â€žÂ«.......2.. 2------ '.-=JO- 0/ 0 11--1 8'-7" ipir- 1 E .7 =14.\40 S T.O. FIN. FLR.-LOBBY LEVEL~ . . 31:25(A 100'-0.VI/ -7& a ..1 f V. ==M : JL 1,- '11Â¤1 - ! ____1/ a. 1 V- -=#6-,Â«2 - K=:31. - -1 / JE@4= .Ii. ,----- -- fÂ»*totoÂ«~1<~p,34<tt>jlÂ«%%%%34%9fjiÂ«%41Â«23%24%9 / ..4\V//40\V///\\V//11\Ny//A\Xy//.A\~y//al\V//Al\,7/ 19,//AL.V//.4-\V//A\V//26Â» Â· */2\7 3/ 6. \V//6\\000//492'//A\V//A\: //A\V//.A\V//5~4~~5~17//A\V//A\V///,\\vy//7.\V, f 26997Â«449Â«6*<493*4693%469*14$94 4(44**3344Â«3fit *349919,9/ f ~ T.O.FIN.FLR. BASEMENT/lb -----ill--I---i-----I.li-l- il*-- -- EX.ISTING GRADE AS MEASURED @ FRONT PLANE OF BLDG. TO REMAIIN- INDICATES MOST RESTRICTIVE GRADE P14 ResoluÂ®n Exhibit B-2 North<Elevation f 92 -- lhâ€ž, - Â¥ Eâ‚¬ -214 1 L=-- I.*.. .*4!*.f:Ll?tdk - ti -il .4-Â·- Oblj.i,?;c;:~Â·.*iii.AkÂ¢4)FJ:Â·-/V.a.. 43,7.4'*- .-- p.. ' L . . ..... 11.-W......1. :â€ž.1.1..... -I T.O. ROOF DECK.. - - - -,4-1/12Â£L ~Â«rm97<?f~I#Â·'Â·'.#04 . r .7154Â©- -161...... i - -- 126%0 ..V lili-' 1 4.7 -,t;<Tath &09&01=..,*:1 2 11 L., 18* .4- -'~ --.~ ~ ~. 03Â·~-1.*4'.~Â·.~Â· t\-t-Â·-~-:-Â·~Â·Â·'.~ 4Â·'..i) =MAâ‚¬9*t 4%0Â®* IAI -yEtk'' fizz .-*#.: :- . b. 423:- - * Â· - 1. Â·Â·'..Â·..~Â·â€¢.'â€¢Â·t-Â·Â·Â·t-,-: %2~Â·â€¢i:â€¢.Â·â€¢.0Â¥9.;di;..96.6Â» 8'-10 439' ~ ' ...~Â·.1(Â·04-1 - ~~*44 Â· .'-0/0--D/Â·~'tÂ·- 3 1(:9--SiMâ‚¬*t!4&0.-*2:#, 4-lt*fAL- . -28.'. ~jti- '' ''' * - - -bltry .2~Â·. Â·Â·:-Â·.-?p.-Â· Â·&2_GA* ' i' 1.02-~tÂ·Fl-)1-4.1....... 9EEK'~+~=54:-;:3 T.O. FIN. FLR.-TI IIRD LEVEL,h .,[_ -I 'a.~ L 1 .-Â·~ ~I V Â· i : * ct 1-1/ -Z 1 -6 i. r~,t. 1- 14 *)M.... iL:-/2 1 M. t.l :~' 14' '.Â©I:X. 2 (..IN.--i:Â·-i~';'0 0-/ <)1 '11 1. ILl -, , # t,i_ r "ILL,t I .Â·,Â·: r.Â·,-Â·~~:.46,1- ,1 .:Â· Eâ‚¬.94':â€¢ 4-*4-'34.4:XM# -Â·01Â·3-833.-:.i.-:fÂ· 960*filt)45;E,Â·{%Â·. ' 0 1 '1 L ! -1 ' - - 73,1. '. 6 2 'Â·UW ''' ,Â·LU..ttl-Â·f.I~Â·Â· *~ElÂ¥Â¢Ijlpy*R.:i.~ -- -- - -- T.O. FIN. FLR.- SECOND LEVEL ,- 108' 7"vi,/ 441'~~' i~,0 221(f,~ 1 45 7.,, - ... i.'.-: Â· %.~%:*'..El*'.Â¥.F: - 8'-7" - . i.:*, , ..:.Â·.~Â·~- ':i:Â·.:>.,-Â·, . ~8.F.9:~-'tib?Â©:~~Jt:.:9 6 2:: . 2~~.. u ' . ~ ' '-~'-~': 5FÂ¥59Â©9""'4'::D- :6.-3,Â·'i'~Â¥ -- 9Â·i.,1.....7.1. .1.i=.?21..:.,Â·.-. ~*494*941!~iti~f.*Â·Eli,-44 T.O. FIN. FLR. LOBBY LEVEL/â€¢h .,1 11 r . r -100'-O"VU B ~24,/41 -'c''~-~Â·pÂ·Â·1?.4 .1.t:: ,.ze'"..~~#24:(Il.'~f -=mi .t A - 04440%5.- Â·' LAM<*.4.tÂ»93 4 i r th r. .ff &37// 4 49'/ckÂ«r /'6 4 //Â»7/> A f /949,390-Zv f rANy #, ~3,7/xt\V/Â»<61.>I//AN //6\97/6X>7/Â«N~~>X.'CA\V'//,<Â«9'//,6\%7',6,9/2<0Â»//>Â« ~Â»2/1~>~~i~~ -- 0. 0 . P15 Resolution Exhibit B-3 West Elevation HEIGHT AS MEASURED @ FRONT PLANE OF BLDG DORIVERS CN EAST & VEST ROOF EXCLUDED APPLICABLE FOR 30' FROM FRONT HEIGHT OF ELEVATOR TOWER-MEASURED FROM HE GHT CALCULATIONS AS FOO-PR NT 7,r-33 -- TC HALFWAY POIN- OF EAVE-ALLOWED TO - OFDORMER E LESS TI-AN 50%OFROOF EXCEED HGT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 10' PLANE & R DGE IS NOT HIGHER THAN ROOF HEIGHT OF STAIR TOWER ~ 40'ABOVE MOST HEIGHT OF S-AIR -OMER MEASJREDTO HALFWAYPO NTOF ~ 12 12 ~RESTR CTIVEGRADE MEASURED TO HALFVÂ¢AY PO NT O-- EAVE- ALLO'*ED -0 EXCEED HGT 47- . x:34 ~ OF EAVE-ALLOWED TO EXCEED LIMIT BY LESS THAA 10' HGT. LIMI- BY LESS THAN 5' ----- r Â¥ â‚¬- "- k :44'-3 3/16' 12 /\ . - /1/-â€žgrl- 1 ~1 94 -1 \\ 1 . -* 1.42 - -1/1 'i', 4:*4 0- Z . 11.'-al'~ 36'-6 ~13/16" . Â·4 * I + 1 CIZIL-22% -1 T.22 - C]OF CECK/aâ€ž ' 262/pl/I~ T_1.F'11 ~fÂ·LE --1EP LEVEL/. , ./MIL-- a;' fÂ·'~:-32Â· *-95.,; 4, i 8-10" Â£ 21 Â· .:-,Y/ I .' ---~ f. &1. L-.P .1.2.:...74*-2-ri - 1.1 4.- -44.....74~. ~44 ~,4:-Â·.-4.4.%.i L 3' -5 3/ 16' 11Ri,W Â£21-3 3/8" v /:(Â·-4-Â·'.#:Â· <.Â· Â·Â· ~ Â·1Â·.~....I:Â·.7..Â·Â·i':LiÂ·--.- Â·Â· -Â· Â· C. 9 3:7401-014 - - 2/GE.4.il=,~4.-24'2 39'-31/2' IZIEIZI-- 11Â· Â·0Â· -.....I- *15%'..'t-'25% ... ~64:Â·â‚¬1, i?,1,:!1 '4#K I 1 1.t 39'.2 13,16" 01 711 0-/ EIGHT O= .2-168#f .'.Â·~Â·i'i~A.'f'.'Â·-'~Â· .OOFTOP 1Â»at ..:Â·-,.:. c.Â·Â·. ~.-Â· 110.FIN.f R-SEC )NDLEVEL~ , MEA -UNED TO D~~4,~;.~~ --*!A - -3--, 0 '08'-7' - TOP D PARAPET p../ I *h tr*0 935391- 2,4*4..0 61 9 1 1 1=21=C==2=31 IC ..: 0. 15%01 4,2 23-/ 11.1 21.1 -11- 1 7 --6v-''f=~3}.ft.) 4:#:I'~.:'~ ~'3: ..i#63Â·jÂ·t.. 6.--:r;.32(1-0.,......I ~. t .: t, 0 'a631 - ~ T.O- uN. LE.-LOBBY LEVE[-t. 1,- :(leo-,v Â· 1.fit.44.2.' 1 4.. -P--- s /.,Â«N / \A //A \>r//8 -y//.>tf>//f>,<fo>/>93%>//4 -Ir , , gx\I AcÂ«y / ACÂ©U// 6 \<7//4Â»//~S>,/aff//,O~,/1 0% .Ny//244///Â»4 // fÂ«//44/24>9943.2/1/449429//477/62///4////ftÂ« 1/kÂ«y//gUy//6\9/ 42 f//4Ny //tx \ L- EXISTING GRADE TO REM.AIN- ~Â»/72*~7<9*099>76&~//Â«V//44Â·3>~//xÂ»y/2**4~4*Â«2Â«*,**:f~0624<645~~ 49 *00'**~*~~,Â©*~m ~~Â»04y~~ 4,~~ k 9//m/4/If INDIC,ATES MCST RESTRICTIVE GRADE <x>y/,bay,7 ~Â»Â·i,Â»x>Likxy~~~9<xy/96.- 477>.7//4Â©<y// T<y//Ati>//2337//.Â« 4,//:Â« 1,<~ix i,xq,<yr/ ry,1,Â£ff~,90(9470<Rft/Â·$\ -4/,R~~27 i~~3~~~7(4~~~~~~,~~~#,3L - T.0. FIN. FLR.- BASEIVENT,h ---- ---- - I --- P16 Resolution Exhibit B-4 East Elevation 12 12 NOTE : SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR ACCURATE BUILDING HE IGHTS OF ALL P HIMARY MASSES --met~m~ 49*5Â¥*2<S~ 12 12 -.0.029.-am// -Illillill-li---Il---I-li--illill----lillill--Ill-jÂ£-r#k. 4 Cy=- -101*~~ -"ipt;irE~ .--I.- 1" U. 3/. - I- :4 / TO RODFDE 1 1 4-Tin 4,1.,9331 1 8'-10 -1 -1-7, 11 4 ,, 61[%. TO :IN FLE-THED-E E 117'-I Â·- r rarlr- h -'' , 2 -2 ' 3.:~-17Â·. 1Â·: ~ | 'i ., ..t, >.~-: . . 8'-7" I r - JL -I-- .. -24 . . . 7 1..11.11. 5-4-4-_-_-_-_ O =114 FLR - SECOND _EVEL/IA 1381- 4-W 1 119-11 . , C=3[22 ... 3/:r Q'* :1.; 414~~.~.5.Â·:,->~~:~6~-3,~'e~~j:.-~ f~~~~~~~:2 . /'|2 . 1. .1 1.11 A r I.--Â·2Â·-â€¢--7-TT--- I 44 1 - Â·Â· - -C . -â€¢mle...6..6-6eJÂ·-/U I .. 8'-7 " r--11 - 1 Le 'i -- 7777" ' tÂ·.777 Â·- ----7 1 - : -7.f 7. '.-77 'Â·' --7=- -- IL - - T-OFIN 12-10Â®7 =%30 3% 0" y /4 <Â»Â»8Â»Â»tr ..z'--tÂ·;ijJ,i~~4#EPAbD:,,pr.- ~â€¢~ ,~â€¢,~~â‚¬1,â€¢# 6 11' 1- -t ....1 -1..... 1 4 -i~ 19: '//Â»649//Â»67//A Xy 70\Cy/1/39Â»9434 Â· .---- .1 44*7<424*X , - . ....,=1 ...tÂ·.gtir :i'Â·I-G-:~ i.s-,59.;5.1 'U. PEI...rÂ·:pit:-dtÂ·'L:,h Li-t.r.'Â·'4'.4. 11.--i Â·:..L:fÂ·ira:r:././. I'll t.9 7,4///,02///,967-//tÂ»k, 9/7647,//417//07//Aky - 4,6>.4/;49~,%*24Â»Â»Â»4/i'/94%421~731;'Af,~~'/3ft9%404,9'1 â€ž649776<Ty# TLit<tftÂ»,44%432~ ~ v,>A<' tv ''' 1, ,#a,v.<a,v<.i v#câ‚¬z'.Lot<=...â€žpfre.je..,aÂ«'.at*%2444142446434Â«aÂ«Â«2>â€ž< Â»,$<<.2,5<4*3,v~&42*5364$*Saff<$26:4$i /4/ 4\9 ./ 61\9 //x 9// Â£7\9 // 1379 11 *<19 /5/19: - TO FIN FLR-EASEMENT/. - - - ..Ii - Ij-li - ~ 2 1 to.'11 .. P17 Exhibit A Section 26.412.050 Commercial Design Review Commercial Design Review Sec. 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justi fy a deviation from the standards. Sta# Response: The proposed development meets the requirements of chapter 26.412.060 of the Land Use Code. The development includes an appropriately designed public amenity space that will contribute to an attractive pedestrian atmosphere. The trash/recycling area has been redesigned to meet the standards found in the Land Use Code, requiring 15-linear feet of space for trash and recycling. The development will include signage and lighting that will respect the Suggested Design Elements, as found in chapter 26.412.070 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fa~ade ofthe building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The proposal does not include the conversion of an existing structure to a commercial use. It exists currently as a lodge, and the additions will not change the use of the property. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: Stafffinds the proposed design meets the Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base Character Area. The design provides a sense of human scale that is aided by the reduced height of the southern stair tower, the relationship between tile decks on either side of this front stair tower, the location of the elevator on the second half of the western faqade, and the openings on the side of the westernmost balconies, which help to create a lighter feeling. The 1 .. P18 Applicant has created a relationship with the use of materials and roof forms between the decks that is complimentary and creates a sense of balance for the building. Furthermore, the reduction of the front stair tower by nearly two feet reduces the linear mass of this portion of the building. The front entrywity door and the doors to the second and third story rooms from the decks on the west side of the front faqade have been widened which creates a lighter, airier feeling to the building. The proposed design continues to meet the Mountain Base Character Area criterion for public amenity space, building setbacks and orientation, street level character, and materials. Sta#Jinds this criterion to be met. 2 .. P19 Exhibit B Section 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards See. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: As the current lodge exists, there is 2,282 sf of on-site oven space, representing 38% of the total parcel. This has not been officially designated as public amenity space. The Applicant has proposed a designated public amenity space of 1,905 sf, which represents 31% of the total parcel. The majority of the proposed public amenity space will be located along the Durant St fagade. This area will contain a bench and table seating, and will be landsc(wed with native vegetation. The Applicant further proposes to install a new sidewalk along the Durant St faÂ¢ade, continuing the existing sidewalk to the east, and ending at the property's western edge. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged, Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to contain public seating and a table. The majority of the space will face south, which will serve to maximize solar gain, and will have a view of Shadow Mountain to the west. It will be directly accessible with an at-grade relationship to the street and proposed sidewalk extension. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Stajf Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the public amenity space, which will receive maximum solar gain for the area, and is directly accessible by way of Durant St. The Applicant further plans to include a bench and table seating in this space. These 3 .. P20 characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Jinds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by mails, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate any existing pedestrian space. It is proposed as a lawn space and paved pathway with a seating area to the west side of the property. The proposed public amenity does not detract from the pedestrian environment, but rather enhances the environment by the provision of landscaping, public seating anci a large buffer of green space between the building and the street. To further promote a successful pedestrian environment, the Applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along this property that currently exists to the east. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: No variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity is sought. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The current trash/recycle area is located on the north side of the property, along the existing alleyway. According to the City's Environmental Health Dept staff, the existing area measures 10'x10'. Chapter 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycling service areas, of the Land Use Code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. Environmental Health Stafffurther recommends the Applicant provide at least four bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. Staff recommends this deficiency be remedied during the hotel's remodet. The Applicant has responded by providing an expanded trash/recycling area that measures 15' x 8.6'. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The location of all utility service pedestals will remain in their current location, which is on the northwest corner Of the property, along the alleyway. On July 5, 1979 a Multipurpose Easement was recorded for this purpose (8372P80, Rec# 216075) and will continue to be utilized. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4 .. P21 Staff Response: The hotel receives latindry service bi-weekly. Delivery trucks park along the alleyway for this purpose. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof, The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Stajf Response: All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end of tile building. Staff jinis this criterion to be met. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: All mechanical ventilation equipment will be ducted internally within the building and ventilated through the roof. The existing condensation units will remain in their current locations on the roof, recessed behind the parapet wall and not visible from the public right-of-way. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5 .. P22 Exhibit C Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the Mountain Base area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension that will enhance the pedestrian-friendly street edge. The Applicant is further relocating the building's primary entrance to more directly face Durant St, and is enhancing the environment with landscaping. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. 2. Provide a sense of human scale. Staff Response: Stafffinds the current design provides a sense of human scale. The stair tower at the southern faqade has been reduced to the minimum height that will allow access to thefourthfloor. This reduction in the head space for thefront stair tower greatly assists the human scale of the design. Furthermore, the Applicant has provided a more balanced design by reducing the amount of different materials used on thefugade, using complimenting materials between the balconies on the front faqade, and providing larger openings for the front entryway and entrances to the decks on the west side of thefront favade. These improvements help to create a lighterfeeling for the building, which also compliments the sense of human scale. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing landscaping and a table with bench seating at the street level However, this is a smaN lodge, with no restaurant or retail proposed for this space. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Reflect the natural topography. Staff Response: The proposed project is a remodel of the existing building, and does not significantly alter the existing grade. The current design reflects the area's natural topography, and the remodel will do the same. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Provide interconnected pedestrian circulation system. Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed an extension of the existing sidewalk that currently concludes on the eastern edge of the subject property, to run the length of the 6 .. P23 property on the Durant Stfauade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment iii this district. Sta#jinds this criterion to be met. 6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features. Staff Response: The proposed building has been designed to maintain views through the property and to the mountains to the extent possible. The height of thefourth.floor roof and stair/elevator tower elements have been minimized to reduce the sense of linear mass and to provide the most unobstructed views possible. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7 0 . P24 Exhibit D Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines 1. Street & Alley System staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant Ave favade which will increase pedestrian access to the property and circulation in the neighborhood, increase pedestrian safety, and will sen'e as an extension ofthe sidewalk that currently exists along the neighboring property'sfront fagade to the east. The Applicantfurther proposes a paved trailwhich will connect the sidewalk to the elevator tower on the property's west side. Both the sidewalk and the trail will meet ADA accessibility requirement. Sttifffinds the criterion to be met. Stafflinds the following criteria to be met: 4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will connect to public sidewalks and trails. 2. Parking Sta# Response: The Applicant is proposing no changes to the current parking. Chapter 26.515.020 of the Land Use Code requires 0.5 spaces per lodge unit in the Lodge (L) zone district. The property currently has one single parking space on-site, located off the rear alley Of the property, and nine additional parking spaces off-site, along E. Durant Ave. Counting the off-site parking spaces, there isa deficitof one parking space forthe 20 lodge units. Accordingtochapter 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking space, of the Land Use Code, this deficit is allowed to be maintained so long as the number of lodge units does not increase. This application does not propose any increases to the number of lodge units, therefore no additional parking is required to be provided by the Applicant. Staff-tinds the following criterion to be met: 4.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. Stafflinds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.3 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character ofthe street. 3. Topography Staff Response: The proposed expansion ofthe building will have no significant impact on or changes to the site's topography. The Applicant proposes to use a natural color palette and materials that will serve to blend the development with the natural landscape. Stafffinds the following criterion to be not applicable: 4.4 A building on a storing site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass and scale and reflect the natural slope of the site. Stafffinds the following criterion to be met: 4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape. 8 .. P25 4. Public Amenity Space Staff Response: The public amenity spaceisproposed to belocated primarily on the south end of the property, abutting the proposed sidewalk that will be adjacent to Durant Ave, and extending to either side of thefrontfagade. This space is proposed at grade, is accessible to the public, open to the sky, and is visible from the public way. Access is further granted by a trail that will extend from the sidewalk to the elevator on the west side ofthe building. Since it is located in thefront yard area on the south end of the property, at the lodge'sfrontfacade, the public amenity space will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. It is proposed to include a table and seating areafor public use along the property'swesternfagade. A sidewalk extension is proposed at the E. Durant Ave. property line, which will adjoin the existing sidewalk that currently ends to east of this parcel. Stajf finds this criterion to be met. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met. 4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible. 4.7 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is visible from thepublic way and takes advantage of solarpotentialfor outdoor activities related to hotels. 4.8 Provide pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access. 4.9 Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or close to and directly visible from the public way. 5. Building Placement Sta# Response: The niajority ofthe buildingis pre-existing, and any proposed additions do not change the placement of the current structure. The building is setback 9.8' on the E. Durant Ave. fagade, exceedingthe required five foot front setback. The west facade nieets the requiredfive foot side setback, whereas the east fagade exceeds this at 10'. The primary entrance to the lodge is oriented toward E. Durant Ave. Thefront fagade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the pedestrian environment. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale, enhance public access and accommodate landscaping where appropriate. 4.11 Orient a primary entrance to face the street or an aren of open space adjacent to the street. 6. Building Height, Mass & Scale Sta# Response: Staff believes the proposed design appropriately reflects the height, mass and scale ofthe Mountain Base Lodge Character Area. The Applicant has worked with Staffto address the issue of excess height and linear niass by pushing the elevator tower on the westernfaqade towards the rear of the building, and by reducing the height ofthe stair tower at the building'sfront fagade. The Applicant has proposed light colored niaterials which aid in reducing the perceived size ofthe building. Further improvements are made to the building's mass by increasing the size of the openings at the front entryway and balconies on the west side Of the frontfagader these result in the building have a lighter and more airier feeling, further aided by the opening of the balconies when 9 P26 0 . viewed,from the building's westernfagade. The design provides variation in height and roofprofile across the building'sfourth story. Staff believes the designreflects the range and variationin building height of the Mountain Base Character Area. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. Stajffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components iii a development. 4.14 Provide variation in building height and roof profile through one or more of the following: â€¢ Vary the heights for different sections of the development. â€¢ Vary the setbacks and wail planes of different building components. 4.12 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Mountain Base Area. 10 .. P27 Exhibit E Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines 1. Building Design and Articulation staff Response: The proposed building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge as the Applicantis maintaining many ofthe existing features. This includes thefront stairwell on the building'sfront fagade. The Applicant has proposed a design that reduces the linear mass of this feature by reducing the height ofthe stair tower and returning the sloped roofoption versus the gabled roofpreviously discussed. The design isfurther aided by the removal of the elevator tower on the building'swest fagade closer to the rear ofthe building. Thefourthjloor rooms begin 32.1 feetfrom the building's front fagade, which serves to create a varied roofprofile and provide afourthstory open air deckspace at thefront ofthe building. The materials used on the building reflect those found on the neighboring buildings within the character area, and provide variation and visual interest. All of these design elements aid in reducing the perceived mass of the building and respecting the human scale. Staff.Ands thefollowing criteria to be met: 4.15 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design shall respect the natural setting and reflect the human scale and character of the city. 2. Street Level Character Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge area to create a visually inviting area to pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation ofthe existing side-walk, which currently ends before this parcel. Any addition to this building is proposed to match the floor-to- floor height ofthe existingstructure. The structure is not new,nor is there any retailproposed, therefore not all criteria is relevant to this review. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.16 Develop the street edge to be visually interesting to pedestrians. Staff finds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.17 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 4.18 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet frondloor to ceiling on all floors. 4.19 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 4.20 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for at! new structures. 11 .. P28 3. Roofscape Staff Response: The proposed design includes green roofs, solar panels, and sloped roofs Variation in the roof profiles are achieved throughout the building's design. Thefourth story roofis set backfrom the front fagade 32.1 feet, providing an open air deck space at thefront fagade of the building. At this time, mechanical units are expected to be located at the rear of the building. However, should any be located on the rooftop, they will be grouped and screened from view. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. 4.22 Variation in roof profiles should be rejlected iii both the width and the depth of the roofscape Of the building(s) 4. Architectural Materials Sta# Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ high quality and durable materials in this design that reflect the quality and range of those foundwithin this character area. Sta#jinds the proposed materials to reflect those found throughout the Mountain Base Character Area. Sta#Jinds the following criteria to be met: 4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed. 4.24 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of niaterials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the fagade. â€¢ Convey human scale. â€¢ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 5. Paving and Landscaping Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the property with native vegetation, particularly along the Durant St fagade. A green bulfer is proposed to be created between the Qn- street parking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the building. The Applicant further proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently concludes at the eastern edge of the property along the Durant St fagade. A pathway willalso be created fronithe sidewalkto the elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance. Stajffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.25 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene. â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting. â€¢ Reflect the quality Of the architectural materials. 4.26 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 12 I # Al.IA.M aild - 01*01 1.0140 uadsv 4'nos E NuM.A.11 00]NE) - 14[ 941,1 IH}SA.I) 05*I E )salatul Jo sl<!UUOE) E SHIammol TIOZ '81 laqUIa,dag satnuiIX[ - BUU.JIAT BuluoZ 12 Buiuuirld ?411 .Ii:In,1921 0 0 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes September 18, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia did not attend. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jessica Garrow and Chris Bendon, City Community Development; Reed Patterson, Municipal Clerk and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments B 0 Bert asked if the AVH site visit has been decided for the 30 or the 6 . Jessica replied that she wasn't sure but Jennifer would be back on Monday. Bert asked how City Council is following up on the check list. Jessica said that was on the code amendments from City Council. Minutes MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from August 21St and .th September 4 seconded by Stan Gibbs; all infavor, APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Ryan stated that in disclosure that he previously was an employee o f Poss who is presenting both projects but he never worked on the second project. Ryan said on the first project he helped with the LEAD certification before it was changed. Ryan said i f something comes up that he has knowledge of he can recuse himself. Debbie Quinn stated that she has reviewed the application and memo for tonight and spoke to Ryan about it. Keith said that he had been an employee of the club. Cliff said he was on the COWOP for the club. LJ said he did physical therapy at the Club. Public Hearing: 1450 Crystal Lake Rd - GMOS Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 1450 Crystal Lake Rd. LJ asked for proof of legal notice. Debbie Quinn reviewed both affidavits and they are in order and received someone questioning the property lines which Jessica reviewed and found they were correct. Jessica Garrow introduced herself and this was a request by Sunny Vann and Associates for a 6 lot below growth management allotments to add 3 new bedrooms to the Aspen Club timeshare. Jessica stated in 2010 the Aspen Club received final approval for a PUD, SPA and Timeshare that included 20 timeshare units and a revamping of Club facilities, new parking and things like that. As the 2 Regular City Planning & ZoninE Meeting - Minutes September 18, 2012 applicant has gone forward working towards construction level documents they have had some internal changes that they are interested in pursuing; part of which is adding 3 new bedrooms; each bedroom is considered to have 2 pillows. With the 3 new bedrooms they need 6 lodge pillow allotments. Jessica said that the request was to change 2 of the previously approved units in the Aspen Club to 3 bedroom units and to add 1 new studio unit that would not be actually used as a timeshare until a future point in time when it is no longer used as the timeshare sales office. There is no change in the internal or external space of the building. APCHA has reviewed the request and the applicant is going to use "credit" from affordable housing that was part of the original approval that the original approval over-mitigated for the employees that were generated; they created a credit of 8.4 FTEs that were in addition to what was required. Staff was in favor of the change. Bert asked about page 5 which is page 2 of the resolution. Jessica responded that is a new unit one bedroom but they will be using this for the timeshare lodge unit sales and then it will be converted to a 1 bedroom. Jessica said with this approval changes from 20 units to 21 units. LJ asked on page 13 of the packet and asked if it was part of APCHAs recommendation. Jessica replied that it was part of APCHAs recommendation and has not been included in the Resolution because the Ordinance really governs how the affordable housing units were dealt with in terms o f rental and for sale; if they are not in compliance they transition into for sale units. LJ said there were some requirements from Engineering and APCHA. Jessica said many of those requirements have not been triggered yet because there is no issuance for a building permit though they are within their vesting period and meeting all the requirements to date and need to do those going forward. Sunny Vann stated that he didn't have much to add and the building was proceeding toward its permits position. Bert said your application has 107 pages why is that. Sunny replied that he included the original application and approval so that everything could be found in one simple place for everything that was done. LJ said on the application number 3 those amendments do not increase traffic and was it a daily study or more; he only found the study date of August 21 St. Sunny answered that they have a condition of approval that we can't increase trip travel into the club. LJ asked if there was a method of monitoring that. Sunny replied that it was incorporated in the TDM and in the Council Conditions of Final 3 . P32 . . Regular City Plannine & Zoning Meeting - Minutes September 18, 2012 Approval. LJ said the proposed amendment does not involve changes that are inconsistent with the condition or representation of the project's original approval. LJ asked if this was a change from the original approval for 20. Sunny replied yes; this is a threshold for an insubstantial amendment otherwise it gets kicked up to P&Z for approval so the staff has exercised latitude historically as to whether it is so far out of the approval that it has to come back to P&Z. No public comments. Cliff opposed this project and will not support it. LJ said now we are going back to add another unit and LJ felt it was too big to start with. Sunny responded that had we built it smaller we wouldn't be here asking for the change. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 16 approving the Growth Management Review for the Aspen Club project; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Bert Myrin, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; U Erspamer, no. APPROVED 5-2. Publ earing: South en Street Lodge - 11~41~Review LJ Erspame ened the public hedFIN~pr South Aspen Street Lodge PUD Review. Chris don presented the aff?h,~of notice. Debbie Quinn reviewed the affidavit of noti or posting and mailing-Mhithere was an information outreach meeting of a s tch plan with all o f the râ‚¬>'.4~~for that meeting was et. Chris id this property was kno as lots 1, 2, and 3 of the South A~~9*4et Subdivis , south o f Dean and noi of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. It has been kn as the Lodge at Aspen untain property in various reiterations over the last dec or so. Chris gave a brie story of the property with an approval granted in 3 known as the Townhoi approval for 14 free market units and 17 affordable ' s and is a vested approva the property; subsequent to that there was much discu on about zoning being un nate that was the basis for that approval and there s a neighborhood master p initiated in 2008 that is also referred to as COWOP I. e neighborhood master p nvolved this property and the property across the stre ift One Lodge, propertie the east were Ski Company properties and properties ned by the City of Aspen included into a master plan process; that plan w ot approved. The various 4 .. P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012 RE: 122 E. Durant Ave - Commercial Design Review SPECIAL NOTE: At the initial hearing (August 7, 2012), Planning and Zoning Commission members voted to continue the hearing to August 21, 2012 to have the opportunity to more fully discuss and comment on the Applicant's plans for the remodel and expansion of the building at 122 E. Durant Ave. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding the 40' height variation request that would enable the fourth floor fitness room and lodge unit, the increased height of the stair and elevator towers to accommodate fourth floor egress, the potential for reflection from the glazing on the front stair tower and glass safety railing, and the massing of the front entryway/balconies area and its relationship to the overall building design. In response to direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission the Applicant has submitted a new design plan for consideration that Staff has reviewed. In light of these new design plans, Staff suggests the following items be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission for points of discussion with the Applicant at the August 21St hearing. â€¢ Building Massing. The Applicant has responded to the massing issues of the previous design in the following ways: o Front (southern) stair tower - A lighter colored palette has been used on this tower which serves to create a less imposing massing. Also solar shade panels have been added to this fagade that break up the linear nature of the tower. o Stair/front entryway/balconies - The newly proposed design includes a front entryway with a lighter feel. The heavy stone cheekwalls of the earlier design have been exchanged with simple metal railings. The shadow box balconies have been replaced by porches with glass safety barriers, and each level is rooted to the level below by wooden beams. These elements help to provide a more grounded, yet airier element to the overall design, which Staff feels is an improvement to the massing of the building's front favade. o On the western favacle the elevator has been moved back (north) from the front of the building approximately 25', and incorporated into the fourth floor roof 1 . P2 line. A module is created by the recessed western wall, which serves to break up the massing and adds articulation to the building. 1, r i / 4*/ 431. -- Gr 1.2 93=El. - - ,#.--/Il ---- .Irp 4. -- 3> Pitrr a I #4.--- 2 -iii *-- :*m Â»- . 11. : : 1 -- 11. -h:: f; Kt 1 '..2 .,U 4~ . 7~ r 2----7-f ?t: ./ -'-~-Â· - -all Â· 3. ~ â‚¬ ./.I -:Â».2.4-Â·t- F.1- b .r =.r 1 -3 . M.4 VA 1,2%: /LI 7 9,73.. - . . .1.- 6. , Â»aia ..: f : 3,/Â·/Al,/-4.-2 9% -Â· ---i + * ... 1 ' 91 1 ..:- ; 1....Â· r.v .40*..'~'- Â· -*;me & it b Â· -â€ž 39Â®11-le=f,,4//A ~L-Lu, .~~ Â·-,159%1* 34* 2. 4 ~Ef>Â·i-J..,0.~~~ Â·j .:....~Â·~ 9,-' ..t ~ Figure A: Originally proposed design - view of Figure B: Newly proposed design - view of southwest southwest facades facades â€¢ Height. In the previous hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel the Applicant met the criteria for a height increase to 40', and suggested the Applicant design the building in such a way as to not require a variation from the 38' height limit that is permitted for a development of this density in the Lodge zone district. The Applicant has responded to the height issue of the previous design in the following ways:, o The building has been designed to meet the 38' height limit. The stair tower at the building's south (front) faga(le is allowed by Code to exceed this height limit by five feet. The elevator tower and north (rear) fagade stair tower is allowed to exceed the height limit by ten feet. None of these elements takes full advantage of these allowances. The southern stair tower meets the 38' height requirement, the northern stair tower is measured at just over 41'5", and the elevator tower is measured at just over 44'3" in height. o Roof forms - The building has been designed with a variety of roof forms, from flat to gabled. These gabled roofs enable the existence of the fourth floor rooms. According to the Land Use Code, roofs with a pitch greater than 7: 12, such as that found over the fourth floor rooms, is measured 1/3 of the distance from the eave point to the ridge. The ridge itself has no limitation on height. Roofs with a pitch from 3:12 to 7:12, such as those found on the elevator and stairwell towers, are measured to the midpoint between the eave point and the ridge. 2 21 sil t.. j:li q#Fl.. C.; 1 , ' 0 0 Although these roofs do meet the 38' height requirement, Staff is concerned that the gabled styles over the front (southern) stair tower and the fourth floor rooms create a sense of being larger than they actually are, and are out of context with the design of the building. Staff counts five different roof forms on this building. Although this creates a high degree of variation in roof profile, Staff believes the proposed design has too many roof forms, creating massing issues and adding to a very busy design. ,., *34 0 : 11 V . ~ It k; I I 4- K ----- ' w V . f 5<' :*. - f I . %- M . , # & \*\ 6\ 1. lt' -/4-1. I. Â· \ 4./ r Figure C: Depiction of various roof forms Materials. The new proposal does not change the materials, rather the vertical cedar siding and wood rain-screen have been proposed with a lighter stain. The east fagade of the building will remain stucco, as found also in places on the front faâ„¢le. The Planning and Zoning Commission has directed the Applicant to use a non-reflective glass for the southern stair tower and the safety railings that will not create a glare nuisance. Staff finds the materials to be of quality and appropriate to the Mountain Base Character Area; however Staff recommends a reduction in the number of different materials used. As currently proposed, the variety of materials creates a busy effect for the building. Although Staff finds the lighter color tones to be an improvement, Staff 3 0 0 feels the Applicant should reduce the number of individual materials used on the building. - ',r_-I--.//3/1- 4. ! Ii/"3 il':ti Nfi i- . al,7WI Ii.-_ =91 r :'; AL- ZE~Â· 2 illlll 1 . =r -- --- -- . .1 == 1 1 1 b-Â· 1/ _~/~:' 1.- I / Â©k= -4 3 1-434~0894"ig. * 'Â·'. t-Â· Figure D: Depiction of various materials used in the design Staff Discussion Staff feels there has been improvement in the design of some of the building's elements, such as the front entryway, balconies, and lighter color materials. However, there is some disconnect in the relationship between the proposed and existing design pieces. There are opportunities to minimize this disconnect. For instance, the front fagade balconies on both sides of the stair tower may benefit from use of the same material for the safety railing and color palette. The varied roof styles add to a perceived lack in a consistent architectural vocabulary. As designed, the building has a busy feeling that could be calmed by simplifying the number of different roof styles. The same effect may be had for a decrease in the number of different materials used on the building's facades. The fourth floor appears to be creating issues with mass and height. The egress elements of the stair and elevator towers are necessary due to building code requirements. The increased height and massing that is created by these towers to accommodate the fourth floor, in particular the stair tower on the front faga(le, does not respect the goal o f creating a human scale for the area. 4 0 Lastly, the design includes green roofs and solar energy panels. The Applicant has indicated that some of the building's design has been based on an energy efficiency model. However, at the time of this memo Staff has not received any specifics related to this topic, and therefore cannot provide an opinion at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the Commercial Design Review, and require the applicant to revise their design prior to returning to the Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the request, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave." ATTACHMENTS: (New in Bold) Exhibit A - Commercial Design Review Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards Exhibit C - Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Exhibit D - Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines Exhibit E - Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines Exhibit F - Application Exhibit G - Department Review Memos Exhibit H - Letters from Neighbors Exhibit I - Affidavit of Public Notice - Staff Exhibit J - Affidavit of Public Notice - Applicant Exhibit K - Hotel Durant Public Outreach Summary Exhibit L - Email from Josh Rice, Development Engineer Exhibit M - R. Purvis letter Exhibit N - Design Proposal Exhibit O - Elevations 5 PS / THE MEMO OF AUGUST 7TH IS PROVIDED BELOW FOR REFERENCE Applicant /Owner: Staff Recommendation: Hotel Durant LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the commercial design Representative: review and require the Applicant to revise their Phillip Ring, RDS Inc. design prior to returning to the Commission. Ken Adler, KA DesignWorks Inc. Summary: Location: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Hotel Durant, commonly known as 122 E. Zoning Commission approval of the application Durant Ave., Aspen CO 81611 for Final Commercial Design Review for the remodel of the existing building located at 122 Current Zoning & Use E. Durant Ave. This property is located in the Lodge (L) zone district. The building is currently ri=-4#f,-*.*F.W.,AWâ€ž- used as a lodge. .2,3milllIi</0*lf< 4,*~ ..3.,I~I~/0-=. Proposed Land Use: ix, Â·: 4 . i &76,Â· ' brti .-42-Â·-26* 4, 32 The Applicant is proposing to remodel and . /44, A. ..e.. -2/1 "It/&24Â·Ti 11 ...r expand the existing lodge structure from a + t '1 11*W# -- " t, -L.. total of 6,904 square feet to 10,642 square tÂ¥2*:fi..' ' ' 11:Â¥&/Â£ 0 feet. The lodge unit count and use will remain unchanged. 0 1.16 1 1 Figure A: Current image of subject property LAND USE REQUESTAND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: â€¢ Final Commercial Design Review - Mountain Lodge Character Area pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.050. An application for Commercial Design Review requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the application. 6 .. P7 BACKGROUND: 122 E. Durant Ave. was developed with a three-story, 20-unit lodge in 1963, known as the Hotel Durant. A significant remodel of the property took place in 1985, and a limited remodel occurred in 2005. The lodge is located in the Lodge (L) zone district near the base of Lift lA, adjacent to the downtown Commercial Core, between Garmisch St. and Aspen St. on Durant Ave. The Applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing lodge to increase the size of the units and provide amenities, without increasing the number of rooms. 0 1/1. . 14"Ii.'ll,f U~ N. " 10[h':Â·:4 3 n * , 1 T. ,4 1 - f ... - Â£ . r.r# N.. .r, 4% 1 :414& i. r.>.7 - *ie,JA I *1 ' 'Â· .4 .iiii i , . 4 % t. I.- , -C . ./ 1 Â· I r *: .9 E' 4~ 4 .., *2: 1 ' 33 .44 -1,-*9 N , 1 -J: 9 4. 4. . It~ =.: 9 9 Mir . . Figure B: Vicinity Map, location of subject property Existing Conditions The lot is 6,006 square feet in total size. The existing floor area for Hotel Durant is 6,904 square feet, with a height of 35' 6" at its highest measuring point (1/3rd point between the eave and the ridge). This lodge is a three-story building containing 20 lodge units, which range in size from 176 sf to 305 sf. A single parking space exists on-site off of the alley at the building's rear (northern) facade, with nine additional head-in parking spaces along Durant Ave. at the building's front fagade, within the public right-of-way. The site, as exists, contains 2,282 sf (38 %) of land area that qualifies as public amenity. The trash/recycling/utility area is located on the alley that runs along the north side of the parcel. Proposed Project The Applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the existing lodge, maintaining the majority of the existing lodge building, and increasing the building by 3,738 sf. This remodel will 7 .. bring the total size of the lodge building to 10,642 sf. On average, the unit sizes will be increased 95 st ranging from 291 sf to 401 sf. --l~ : k &4 D--:- 60.06 7/9-4Â»9 L,F G The proposal includes the addition of a fourth story that will contain a fitness room, a hot -1.t. 1. m7.,.:i'.44:. 7026 : r 71 tub, an open air deck, and a single lodge . 11,--.-1 I 4 & 2 +4, l'Gl O 433 g ik 0 41Â· . ~- Â·f_-19,9, . I LE' 1 P.:s .4 MtÂ»'' ./ I / unit. The proposal further includes the dtou 1.4, 1<te:b . - 3- addition of an elevator along the Western 6, 19,2 6,-~.1 ,, 4 fagade and an increase in the existing front -,42 10 and rear stairwell heights to provide adequate -*141... .' 6 egress for the fourth floor (specifics to be . .f,%1:k'. . .1.4 : Â·-- discussed in the Building Height, Mass, and 1,14 - 4 6,1 .1./ : 1 Scale later in this memo). The Applicant - ./1 / 1 -'Â·917 >41~~ 7. r 2 'e I le proposes a slight reduction in the amount of open space from 2,282 sf (38%) to 2,222 sf ....... - 1914.,AUP.:Sk/0 d 92' - 4 (37%). 3 Â·BO - -2 '9" 771 No changes are being proposed to the current . .. -]IL- parking, or to the trash/recycling/utility area. 1 ~29 1 r'*'ir,8 2 . Â¥,4/ /1914.43 Â£%40912.61,# 2 '1% - 3 730' 7,40â€¢ : - f. I ,.. / ! 31@/- *'~~..:r. 3,q' ,#~ t~Jf-at : Â·: 1 i. i . . -ir.611 - - y b , ~ X2325 1- w\:. ,Â· BIO. 06: 90'hri 35 IF : i: 0 ,/A : - . --731*541 \ - f~....â€¢Cjâ„¢ i El#*UÂ®: *idit#ofkW440 : 11ii 46%:~ Figure C: Existing site plan depicting property boundaries and public ROW 8 .. P9 /.... -.-'.1222 -.0 <47 Mic= 7=-2.2 r ' ' d r. '51 '-4 45* ' 11 - Â·-i: zsl . - r , i*...li, , /0-02. . : Â£,4, /143 -Â·~ " . *djf: 6, ./ 1 --- :311 ~27: 2-5 --:-- I 14" L.lf.ID i I. -1 Figure D: Current image of 10(lge Figure E: Proposed image of lodge The remodel and expansion of the Hotel Durant requires the applicant to meet the policies of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For this project, the Applicant proposes the removal of the roof to change from the pitched style roof to generally flat roofs, the addition of a fourth floor, and the removal of the western wall to build an addition and increase the square footage of the building. No new units are proposed, but the existing units will be reconfigured within the floor plan. As the number of lodge units (or pillows, per the Land Use code) stays the same, no net leasable space is being added, therefore not requiring mitigation. However, there may be additional impact fees, such as Parks or Transportation Demand Management fees, as a result of any new development. STAFF COMMENTS Commercial Design Review: This application is required to undergo review under the Commercial Design standards as the standards apbly to all commercial, lodging, and mixed use development containing a commercial component within the City of Aspen. The property is located in the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The location of the Mountain Base Character Area is between the city's commercial center and the base of the mountain. This area encompasses the most focused concentration of lodge development within the City. The purpose of design within this area is to create a pedestrian- friendly street edge and buildings with a sense of human scale that reflect the natural topography of the mountain base area. Designs should also encourage pedestrian activity by providing an interconnected circulation system and street level uses, as well as maintaining views to the mountains and existing natural features. 9 .. A consolidated conceptual and final review requires an examination of the placement of the building on the site, the mass of the building, and the building's relationship to streets, alley, parking and public spaces as well as the appearance of the design and the type and quality of materials used for the building's remodel. Overall, Staff's review of the application provides the following recommendations: â€¢ Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. â€¢ Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one district. â€¢ Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front fagade to soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale. â€¢ Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. Conceptual Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit D of the Staff memo: Street & Allev System The lodge is located on E. Durant Ave., and an : 0. , 1 -' . ' : ':' M i Wj Iwoll ~ Lpe 3 * 1 alleyway is located at the building's rear faga(ie. The I . r-:Â·'-7-p-.i#L--.EM|-T--=-9-Fh n El=| r---**,*.::.~<â€ž. L-1-- building is situated between two residential multi-family i '7 1 1 i --~-=-0 . '1 4 ~ . 4 f. 40 1 0.'-Ir-1 properties; a two-story building to the west, and a i 9#4 -4 W El /2111 11. W.r. I 1 three-story building to the east. The subj ect site is a __ 01 h, 1 - lul--2In td 1 9,4 small lot that maintains city's established grid pattern. 14 .. 1 0.*ia,bâ€ž,J 1., r-7- .. . - Â·Â·101 Â· Â·Â· Snik \ : 1 A sidewalk exists at the property line for the building . Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·to-Â·. a-~te 0. 1 11 17 C Â·,094 J, i 1 located to the east that concludes before the Hotel / g 1 731'~5371 Durant. The Applicant proposes to continue this :Â·, .1 Â·/ 'IM aa' ' zr- 1 1 --0 I---~~~ 1 'Â· ' ''' 1 1 sidewalk across the front faga(le of the lodge building, : 4 ~ -. 11 .=' ..0-9 l .., 1 . : lit i to the property's edge. This will serve to enhance 4Â·Â·Â·Â·t'- pedestrian circulation and safety throughout this area, , c as well as increase opportunities for connectivity and ~ access to the property. The Applicant has also %-5, proposed a paved walkway from the sidewalk to the ~~ â€ž ... rl 1 4 rey Had 1 elevator tower on the western portion of the property. .. .. i 122 Z DÂ·2=t: N ... 1 ...., r, f .1 Staff finds these guidelines to be met. ..1 Parking The lodge has one existing on-site parking space, off of :---Â· -i 1 --z : .rÂ¥\ the alley. Nine additional parking spaces can be found J - F :-4:1. 11 1 - on Durant Ave. in the public right-of-way, which are 12.17 .....n., 1 46...7,6 .9:'' It '.' hil"'". I available to the general public. There is a current on- 1 6/.'-,970 ...uall 1>1â€¢ I ./.i site deficit of nine parking spaces. The code states that Â· i ------- upon redevelopment of a property any existing deficit in Â·[ parking spaces is allowed to be maintained. Staff finds Figure F: Yellow = on-site parking space. Green = proposed public amenity space. these guidelines to be met. 10 .. Pll Topographv The building's proposed design largely depends on the existing lodge structure, with a significant expansion on the western side of the property. This planned expansion does not significantly alter the site's topography. The building is designed to face Durant Ave. and the landscaped front lawn. The materials are compatible with the character area and the surrounding natural landscape. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. Public Amenitv Space The proposed public amenity space will be in the form of green space that begins at the property's edge of the Durant Ave. facade and extends to both sides of the building (see Figure F above). This public amenity space will comprise 2,222 sf, or 37 % of the total property, and will exceed the 25 % that is required by the code. It is proposed at street level, visually apparent, unenclosed, and the portion that is located on the front southern fagade of the building will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. The public amenity is proposed to be landscaped lawn and will contain an area for bench seating and a table. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. Building Placement The Applicant proposes to meet or exceed all required : 1 1-PT[[T-1 '73.--}... /\%.. i I setbacks for the Lodge zone district. The western side t-- yard will meet the required setback of 5'. The existing i 1 1 W 1 1 1 eastern side yard setback of 10' 6" exceeds the 5' side i yard setback requirement and is not changing with this 4 .>1W ! e'i' 6# - Ah; r application. The existing front yard setback of 10' is Int 4 41 - 211 r~--i*-a f maintained and allows for green space and landscaping. 1 ) ~A = I I'' 4 â‚¬ i V J /9 3.0 't The rear setback will remain unchanged at 6' 11". t E7 - -- -1/ \11; - 3 ILGJ. k+4.4---4 1 4.1.. -7 1 The building's primary entrance is re-oriented toward Â· 1 , 2.. E. Durant Ave. and has been enhanced to create a more distinct entryway to the building. Staff finds these , 29 guidelines to be met. l 4 '1:.. 11 , Building Height, Mass & Scale 1-i:rt/./. = ./. -- -- .......fuj 1 13,?.f, The building is being proposed at a height of 39' 6" at ;it .4.-ril'g~]1 /Tl 031 --all the building's highest roofiine. The Lodge zone district -''Uiiall tv ,- : 11 allows up to 38' in height by right for a lodge with one or more lodge units per 500 sf of Gross Lot Area, 1 which may be increased to 40' through approval by the ~ Planning and Zoning Commission during commercial -- - *14.4,_*r 1 2- - -Ed= --J===== design review. As the building is proposed, the Applicant is requesting the Planning & Zoning _ - --_ -1 -I-~ Commission consider and approve this additional two tÂ·igure G: Orange indicates the area or increased foot request. This variation is requested to allow the building footprint fourth story. The floor to ceiling plate height of the 11 .. P12 fourth floor is 8' 6 4 ". The two foot increase in height will enable the inclusion of the fourth floor lodging unit and fitness room. The Design Guidelines provide five circumstances to aid in determining if an additional height request should be permitted. To summarize, these include the following: â€¢ To achieve at least two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o Staff finds there is more than a two-foot variation already in existence between the adjacent buildings on either side of the proposed remodel. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ The primary function of the building is civic. o This building will maintain its use as a lodge, and does not qualify as a civic use building. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ Some portion Of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o Staff notes there are no such conditions that affect this property. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o This building is not proposed with any affordable housing units. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day-lighting. o The Applicant is suggesting that the primary reason for the height increase and raised stairwell roof at on the Durant Ave. fagade is to allow for efficiency in regards to the heating and cooling of the building. At the time of this memo, this has yet to be verified by the Building Dept. as a reason for the height increase. Staff does not support the Applicant' s request for the additional two foot height allowance. At this time the Applicant has not met any of the standards for receiving this variance. Furthermore, the inclusion of a fourth floor will add additional height to the building due to the required means of egress. Per chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code, the stair tower on the front fagade is allowed to exceed the height limit by 5', and the side elevator and rear stair tower by 10'. Although the design does not fully take advantage of these heights, these egress elements will create an even greater height on nearly every side of this building. It is a goal of the character area to maintain views to natural features, and these views through the property will be compromised by this height increase. Staff finds this guideline to not be met. 12 < N P13 40' height line 1. 111 ,. - - i: .i ~ Height of stair tower 43 - I (as measured to halfway - point of cave) :1 11 = -- 4% Figure 11 (left): South fagade with ' 4,4 heights depicted. . C==3 - 7 - 4 6 - ---- -- ] >/423{990%9~ fitÂ«~2Â«44Â«f<Uj22,440Â»94Â»~Â»x.,. gutÂ«<90~9Â»Â» vil,Â»:.,:0Â»,i. Figure I (below): Western facade with heights depicted. 5~2*28==4- 9% MA'-:.9 ---*-Il------------Il--Il.-----1----- '1.CALA 1111'Fill-11-1- -~~1-".--11'11 b .11 40' lilli, El 1 1 11/ 1 ' 11[6 lili LdlUJUL 1 height L -- 4-: u - Height of elevator 44 ' :< ~ t[[t --,.-=- line 1 lb,Â·, 2" (as measured to Height of stair tower -- ~ g halfway point of eave) 41' 11" (as measured to - ~1-:9-TitHTI.--. 2,4 halfway point of eave) 1 1,1 1, 4-1 11-11. 11 1-1- 1 11 -1 r 27Â»1 1,1 i & 1! 11 +111 -- 2. 19 1 -1 1 1 1 lit i 11-fl t.1 ~ 1.1 fi q I lili .i i 2 -4.1. t.. l. 11. 1 .a,- r /4 4 1 .. P14 Staff has further concerns regarding the design relating to the perceived mass of the building. The original application depicts a front balconied area for the second and third story rooms that cantilevers over the front entrance. Staff finds this shadow box style balcony with its decks, and the railing on the stairway below, adds mass to the building that feels out of context with the rest of the design. The Applicant has worked with Staff to develop an alternative that allows the balconies and style of entryway to remain, but with a lighter feel. Staff supports the alternative design to this front entryway and balcony with its lighter balconied areas and open entryway to the building. Staff finds the alternative design (Figure K) to meet the guidelines. . 16 4 1 9 *31 4 -1 ..61. i 9 rees.Fle' 11 M) E '1223 -t 9---2--=-rÂ· 32 4. -aPTZ-'*1~ 44Â·Â·- --V-1 855 111Â·:... 5,2 r.g . k 8 ~' ~ I ?F-- -..riz.. :.. r 33 'i 1,=62 K . :*62 ;t ig 49 2 9/+676 . 4* H Â· EW -4.......~ 4..1--- $Â·i : ZIYEÂ· 'h --~Â·SME 92- ......Izabillka 7 i. *=Â¥-1.-ep:.: //*$27 4T- , Â·Â·Â·le#M#**Er*#iF - .0*5tki,6Â© Ws ~ ~ *vi. â‚¬ :e,~_ 4 /-52 4< 7. C ' 1 ilr it#vt*MFW * r."r=NiE:bUIZ S %11Â« * 73Â·4 - 5 3-2,-*2*wER,i: 6,# a 0 11Â¥:a 1.'h A , \ -- ...4 Izzl= ~ i. l.t'gr---- 1Â» - Sc Figure J: Originall, proposed design Figure K: Alternative proposed design Final Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit E of the Staff memo): Building Design & Articulation: The building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge, as the Applicant is maintaining many of the existing features, such as the front fagade stairwell. Staff feels the Applicant should explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid in reducing the perceived scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower's front face presents as an entire row of windows. This glazing creates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After 14 -9%44%< .. meeting with Staff, the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reduces the amount of glazing on the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staff does not support this alternative design as a remedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower creates a sense of even more floors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part of the front faâ„¢le does not assist in creating a feeling of reduced scale. Staff recommends the Applicant re-examine the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the perceived scale of the building, and creating a more human scale. Staff finds these guidelines to not be met. L' . ff,LÂ»N?. - 951*Et>i - ;Jit 21,0, 1 , 1 C,Â·:C 1 U....=~*Â·9 .'.15 :.E Rd . , m t. 2- immg InD- 1 ~ @ feÂ¢ ,Fl- 3,m-902%55; _ 1 . F *â‚¬2 ' 120 - Li ~1 4,Billiliill|ii!!u :' I I Ite'lfe~ I *S#1 4 P i.:i.Â·114"1,!t:,1.Â· ~'4.7.4 ,-ls.*; :117:5:=5 */8. .. Â·4, 9 - 1 1 sma ifija h .,92*2 4. ?- - i W/,Il..-I- /4 f Figure 11: Alternative proposed stair tower, south facade Figure L: Originally proposed stair tower, south facade Architectural materials are varied on both the building's facades as well as the roofs, which are proposed as a mix of metal and green roofing. All mechanical units proposed for the roof will be grouped and screened from view. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. The roof styles, however, lack variation in profile, in that they are of flat style as opposed to the gabled roof that currently exists. The flat roofs add a greater mass to the building. Staff finds this guideline to not be met. According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating the feeling that the first floor is the most prominent. The floor to floor heights do not meet the design guidelines of a minimum 11' for the first floor or the 9' floor to ceiling height on all 15 .. P16 floors, as this is a remodel and expansion project. Staff finds these guidelines to be not applicable. Architectural Materials: SIDING MATERIALS ROOFING MATERIALS The Applicant is proposing to - - employ high quality and D Â·!43(1 ST/.1 C VE! r E/ STLCCO STA ICING SEAM METAL. RCC,-!'Â·C durable materials in this 53*ON=,"c=r--5.*2 r t:*==23.ZIEN 1,5- 1- design. These include: -*,1 RVN â€¢ Thinset stone veneer ML-~Â·Â· *3: t.3. i.r:.2.1 242*il Stucco *temca 42501 â€¢ Wood rainscreen Akâ‚¬-96* 1.1 i V/:t/"/"// â€¢ CV grain vertical cedar bs+39*1:ff.4 .--1 41 . I /1 -m- siding , 04' < \~Pâ€¢Â· ~i t *dv*t.*L â€¢ Standing seani rnetal ** i./1 WW. 234*29.44 :. roofing , .1 --Ii ji~ 4 â€¢ Liveroof modular green 7~*- 1 Â· roof system , i t 44 2 Â· tk = 47 'COC RA /9.-I CV CRA N VEPT * GEAR S C NG 1.,VERCCFE '.'O,llAR GREEN POOF S 47&9 Figure N: Proposed materials Staff finds these materials to be appropriate and to convey the quality and range of materials used in the design of the existing buildings in the character area. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the requests for Commercial Design Review, with the following recommended changes. â€¢ Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. â€¢ Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one district. â€¢ Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front fagade to soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale. â€¢ Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion " I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave."; however, Staff recommends continuation of the hearing to a date certain. 16 .. P17 Exhibit A Section 26.412.050 Commercial Design Review Commercial Design Review See. 26.412.050.Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context iii which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: The proposed development meets the requirements of chapter 26.412.060 of the Land Use Code. The development includes an appropriately designed public amenity space that will contribute to an attractive pedestrian atmosphere. The trash/recycling area has been redesigned to meet the standards found in the Land Use Code. The development will include signage and lighting that will respect the Suggested Design Elements, as found in chapter 26.412.070 of the Land Use Code. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the faga(le of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The proposal does not include the conversion of an existing structure to a commercial use. It exists currently as a lodge, and the additions will not change the use of the property. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: Sta# does not believe that the proposal fully meets the Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base Character Area. A key design objective of this area is to provide a sense of human scale. The fourth floor creates the need for additional egress by way oftwo stair towers and one elevator tower. These towers are permitted by chapter 26.575.020 (19 (4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code to extend V above the height of the building when located on thefront faÂ¢ade, and up to 10' above the height of the building when 1 .. P18 located at least 15' from the building's front fagade. This additional height, particularly for the front stair tower, creates a linear mass that is out of character with the goal for a human scaled design. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 2 .. P19 Exhibit B Section 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards See. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property withi11 commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods ofproviding the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: As the current lodge exists, there is 2,282 sf of on-site open space, representing 38% of the total parcel. This has not been officially designated as public amenity space. The Applicant has proposed a designated public amenity space of 2,202 sf, which represents 37% of the total parcel. The majority of the proposed public amenily space will be located along the Durant St faÂ¢ade. It will contain a bench and table seating, and will be landscaped with native vegetation. The Applicant further proposes to install a new sidewalk along the Durant St fa<ade, continuing the existing sidewalk to the east, and ending at the property's western edge. Stajfjinds this criterion to be met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Sta# Response: The public amenity space is proposed to contain public seating and a table. The majority of the space will face south, which will serve to maximize solar gain, and will have a view of Shadow Mountain to the west. It will be directty accessible with an at-grade relationship to the street and proposed sidewalk extension. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the public amenity space, which witl receive maximum solar gain for the area, and is directly accessible by way of Durant St. 3 .. P20 The Applicant further plans to include a bench and table seating in this space. These characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Response: Tlie proposed amenity does not duplicate any existing pedestrian space. It is proposed as completely on-site green space with a seating area to the west side of the property. The proposed public amenity does not detract from the pedestrian environment, but rather enhances the environment by the provision of landscaping, public seating and a large buffer of green space between the building and the street. To further promote a successful pedestrian environment, the Applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along this property that currently exists to the east. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: No variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity is sought. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The current trash/recycle area is located on the north side of the property, along the existing alleyway. According to the City's Environmental Health Dept staff, the existing area measures 10410'. Chapter 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycling service areas, of the Land Use Code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. Environmental Health Stafffurther recommends the Applicant provide at least four bins to collect recycling iii addition to a dumpster for trash. Staff recommends this deficiency be remedied during the hotel's remode!. The Applicant has responded by providing an expanded trash/recycling area that measures 15'6" of linear space. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The location of all utility service pedestals will remain in their current location, which is on the northwest corner of the property, along the alleyway. On July 5, 1979 a Multipurpose Easement was recorded for this purpose (8372P80, Rec# 216075) and will continue to be utilized. Stafflinds this criterion to be met. 4 P 21 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: The hotel receives laundry service bi-weeklyÂ· Delivery trucks park along the alleyway for this purpose. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: All mechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: AH mechanical ventilation equipment will be ducted internally within the building and ventilated through the roof. The existing condensation units will remain in their current locations on the roof, recessed behind the parapet walt and not visible from the public right-Of-way. Staff Jinds this criterion to be met. 5 P22 Exhibit C Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the Mountain Base area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension that will enhance the pedestrian-friendly street edge. The Applicant is further relocating the building's pÂ·rimary entrance to more directly face Durant St, and is enhancing the environment with landscaping. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. 2. Provide a sense of human scale. Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the project provides an accurate sense of human scale. There are building requirements that are necessary to make the fourth floor possible, such as the egress of the stair towers and the elevator towers. These elements are allowed to be higher than the building's height limit by five to tenfeet, depending oil their proximity to the front faÂ¢ade of the building. In this design, the added height of these elements creates extra mass and height to the building, particularly at the stair tower located at the front faqade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at tlie street level. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing landscaping and a table with bench seating at the street tevel. However, thisis a small lodge, with no restaurant or retail proposed forthis space. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. 4. Reflect the natural topography. Staff Response: The proposed project is a remodel of the existing building, and does not signijicantly alter the existing grade. The current design rejlects the area's natural topography, and the remo(lei will do the same. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Provide interconnected pedestrian circulation system. Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed an extension of the existing sidewalk thut currently concludes on the eastern edge of the subject property, to run the length of the property on the Durant St faeade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment in this district. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 6 e . P23 6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features. Staff Response: The proposed development may impact views to the north, due to the addition of the fourth floor, which has the potential to interrupt the view as seen from the upper level of the Lift One Lodge directly across the street from this development. The proposal does not interrupt any protected view planes. Staff.finds this criterion to not be met. 1 P24 . 0 Exhibit D Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines 1. Street & Alley System Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant St favade which will increase pedestrian access to the property and circulation in the neighborhood, increase pedestrian safety, and will serve as an extension ofthe sidewalk that currently exists along the ~ neighboring property'sfrontfacade to the east. The Applicantfurther proposes a paved trail which will connect the sideivalk to the elevator tower on the property's west side. Both the sidewalk and the trail will meet ADA accessibility requirement. Statfjinds the criterion to be met. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will comiect to public sidewalks and trails. 2. Parking Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing no changes to the current parking. Chapter 26.515.020 of the Land Use Code requires 0.5 spaces per lodge unit iii the Lodge (L) zone district. The property currently has one single parking space on-site, located o# the rear alley of' the property, and nine additional parking spaces off-site, along E. Durant Ave. Counting the off-site parking spaces, there is a deficit of one parking spacefor the 20 lodge units, According to chapter 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking space, of the Land Use Code, this deficit is allowed to be maintained so long as the nitinber of lodge units does not increase. This application does not propose any increases to the number of lodge units, therefore no additional parking is required to be provided by the Applicant, Stafffinds the following criterion to be met: 4.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. Staffjinds thefollowing criteria to be not applicable: 4.3 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. 3. Topography Staff Response: The proposed expansion ofthe building will have no significant impact on or changes to the site's topography. The Applicant proposes to use a natural color palette and niaterials that will serve to blend the development with the natural landscape. Sta#finds the following criterion to be not applicable: 4.4 A building on a sloping site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass ami scale and reflect the natural slope of the site. Staffj'*inds the following criterion to be met: 4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape. 8 0 0 4. Public Amenity Space Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to be located primarily on the south end of the property, abutting the proposed sidewalk that will be adjacent to Durant Ave, and extending to either side ofthefront fagade. This space is proposed at grade, is accessible to the public, open to the sky, andisvisiblefromthe public way. Accessisfurther granted by a trailthat willextend from the sidewalk to the elevator on the west side of the building. Since it is located in thefront yard area on the south end of the property, at the lodge'sfront facade, the public amenity space will receive the maxinium amount of solargain. Itis proposed toinclude a table andseating areafor public use along the property's westernfavade. A sidewalk extension is proposed at the E. Durant Ave. property line, which will adjoin the existing sidewalk that currently ends to east of this parcel. Staff jinds the following criteria to be met. 4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible. 4.7 Locate Pubtic Amenity Space such that it is visible front the public way and takes advantage of solar potential jfor outdoor activities related to hotels. 4.8 Provide pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access. 4.9 Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or close to and directly visible from the public way. 5. Building Placement StaffResponse: The majority ofthe buildingis pre-existing, and any proposed additions do not change the placement of the current structure. The building is setback 9.8' on the E. Durant Ave. fagade, exceeding the required five foot front setback. The west facade nieets the required five foot side setback, whereas the east faÂ¢ade exceeds this at 10'. The primary entrance to the lodge is oriented toward E. Durant St. The front fagade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the pedestrian environment. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale, enhance public access and accommodate landscaping where appropriate. 4.11 Orient a primary entrance to jace the street or an area of open space adjacent to the street. 6. Building Height, Mass & Scale Staff Response: Staffdoes not believe that the project provides an accurate sense of human scale. There are building requirements that are necessary to make thefourthfloor possible, such as the egress of the stair towers and the elevator towers. These elements are allowed to be higher than the building's height limit by five to ten feet, depending on their proximity to thefront fagade of the building. In this design, the added height of these elements creates extra mass and height to the building, particularly at the stair tower located at thefront fagade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. 9 0 0 1 The varied roof profiles do provide variation in regard to the height ofthe building; however, the number of various roof types creates a very busy effect on the building's overall design. Staff does not agree that this is a successful design in this regard. The proposed design does meet the 38' height restriction as allowed for a lodge ofthis density within the lodge zone district; however, the design should reflect the character ofthe surrounding buildings in the area. The design ofthis building, withits fourth floorand egress elements, feels out of context with the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a development. 4.14 Provide variation iii building height and roof profile through one or more of the following: â€¢ Vary the heights for different sections of the development. â€¢ Vary the setbacks and wall planes of different building components. Stafffinds the following criteria to not be met: 4.12 A new building or addition should rejlect the range and variation in building height of the Mountain Base Area. 10 P27 Exhibit E Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines 1. Building Design and Articulation Staff Response: The proposed buildingis largely dependem on theform ofthe existing lodge as the Applicant is maintaining many ofthe existingfeatures. This includes the front stairwell on the bitilding'sfront faqade. Stafffinds the massing ofthe stainvell to be helped by the solar shade panels that are affixed to thefront favade, as these serve to assist in breaking up the linear mass. However, the top ofthe stairwell with its roofform creates additional vertical massing that adds height to the building. Heightisfurther added by thefourth floor elementwithits gabled roof The addition ofthefourthfloor creates the necessityfor these egress towers which are allowed to project an additional aniount over the height. The added height of these elenients creates extra mass and height to the building, particularly at the stair tower located at the front fagade. From the pedestrian scale, this stair tower is the most imposing element of the building's design, and feels out of scale with the pedestrian realm. Stafffinds this criterion to not be niet. Staff.finds thefollowing criteria to not be met: 4.15 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design shall respect the natural setting and reflect the human scale and character of the city. 2. Street Level Character Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge area to create a visually inviting area to pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation of the existing sidewalk, which currently ends before this parcel. Any addition to this bililding is proposed to match thefloor-to- floor height ofthe existingstructure. The structureis not new, noris there any retailproposed, therefore not all criteria is relevant to this review. Staff.finds the following criteria to be met: 4.16 Develop the street edge to be visually interesting to pedestrians. staff jinds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.17 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 4.18 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on al! floors. 4.19 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 4.20 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. 11 P28 0 . 3. Roofscape Staff Response: The proposed design includes green roofs, solar panels, and various roof styles. Variation in the roof profiles are achieved throughout the building's design. Although the criteria is met to the extent that there is variation across the width and depth ofthe roofscape, Stafffeels that the extreme variation in roof styles lack any relationship to one another, and create a sense of niaking a busy design that could be simplified with fewer roofforms. Staff Jinds the following criteria to be met: 4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. 4.22 Variation in roof profiles should be reflected in both the width and the depth of the roofscape of the building(s) 4. Architectural Materials Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ high quality and durable materials in this design that reflect the quality and range ofthose foundwithin this character area. However, Stafffeels that the proposed design incorporates too man-y different materials within the design, and these give the building a busy feeling. Stafffeels this could be aided by simplifying the number of different materials that are incorporated within this design. Staff.finds the following criteria to be met: 4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed. 4.24 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the faÂ¢ade. â€¢ Convey human scale. â€¢ Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 5. Paving and Landscaping Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the property with native vegetation, particularly along the Durant St fagade. A green buffer is proposed to be created between the on- street parking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the building. The Applicant further proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently conchides at the eastern edge of the property alongthe Durant Stfagade. A pathway wili also be created fromthe sidewalkto the elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.25 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene. â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting. â€¢ Reflect the quality ofthe architectural materials. 4.26 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk. 12 .. 3JS & 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: August 7, 2012 RE: 122 E. Durant Ave. (Durant Lodge) - Consolidated Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Reviews Applicant /Owner: Staff Recommendation: Hotel Durant LLC Staff recomrnends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the commercial design Representative: review and require the Applicant to revise their Phillip Ring, RDS Inc. design prior to returning to the Commission. Ken Adler, KA DesignWorks Inc. Summary: Location: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Hotel Durant, commonly known as 122 E. Zoning Commission approval of the application Durant Ave., Aspen CO 81611 for Final Commercial Design Review for the remodel of the existing building located at 122 Current Zoning & Use E. Durant Ave. This property is located iii the Lodge (L) zone district. The building is currently used as a lodge. Proposed Land Use: y , ty.hi â€¢! - Â·Â·. -0.- Â· The Applicant is proposing to remodel and . 1.1 --Â£4 , - 0 11' expand the existing lodge structure from a total of 6,904 square feet to 10,642 square ....: feet. The lodge unit count and use will j .a A remain unchanged. 1 .4.2. 1 Figure A: Current image of subject property 1 .. P2 LAND USE REQUESTAND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Final Commercial Design Review - Mountain Lodge Character Area pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.050. An application for Commercial Design Review requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the application. BACKGROUND: 122 E. Durant Ave. was developed with a three-story, 20-unit lodge in 1963, known as the Hotel Durant. A significant remodel of the property took place in 1985, and a limited remodel occurred in 2005. The lodge is located in the Lodge (L) zone district near the base of Lift 1A, adjacent to the downtown Commercial Core, between Garmisch St. and Aspen St. on Durant Ave. The Applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing lodge to increase the size of the units and provide amenities, without increasing the number of rooms. 1 70 /, 1, 1- W.4.-0 4 2 - i 'f. â‚¬ 1 lili+: 5 F . 00 - F /4 M & 1 4.-4 1 ...2 Â·A , . AL , - i.le Kk:LI/Â·7 '/11. . . 9.. /0- TE.. - , % AW Â· Â· - " 41 , ' : : â‚¬Â· 94Â£ 9 -':.6 4+1 4.- .., % , 1 '. , / 1 , I . ':. r.6. LE.=Â¥ - $ 4 J â€¢ri904.~ z - .... 2- - Mil b Figure B: Vicinity Map. location of subject property Existing Conditions The lot is 6,006 square feet in total size. The existing floor area for Hotel Durant is 6,904 square feet, with a height of 35' 6" at its highest measuring point (1/3rd point between the eave and the ridge). This lodge is a three-story building containing 20 lodge units, which range in size from 176 sf to 305 sÂ£ 2 .. P3 ~tr -4-QJJHitll- *Â·iÂ·Â·Â·1 -:Â·t~~~â€¢44,-J A single parking space exists on-site off of the , -'i: :'.' alley at the building's rear (northern) facade, ~ _ffiffiffOY'- - - 194 I with nine additional head-in parking spaces 7.4. ~4 .~..L F along Durant Ave. at the building' s front t <11 1.65% IRPI Â°N t 8 0.1;gyr~ , frr, Â·- fagde, within the public right-of-way. The . L. 11 9 ; M 1 124 -18 [4 7-7 F T Ey i i 49 . .1 -: .1- t -|~ir- site, as exists, contains 2,282 sf (38%) of land I : 11 - M , (EFf #;3151 11 ./ area that qualifies as public amenity. The * 9.- 2-- 1,2 1~ 0 trash/recycling/utility area is located on the 2r. | ~' 11'6 1 esl ~ c alley that runs along the north side of the #141- + . 0/Vuj :â‚¬ 't ..1 . 1 - . parcel. 9.0,--4.-th Viv r "r,3#1 ~ Proposed Project f .m 'Â£1{FIC<406* i ,D,2-3 -2. L The Applicant is proposing to remodel and 4 Â»L q - L_.il | M-gt~j> 2 4 k expand the existing lodge, maintaining the 1--1 2 majorityÂ·of the existing lodge building, and 4 7,2~130 increasing the building by 3,738 sf. This 1007'q,1 1 11:- 1 ' 3*#.A .'./ remodel will bring the total size of the lodge . 1 7 - H......13--,4 1 â€¢t' 1 ' 33036/r/'ll - : 1 -~ . -12- building to 10,642 sf. On average, the unit 7/:. *,i., : 12 - sizes will be increased 95 sf, ranging from 291 sf to 401 sf. -%54;1 ~~ ~ 47914.48 F . 11 41 9.Â· y 1 19417 1-,1 1 9. a r910.6-_Uj- 2: c * The proposal includes the addition of a fourth h - .: 1 ?-< 1 33.40 1- 4 .16 -1 story that will contain a fitness room, a hot .,J .-Â·-f tÂ· 1 -'- ~ 4.-Ill~O N Peor ~~~->3~1 7919..1~, tub, an open air deck, and a single lodge unit. I Ill 7,4--i,:.3 - 1 ./'2 /'*-Â·-3 -- 17 Jo,D ~-LK---4 > i 1- . I i The proposal further includes the addition of ., b 1 4.-rut.- 1/. 7 /3, I ..1 1 1 b ..1 - : : Â· - 2,21 4 an elevator along the Western fagade and an T 49 3 ' , v .. - 7, .1 Iri ..... .. . + - --- â€¢ -â€¢1.. / .,... Â·.â€¢ ,-'t ~~.'Â·Â·Â·8,â€ž4 ' '6-.....1., ..- .14r- increase inthe existing front and rear stairwell . 5 :1,11 / .1 - i (0 ~ Al,MIgs41- w\: .Â·0 ;50.06' r.,L heights to provide adequate egress for the 31 : ~ 7'F 1 A A . *44- fourth floor (specifics to be discussed in the Â·.fÂ¢Â¥7% 6?a rml~ fE=%Â·ppr 8.-m n--1Â¥ ~ Building Height, Mass, and Scale later in this 1**XMA A-81.tif14Â£1 72 memo). The Applicant proposes a slight -~.162~-th ij,;~~~81~-,&~41*111- #0.- reduction in the amount o f open space from 22*28'-Ef.r .L== r- 1221 -#_LÂ·ljff.~~,C':, 2,282 sf (389,6) to 2,222 sf (37%). Â· -Â£ - No changes are being proposed to the current Figure C: Existing site plan depicting property parking, or to the trash/recycling/utility area. boundaries and public ROW 3 ~Â·Â·Â·"*Â·â€¢., 100 00'1 =1 lai ~333.00' .. P4 i.93&-3142*2055Â§;a /11& 4 al.:11 JWW.U#JQMFI...4t .~Â¢ *4&32 ~illi % 03 .....2 - A.,2 223-~ -Wi*- -~73=. 0%--./1.. 1 ' M /1"'Wilizilis_*22/li/ft..)1 p 'â€ž:4/22. .. ~'Ir--:--.3 El:. ~----1 Efs--+300:-l~*-1~-1 ~ â€ž L.0... la~UU@U- -'1*ptill RE*+-..Ilt,IR+J. -R*93211321 1.Ju. Â· .. ...' ..5::*-. I .45,6, * I .VE' , 3.Ta Figure D: CinÂ·rent image of lodge Figure E: Proposed image of lodge The remodel and expansion of tlie Hotel Durant requires the applicant to meet the policies of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For this project, the Applicant proposes the removal of the roo f to change from the pitched style roof to generally 1lat roofs, the addition of a fourth floor, and the removal of the western wall to build an addition and increase the square footage of the building. No new units are proposed, but the existing units will be reconfigured within the floor plan. As the nurnber of lodge units (or pillows, per the Land Use code) stays the same, no net leasable space is being added, therefore not requiring mitigation. However, there may be additional impact fees, such as Parks or Transportation Demand Management fees, as a result of any new development. STAFF COMMENTS Commercial Design Review: This application is required to undergo review under the Commercial Design standards as the standards apply to all commercial, lodging, and mixed use development containing a commercial component within the City of Aspen. The property is located in the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The location of the Mountain Base Character Area is between the city's commercial center and the base of the mountain. This area encompasses the most focused concentration of lodge development within the City. The purpose of design witlin this area is to create a pedestrian- friendly street edge and buildings with a sense of human scale that reflect the natural topography of the mountain base area. Designs should also encourage pedestrian activity by providing an interconnected circulation system and street level uses, as well as maintaining views to the mountains and existing natural features. 4 I -Â»4<vi~-:i rn .. P5 A consolidated conceptual and final review requires an examination of the placement of the building on the site, the mass of the building, and the building's relationship to streets, alley, parking and public spaces as well as the appearance of the design and the type and quality of materials used for the building's remodel. Overall, Staffs review of the application provides the following recommendations: â€¢ Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. â€¢ Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right iii this one district. â€¢ Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front fagade to soften the massing and create a better sense ofpedestrian scale. â€¢ Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. Conceptual Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit D of the Staff memo): Street & Allev System The lodge is located on E. Durant Ave., and an alleyway is located at the building's rear faga(le. The building is situated between two residential multi-family properties; a two-story building to the west, and a three-story building to the east. The subject site is : . , DE L 1 1---T.1- a small lot that maintains city's established grid pattern. : ~ r 44 1,-Â· L lt _ WWT- iEL EW I 24.- Lr Y e A sidewalk exists at the property line for the building : 11-4 - I f 1.1 . ililijIF~~- ~L t *-I .j located to the east that concludes before the Hotel i 44 -b ' 21 7.F~,721.- Â«91Â· I , 1 4 4 Â£'i ,MLTAVL 'jifi ~~- 1 Durant. The Applicant proposes to continue this h r-4 + 1 - 1 1 111 t..41 1.---1 L sidewalk across the front faga(le of the lodge building, to TE L_1. l_ i . 1- 1 011.96 L] ' =t:1' Â· 'J. 4 u Â»m Â·-44* 2 the property's edge. This will serve to enhance -- ..pâ€¢.i.--: -FF-'~Â·./ D)Â«d.1 -' r..i~ pedestrian circulation and safety throughout this area, as :.Â·-r'C.'.Â·Â·.-til rt- well as increase opportunities for connectivity and access to the property. The Applicant has also proposed 2.-Â·Â·+-:.4< 0 6~ r--1 _Â·0 r--, 23 Â· rep 1--1 1 , . ., 'r a paved walkway from the sidewalk to the elevator i. t-~e --~1*Er~ 4-- c : i 1 4.. tower on the western portion of the property. Staff finds 1.2 r-pr j , these guidelines to be met. t . 1 CikIT-- Â· 'Â· ' Parking 1,1 0 ' mr i ~ I -'h,-1 The lodge has one existing on-site parking space, off of the alley. Nine additional parking spaces can be found ~Â·Â· 5 Â·-7=- on Durant Ave. iii the public right-of-way, which are .1, available to the general public. There is a cument on-site , . 41 7. 1 n -Â· l deficit of nine parking spaces. The code states that upon ....e:,1.~ 4+4 ts. 'f'-/'if.2, redevelopment of a property any existing deficit in 21 i Â·4*111~ (.T '. E .4 1<.:, 1 parking spaces is allowed to be maintained. Staff finds I f k.'Â·4/1.,tÂ·. t .... these guidelines to be met. - 6 .'.3.-/:Â·:.Â·fÂ·- '.'Â· ,â€¢-0,0 2..:.I.~-. t . -' 4 tÂ·ki.'J,~:i,le Â·'Â·0'â€¢,+Wk Topoeraphv 3-Â·I ..4., The building's proposed design largely depends on the i 1 existing lodge structure, with a significant expansion Figure F: Yellow = on-site parking space. on the western side of the property. This planned Green = proposed public amenity space. 5 M U=,1-1 .. P6 expansion does not significantly alter the site's topography. The building is designed to face Durant Ave. and the landscaped front lawn. The materials are compatible with the character area and the surrounding natural landscape. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. Public Amenitv Space The proposed public amenity space will be in the form of I i green space that begins at the property's edge of the Durant Ave. facade and extends to both sides of the building (see Figure F above). This public amenity space will comprise 6 -1701\J L-1-11--1 - 2,222 sf, or 37% of the total property, and will exceed the , aLUZ 25% that is required by the code. It is proposed at street level, visually apparent, unenclosed, and the portion that is -34 T,LIJ-' ' located on the front southern fagade of the building will . Â·'tÂ·' ~ Â·â‚¬ 1 ' J-,1~ . 0 :J- 1- i receive the maximum amount of solar gain. The public ~i [ amenity is proposed to be landscaped lawn and will contain u - d== an area for bench seating and a table. Staff finds these 1 1 r_ L_-1 guidelines to be met. . .4 1 L ng : . .- Il *9 . Buildint: Placement The Applicant proposes to meet or exceed all required *.4*.*4 ,2. R t,Â»---- ~ ~ '~' K' '~ 3 'UL. I ~ -1<:F'-- A i Y setbacks for the Lodge zone district. The western side yard -a_.-_...1 4 .. 1ll 2 - i will meet the required setback of 5'. The existing eastern 4 1.-' 18 :*'~ '- Â·1.--,Â·~\ 'd.~.__ 4 F=ite /JA < side yard setback of 10' 6" exceeds the 5' side yard setback c- '.1131Â¥1*jil..4.Il I i requirement and is not changing with this application. The 4 -LI existing front yard setback of 10' is maintained and allows "...7-1 ic--1 1 -3 _ for green space and landscaping. The rear setback will 4'~ IIi= ir- 11//=121 [F--1 . f remain unchanged at 6' 11". -'- Â·Â·Â·---Â·=47-Â¢ P .33.-2.--**W] 11 ~-~~--9-KTI' 1 L.__ Â· Â·--CZED The building's primary entrance is re-oriented toward E. Durant Ave. and has been enhanced to create a more ---- - .2,-f distinct entryway to the building. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. Figure G: Orange indiates the area of increased building footprint Buildine Height, Mass & Scale The building is being proposed at a height of 39' 6" at the building's highest roofline. The Lodge zone district allows up to 38' in height by right for a lodge with one or more lodge units per 500 sf of Gross Lot Area, which may be increased to 40' through approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission during commercial design review. As the building is proposed, the Applicant is requesting the Planning & Zoning Commission consider and approve this additional two foot request. This variation is requested to allow the fourth story. The floor to ceiling plate height of the fourth floor is 8' 6 34". The two foot increase in height will enable the inclusion of the fourth floor lodging unit and fitness room. The Design Guidelines provide five circumstances to aid in determining if an additional height request should be permitted. To sununarize, these include the following: 6 .. P7 â€¢ To achieve at least two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o Staff finds there is more than a two-foot variation already in existence between the adjacent buildings on either side of the proposed remodel. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ The primary function of the building is civic. o This building will maintain its use as a lodge, and does not qualify as a civic use building. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o Staff notes there are no such conditions that affect this property. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o This building is not proposed with any affordable housing units. Staff finds this project does not meet this criterion. â€¢ To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Bltilding Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day-lighting. o The Applicant is suggesting that the primary reason for the height increase and raised stairwell roof at on the Durant Ave. fagade is to allow for efficiency in regards to the heating and cooling of the building. At the time of this memo, this has yet to be verified by the Building Dept. as a reason for the height increase. Staff does not support the Applicant's request for the additional two foot height allowance. At this time the Applicant has not met any o f the standards for receiving this 1Â¢ditiUt Ftlithernlore, the inclusion of a fourth floor will add additional height to the building due to the required means of egress. Per chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code, the stair tower on the front fagade is allowed to exceed the height limit by 5', and the side elevator and rear stair tower by 10'. Although the design does not fully take advantage of these heights, these egress elements will create an even greater height on nearly every side of this building. It is a goal of the character area to maintain views to natural features, and these views through the property will be compromised by this height increase. Staff finds this guideline to not be met. 1 - .. P8 -40' height line 17-.: .- t**441 FED;1 GE'1:114. 5.Re :30*Â·, r.,r 19-,Fil :-4,3.1... .f" I -i - 7 .4-Â·1 r, Height of stair tower 43" (as 1 -Â¥-,1.-k=t, 4 1 li>:-6.4.~M:~:OBa#,-z-1 -4.:-~--'.:-r:.__~:. measured to halfway point .-1.Â·In.- @2.- ~':'~ 1 "~ 29.Â» . of eave) - r *21,9- *2-1 -*.2... I.f< trKiÂ·13: Â·--' Jift?3 7.Â· 9~, ~ ~~~ ~ - f.:- 4 r- Â·' Â· Â·r,9,Â·4*"2/ --2 _ ~1 2 , . 4'*nA'--' + 8 *- --- ,Â§9Â·'2,34,3 1 1.00 1. 1â‚¬ 1 C -4 24*0â€¢ 2 8 20-2. - ...2 -1-22*1..' . , -- - 0 - I.'i-' 5' Ofâ€¢ ' '' 1 =9 5 22. *f.*fts 19 - Figure H (left): South fa,ade nith heights ' 1=.-Elaa-2. ile pieteâ‚¬]. CJ *il c~~r- /1- .hEEFGA . - 11 Â· 'f, :'j;~*'-/2--r-... ~ 0 . ~ 1 - 7~4*dift'-P ' h Â·__ CO t; ,| ~~ IÂ·~~~ .betÂ· ' ~ - 9.'Â»442Â§>'./1,4Â»1 44*Â«*Â»4*4,4144~ *jÂ»Â»96< ~14%<2<63ftÂ»%9Â»4.5,~,F<,r~,1~.~â€ž~fÂ«<Â«f.~. Â·Â·4>2~.Â»3492Â«>~.,/:89.. A<%44%44*5.~7..IdÂ«Â·Â«Â«Â»'2.40~>/04~:>'./.2. 0%.>397Â»Â· Figure I (belo,v): Western fafacle nith heights depicted. Height of stairtower 41'11" Height of elevator 44'2" (as | - ---- (as measured to halfway measured to halfway point __ point of eave) of eave) ; 1-Â·.11' 9.- " =.1.J 1111 11 /fr, 1.., 1.e-U --- C:9_,4:Al, & --i- U Â·Â·g.-..deÂ¥02-' 1.I:i~ ''Il~ [~i Iti,1 " - #fll 111 t--------* t )-1 lilli' 111 ------ I-fifts*Sk~ !7-' â„¢03* t 1 lili i & i I 1.111 lift' Â« -4--4Â» f., .Â·*F'* Â· 1 Kit 11 i .# Â£ .11''Irl I - .1 11 F.i.1 1.1 H 1 41-~1 ----.--- --- e--r=-- 40' height line 1. 1,3 1 1 1. :,1 1~ r-1.1 1.1. ' 11,11[li ~- IP ' T 11 -1-1, r -9 ;1 1,-1 --&~~:*ME- 1 1 11 i. . Ill h. lilli. : i 5.Â»41 ~ '~~;IÂ·!.6 Â·if F[ Il-[ I~Â· i - 1 0 1 1 =24...1 1,1.1,11.,1.1 ". ~ 1 T 1 1 - 11 41 1 1 1 111. 11 lik Â· ?I i I I.,1 ' ;- l # .11 I l.]: -i:i i 14 . ?f . 1 -1 1 1, 4 19%*10% 1-1Â·1, Â· iÂ·.. d.1 -1 1.- ' I U. % .. Plo glazing on the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staff does not support this alternative design as a remedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower creates a sense of even more floors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part of the front fagade does not assist in creating a feeling of reduced scale. Staff recommends the Applicant re-examine the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the perceived scale of the building, and creating a more human scale. Staff finds these guidelines to not be met. - 44 '1 04 3. '42~52.- - Figure L: Originally proposed stair tower, south facade Figure JI: Alternative proposed stair tower, south facade Architectural materials are varied on both the building's facades as well as the roofs, which are proposed as a mix of metal and green roofing. All mechanical units proposed for the roof will be grouped and screened from view. Staff finds these guidelines to be met. The roof styles, however, lack variation in profile, in that they are of flat style as opposed to the gabled roof that currently exists. The flat roofs add a greater mass to the building. Staff finds this guideline to not be met. According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating the feeling that the first floor is the most prominent. The floor to floor heights do not meet the design guidelines of a minimum 11' for the first floor or the 9' floor to ceiling height on all 10 .. P9 Staff has further concerns regarding the design relating to the perceived mass of the building. The original application depicts a front balconied area for the second and third story rooms that cantilevers over the front entrance. Staff finds this shadow box style balcony with its decks, and the railing on the stairway below, adds mass to the building that feels out of context with the rest of the design. The Applicant has worked with Staff to develop an alternative that allows the balconies and style of entryway to remain, but with a lighter feel. Staff supports the alternative design to this front entryway and balcony with its lighter balconied areas and open entryway to the building. Staff finds the alternative design (Figure K) to meet the guidelines. ,' 77./' 44 ' Al:... 4 1499 6 -7-4--k- C . 1,4 $ 5* e '.GIl- 10- U .0 6 j, i .1â‚¬* 32, h Â· ..Ing , -4 - 2 .:i 1 :b-/1/2.2 .Â¤:wi ' ?45 i 1.-*451/ :Â·, .--TÂ·-qÂ·Â·.t-EZâ‚¬ I ../: 12.56 I ,=UPLZE â‚¬9 '432*E 6-L#81 -204=IÂ¥.-06 Â· - 1 93 31 ''7Â· 44* m=1= - -Ubri:2-.' Lk -p - 22,â€¢ 5 Â·mt '$2 9 ... -1=2**D Â·tf --7 . ~0. 2. ....4 -. 1 'Ze -- .Z ir--Lt.kE; AL -:-'AERET- ' ekÂ»- 1 \ .0-*ImI]T 1 1 1 1 1 't t....111[li, ' f.: %. ZE:'-Â·;, i . 1 I.P.ill.'W~~~CFPW~ --,2. 0-- 321 #46Â· t- - Figure J. Originally proposed design Figure K: Alternathe proposed design Final Review Design Guidelines (Exhibit E of the Staff memo): Buildin~ Desian & Articulation: The building is largely dependent on the form of the existing lodge, as the Applicant is maintaining many of the existing features, such as the front fagade stairwell. Staff feels the Applicant should explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid iii reducing the perceived scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower' s front face presents as an entire row of windows. Tlis glazing creates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After meeting with Staff, the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reduces the amount of glazing on 9 a:. .. Pll floors, as this is a remodel and expansion project. Staff finds these guidelines to be not applicable. SIDING MATERIALS ROOFING MATERIALS Architectural Materials: The Applicant is proposing to AÂ·:SET S 21 E %.INCER STLCCO STANCI'.5 S~I METAL,/C:3'.3 employ high quality and 4*~iâ‚¬*62Â£33 94'Mati= durable materials in this [522.:6:~3~.~1- PL=2-44.-239:4-4 design. These include: A- - 5'*'50Â·--Of622 *%.:-11<Whigv<:1 â€¢ Thinset stone veneer -r'~2._f t. k.i.:.---Â·4 ' 324*--*.+?â€¢MiM' stucco 51*623/'-' â€¢ Wood rainscreen 2,"Â·---I--1 1.-6-2.:99 '66;FALvAN Fi~irr4 â€¢ CV grain vertical cedar ~rÂ·; ~Â· Â· n':r - erri /1~ siding 6%09'.?1*,~1 â€¢ Standing seam metal L. 16 4 C.U.fluÂ·RA X 4. "Ple-, ?l./1 r, ...i- . At*NÂ¢4'61<Ka - Izeep-- k-14% fÂ» ./ â€¢ Liveroof modular green lk. '.16.43% . ~20* 1 PIZ I ....=-17 $:rn- ~.. roof system ncr - p. Â·Â·=r===, C/GRA:N VERT,CALCE/,AR SIC..G 1-,Â·EKÂ·0Â·0-1 â€¢.Â·a -ClAR U.REH. Foc F 3' STEU Figure N: Proposed materials Staff finds these materials to be appropriate and to convey the quality and range of materials used in the design of the existing buildings in the character area. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the requests for Commercial Design Review, with the following recommended changes. â€¢ Redesign the trash/recycling area to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. â€¢ Reduce the overall height of the building to the 38' that is permitted by right in this one district. â€¢ Re-examine the materials proposed on the stair tower at the building's front faga(le to soften the massing and create a better sense of pedestrian scale. â€¢ Incorporate Figure K as the entry and balconies over the primary entryway. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve the request for the commercial design review for 122 E. Durant Ave."; however, Staff recommends continuation of the hearing to a date certain. 11 .. P12 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Commercial Design Review Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards Exhibit C - Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Exhibit D - Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines Exhibit E - Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines Exhibit F - Application Exhibit G - Department Review Memos Exhibit H - Letters from Neighbors 12 e . P13 RESOLUTION NO. _, (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN FOR LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND FRACTIONAL LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 2 OF THE EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS HOTEL DURANT, 122 E. DURANT AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-131-04-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hotel Durant LLC (Applicant), represented by Phillip Ring, RDS Inc, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Commercial Design for a remodel of Hotel Durant; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.412 of the Land Use Code, commercial design review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 7, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended approval of the consolidated final commercial design with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Commercial Design Review, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth iii Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for the Hotel Durant building, subject to the conditions listed below. Section 1: Approval of the consolidated Final Commercial Design does not preclude meeting other requirements o f the Municipal Code, such as Engineering and Parks standards. Drawings illustrating the approved design are attached as exhibits to this Resolution. Section 2: The Planning and Zoning Commission grants the Applicant approval to vary the height o f the Hotel Durant remodel and expansion from 38' to 40'. The building will be increased by a total of 3,738 sf. The unit count will remain unchanged at 20 units. The building shall be compliant with the underlying zone district's dimensional standards. 1 .. P14 Section 3: Public Amenitv Space The approved public amenity space shall comprise 2,222 sf, or 37% of the total requirement, to be maintained on-site. The public amenity space will consist of a landscaped green area at the front and sides of the property, with a table and bench seating. Section 4: Trash/Recycling The trash/recycling area exists off of the north fa~ade alleyway. This area will be improved to meet the standards of the code as a space that is a minimum of 15 linear feet and can accommodate one trash dumpster and at least four recycling collection bins. Section 5: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements when a building permit is submitted. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The design must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements. A construction management plan shall be submitted prior to obtaining a building permit. Section 7: Sidewalk Curb and Gutter All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A final grading plan depicting the improvements in the right-of-way must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to building permit issuance. Section 9: Parking Parking that is within the public right-of-way will not be dedicated to the Hotel Durant without an easement. Section 8: Parks Landscaping in the public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way requirement, Chapter 21.20, of the Municipal Code. There shall be no plantings within the City right-of-way which are not approved by the City Parks and Engineering departments. Per Municipal Code 13.20, an approved tree permit will be required prior to any tree removal or development within the drip line o f the tree. All tree permits must be approved prior to approval of building permits. 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) Section 10: Public Works 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 2 .. P15 the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 12: Environmental Health 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. Section 13: Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 14: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees, as applicable. The amount o f the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time. the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 15: 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 repehled or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 16: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion o f 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 at its regular meeting on August 7,2012. LJ Erspamer, Chairman 3 .. P16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A- Site Plan Exhibit B- Elevations 4 .. P17 Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan 262' ofortua ..7.- - - N O-UtÂ·Â·; AM wthE S :.* 73511 'Ellylt -- F [-4* - --- - - --331--7- 6 F t - r -1 4j1l -7 L . 6,34 - - 1_. i 4 al w W ----Ti Ill-rh/GO---- 1 1 g / 1.--11 i -4- - -1//1[1-1 LA 1 1 1 2% 13-&...4 irpÂ·14 1/7 A~ 1Â¤ F T-p.c;=k 1 4 , S j Bold>â„¢J .t. f-7) =k_1 ~40 l sq ft 429 sq / .'.*ing[ 64 1 -M m 1/\1 r=- 1 9 4 JUZEZZZI~ ==k 1 -4/~ 4.f 'll 4 Â£-=21,1 - 011 - 645* 1 1 . 44 2 Â·/ 1 F/0, 1 1 Â¤ H#.me 4/8/2.0/t I 322/.DvcniSbeel fÂ»CP.Eta G i 1- 0 4 1\\ =Un\.1 % 1 3 641 - t,/0 .} New Oncy/:e &:Ew/k, CuÂ·b 2. ali Ce/2.re'liewal 1 f -- 1 *Ey r. \\4 Â»\ \ 1 , v 3% , \X-,6<r&,5, 1 ~ 3,2 1~49 A 3~ /\323, 'gof, > ,/6-ih 5512~g Siteplan _ / East Durant Ave. 5 0.. O 0 Exhibit B -1 Pl 8 South Elevation ELEVATOR TOWER EXCEEDS ~--HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESSTHAN 10' SOUTH S-AIR TOWER EXCEEDS / 12 f~HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS THAN 5' -=233 40'ABOVEGRADEASMEASURED @FRONT ~ O- PLANE OF BLDG.-APPLICABLE FOR 30' ~ -7-~ 1 -----------I----I----- T.O. PARAPET- ROOF LEVEL,IA f=-=tr-37,Â·tÂ·:Â·f . 11-;~111~''~).f Â·.:~ -Â· -zirÂ· .'-- - ---- -134Â·Jo,74.iv~ 1 Â·Â· Â· -. 0.4.-F 8'-6 3/4" ~t': 8 'i''* '.*-,IW'*FF ' 1:5:+ : 1 ... . ....1 T.O. ROOF DECKQ4 -,L ' ~ -I .eli . 128'-Oll- F = tt Â· 1 .1.16/3 ' . 1 1,1.-Â¥ HEIGHT OF STAIR ---gr----~ ~~~ TOVVER- , ~ ~ Ij~!1=] R _ 8'-10/ MEASURED TO . HAL FWAY PO IN , . cz~zn p.t ~ . . r.&&730 951 .4 . - i -1 OF EAVE Â· 1 ~' ' .!it r TO. FIN. FLR.-TH RDLEVEL/hk EPED- 0[310 4 37'-11/811 # r 01 -Ill c=14. C=~ 2 -Â·: . ~ STEri ' , 90Â·*Ji . 1 ' * 4 4 \ HEIGHTTOTOPOF E; PARAPET OF FLAT ROOF V c. . ,- MAN'. QI- 711 - I- ./,/Ili,WE 8% 1 ~ T.O. F N. FLR.-SECCND LEVEL/IA-J- 16*F~ b.â€¢.1 r---1 . 7.I =30 CE=@1:= ~ 2...: - - IR-FE],fly -_LOBBY_LE351~.0Â§ -~ - 63. ' I~:IRI :-Â· .1/~ 1 -L r. W. 1 ., 9 . 10'7-0"-- K.Â·- Â· 0Â· Â·El 1 I. ,-'.1 --7---*I <:39~4144446Â« / 40 - 4Â»Â» 49/44Â»Â»49-: .,<Â«04'k. /,4 1 /.t 9,4 <441 ~/14 //<494#94~:7/2 f ~ TO.FIN. FLR.- BAGEMENT/h ------------~i-1------------ .-----.................. -- ---- ....- i.- ---- .--- EXISTING GRADE AS MEASURED @FRONT PLANE OF BLDG.TO /~ REMAIN- INDICATESMOST RESTRICTIVE GRADE Resoltion Exhibit B -2 P19 North Elevation - -- I ---- - _ TO.PARRETER-Off kEY.Etio~ -1,- 3 Â·. . 4 :F (8 .4: -' I .L / f~, .9 6 4 7/Elim"Wil ' . 2 9 :. - . iÂ· 2. i V 5 0 !7 ....Fil"ST//~i/#/1 31%.ft SUE' & . 2 :Â·4: 1: r. S i : .10 !4 Jui~ E ~i i.' :, ~R ~ s h 1 ~Ft. 9* . b .Â· 9 :/ 7 5 8'-6 3/4 ' ..........#...r- ... IllÂ· r 4 1 1341-6 3/4 '- 'l 1 1./ i Â· Â· Aer.57&3/1.'but â‚¬3 ..1 i 5 90. :,.. r t.t j.- 1. 2- Â· n . : iT; T.O. ROOF DECK- -1 A â€¢I~L '44'~.T~Ki,*.4:'1,~'~510~Â·44'5*Â·C~Â·44'.li -Â·' U,1 :a E #. i: p. 1 Â·Â·i jp.. i; Â· 71.-2.21.V, . .... 126'-0"/0 1 9, : .4 2,3 9 '. .3 iÂ· .Â·! , V . 1 542&Â§3Â§%Â§91 .. , 0 4 1,; 8 2 15 1 Â·Â· 5 0 h v st %* 2 ' 'â€¢ .05&,230~ JR * Â· .- ~ ~ W .4 2 -1 'Â· - 4 Mt 4 . .1. . 119 1 -NP i- i. " 1 *./. Â·* - 4&.i'.â€¢I V . rentit/%#ari ,Â®&:.-- ic:*IM:4â‚¬%!t['2%1325 *421...: *~* *:*- *3V3&Jyl T.O.FIN. FLR.-THIRD LEVEL 34 - 1, 'ifi:.:Igh:?.j*; - i"011*0/*MR *@&%#ImimA'J#*i.Â·, Â·~.*. Â· Â·h 117'-3. 0\ - 38 #tB *2' 4 6 4 f M~ ~ Â· RN;FE#-iâ€¢Â·484 O , 1:E â€¢ t %5 - â€¢ 1Â© 1 . . >1 '. 1 0.#R* IÂ·9#4â€¢.4~,â€¢2:fir,r,-,"t t>.4- -~ ~ *'Â»54Â«,ALW~.*7.4*47*w fdri 8'-7" RAwn#*MAWNKFBM-*Ar #â€¢PiÂ·Am i Sfi.,26.37 tq282:11 *~ilÂ·-,,..'*C; ~'E=r.,7.:Â¥: 1, ./ i. 4 k - 31 2. C.7 i~Â· Stm T.O. FIN . F LR .- o mu O ND LEVEL,A * -7Â·72 #// 1:i Â· I ... = --- :.ati-1~.2 5-~rakS'b~*1:5*%303 SW,jÂ®-L-â‚¬(~ ~ - .i *EstÂ¢Nt: 1 UO- 1 4 AC>' 7".E1 th:*149Â· 1 . . . V . -4 .-1 ... i. 7 :1 1 ,-t E IkE Â¢ b 3 .. 3 : dISP .Mt'2*fal.-L A.~ . - .:!. N. f; 1 ..., I . , .e : 4 30.:'444' 8'-7" "- 44+Ax# f.,Â·iÂ¥44Â»il .MÂ·:â€¢St:,Â·r' Ph 4, (44! 4; ti .:. :1 ~z .4, ~,er ~ r--- 1 2 4 4 tri 4285-' & -&96. 2 Â¢ tr .'*tÂ¥ b 4,92Â£239Â¥5$2<,MM~"m *8% Ng B %* 1 -1% ' 1 .y:f.~.31 -2~CD;:;1:11Â·9.43Â·.Â· 'Â·~ .Web 8 - 1 - 14:. .L 1[3 it l. ~ I &'I < .6 2 8, 3 1.1~-â€¢em/5.Buom# Â£ L ..- ~ h k & R44 T.O. FIN. FLR.-LOBBY LEVEL/- i '4 Fij Â£-2- 2 jÂ· Â· _ _ - Initie -- 24< ~.4 '. /.- ta irs;QM+514:FiFF:/BEE<501*'p/*01/0 u - -- e...1 .. ile V b 0 f-i{DI :'~ ) '34 89>n ..AAf,9.-'~*f Â·'*:3.:.UgN.'..Z-Ft' -4 4 ,& h F.Â· ie k de ,Â· I : Â· ..' I-; l'i '112 !24 t; . *I 8$ tity.yi-ji-i Q {-;= /%*66&*EQ."6&/pr=*d - + .. ... 4 b .t ...., 0 ..5511 r'T Â·.11 ' 1- 4' Â·Â·:.â€¢i- r.--:-Â·,Â·v/rat - ' itiftf:Â·I: 'Â·: A# Â·i''Rg;,â€ž.202-:I2â‚¬;'ke**,4.Â· A.zmle/LE" '. f *â€ž4"02*; 41 -5 3â‚¬ A St& 94*,1-1.,RAN/Â£29&4/z k==ILN ,#P SÂ¢Et- AUP,V.B ~Â·in, :37Â¥31-3.'t!}. :-44.*19*iME#'*<AR,Qug-'.- r' 4"11 2 1:7Â£.4.4.{ . 944Â«44>9149Â«:-Â«f>~49- tiÂ©249*99944Â«<0Â·Â«40Â«04Â»02>00/4<tÂ·Â»:71::~5%<R,Jiz-f,9.>2{46,:<444Â«000'>90.7 - - - ---ig-gil------- ------------- - ---~ -M. M------ I-mi K----6+I# ~-i. .-~11---m# - -~~---i-- - - - il+ -j+#Sujgu-* ---- -MM-~. 537.â€¢ZÂ·. "#;44 Â·- hÂ·.,4 Tm. irs. :2Â·r~3*"ftÂ·aâ€¢ ;rr- Â·0Â·Â·Â· r 1 e . Resollion Exhibit B -3 P20 West Elevation HEIGHT AS MEASURED @ FRONT PLANE OF BLDG APPLICABLE FOR 00' FROM FRONT HEIGHT OF ELEVAIOR TOWER- MEASURED TO HALFWAY POINT OF EAVE --~ ELEVATOR TOWER EXCEEDS~~~~~~~~ -HEIGHT -IN'IT BY LESSTHAN 10' NORTH STAIR TOWER EXCEEDS SOUTH STAIR 1 1-rAER EXCEEDS - HEIGHT LIM I- BY LESS THAN ' 0' -~----- - HEIGHT LIMIT B~LESS TH ' 1'4 5' 12 40'ABOVE MOST 12 1 -85'. L~-RESTRICTIVEGRAC,E j ~~~: \4 -q:FS ----- 3 : ht"f/.t- T.O. JARAPE--ROOF -EVEL/'h -lf. ---9- ETÂ¥1'*11-Ell'?1-11-;-1 1--1 ~11,~11119.11 lili 111,11 r. 1, 4 134-6 3/4-~V ' f' r< -006*gpie*n q, = 5 - --Â·4.-Eht--4-Â·"e'Â·Â·ibte'1241 ..LE 4 1 1 1 --- ..r - .. 1 4:f 1 4 -~~ ~;, '~ -'' ~~ i L'"I~ '~Â· ~~ | ,. ~Ii,, 5i<t~,~4Â·$",3-'2*gatiuma ' .9,/g/9/*i:.AL5,74744& 11,1 1 . , 1 11 ~%:11 1 '1 ~1 lu; 4.4 - :. 1 '53'2*3 -242, i ' ,-.f'StÂ·.Â·rÂ·'Â·t~.bÂ·V'4Â·U'..-ttr.*m 8 -6 3/4 1.:Â· iÂ· ;i~ Â·Â·Â·Â· .5 i ..?;r Â·Â·Â·*;~ :; -2,3-ti 1 11:1 " '11 11 1 1 1 1 11. 11 -*96.90/..J.9.':'2..cÂ» - 1 42 141 ykÂ·li'Â· 1 1 4:.9".~.~I':.~~.~-5.St.~?39Â·3*' ' .;93*At?*4.":-12 ::mp:Zi'.. 11 1- 1 1 11 1,1 1 1, 14 1 + fili 1,1.61 ,1 1 4 1,1 1 , 1 11 ,!,111 -141 :2.:f.:3.Ina~.22.7 v.4 .: 1 8.~p~Fâ€¢NSÂ© 6 ''292Â·7%2Nt<A,IÂ·24!St -Ci*4. 2 91 ftie.~t,kGV.al>,12-11.36yUr>*; ,,m'Â·Nal._ .6[:gle/-97. -/. Â·~ Â·'Â·.'Ex'i'akÂ·f,NNR@~MIftÂ·W . 10.41 Â·Â·-, Â· :a; Ptt,;~ v *, 4-H i - - -2.22;.3:0hÂ·Â»-5323Lt?26Â·:311 _1 T.3. ROOF DECI<,A 6 %. ;: 4 f.1;~2%6~445~ ..~ . 1. 1111 lili 7 -11-171 g .1 5-.11'11.1 1 .; Â·i.Â·Â·r:Â·Â·IllÂ·;:.Â·Â·Â·,Â·Â·:/1-%Â·Â·Â·Â·7Â·Â·,Â·* * 126'-Eli ..' ' 111 *50'#44..Â·Hed' <* .~ '. 4 i~ fiÂ·t %Â· V .M:-tit t..: f - 2 111 111 111 1,1 1.1 1~ ' Ill . lilli ,41 111 11 U LIli 14 i, Blefga&#Efreaw Â·Â·f '-.:Â·, bi i .,6 i i *:- :;.i:~imul#- Â· I. 2 111 4 MAK'~4142@:X* ' 1,1/ ~%'. 1. i #.I, I!,1 , :lilli ~, 1 1,1. 1 1 *D:.3435@MI~B'.3Ei*4322#YE & i l : 4 HEIGH- OF HEIGHT TO TOP Â·Â· mfh>.'-91.-- 1 STA R OF PARADET OF -- <1Â£**;rh2 A:rHILuÂ·'0,~Â·';~A~Fh,i'4 1 2,1 1 . . i, Im*f,#ZM*%1.W* th: tie : 1 1- 1 9 Â·Â· $ -- 8'-10' FLAT ROOF 1 Abl, 72'' I -1 . I TOY'/ER- ~ ~ ~ MEASURED 1 ,1 4 "194: 711,1"'i. el,1,19*r.,13'll.flll~f 111,0,I T 3 ti fili#W*W,BAB{Â·~:] ;114142'1~~Â·:f,i'~'':?-4:5Â¢3~.Â·kifitÂ·t r~) TO HALFWAY i , , i IllÂ·,i' ,-(,il ,Â·!,~ i~ | â€¢~ ,~ l' I__1Jit..1., P.:..'0~.- .Â·'Ir'â€¢I"Â·' I 'l' 5â€¢.Â·, Â· Â·Â·Â· i! I ,Â· Â·Â· â€¢. t I :, '. I... /:- -,i./. . Â·: Â·. - Â· i ... Â·.Â· ,Â· I. ..: Â·Â· Â· i. E. :11.7Â·yâ‚¬ 'r.- /'-lpiptae- Â· 1: ~~ .E - ! : 5 IriP ~,b ' 6 :..Â·:, 4 L 4 3 1- El:. .t. t --, Â·~ Â¢ * T.O.FIN. FLR-THIRD_EVEL,h _Â£ POINT OF - 1 1 11 7-37/0 39'-5 " ~.11-,17 i 1, 1 '1111 h 111 1111: ..11 1 1111-1 lili .1 1 11 11 lilli P. 12 11 ..1 i *194.19.3*92~:~ ) :: }1; 1 it 311{ ~' R 3,47: 6}-i ,# % 1.N'-'â€¢AV:N . Od-,9-/4 '' lol n a i., HEIGHT OF IN'.. Al....1*. L| | I ' d L' I~.i ':.2 1.'-:11.*11'11.rED'.T~ .:,':Â· . 6 1 1 : ..Jrli,04. ..~,., ,jp; ~~~;L 89.r' '4' E+NE 14Â·~Â· 1.Â·Â·- .Â·Â·Â·Â·i~~ -' 1 7.53 -miaejum..39:.lrÂ»~Eftef f r Â·- : -f 1' , i . L' :,Â· :' 3 ' 1' Â·Â· i -' S-AIR n *Â¢ Â¢ 1;1.11 1/1 1 *Ff?~,:'~3't-~J~4$/pl&i.-,4 11. ;1: TO~A'ER- ,6e:,1â‚¬Â·_~~2~;.~r.'-'~2>~Â·3,Â·~~~1~~M.k ~-11. ,~11. i, 1 1 .1.41 lilli . 11 1 ./5.''I..P. Â· -7~~17 # - . 511.'' 1, >. 2.. 0 4 a,Â»Â·I#:*:Alll /1, "'F' MEASURED--1 I.IN, 53.;~ TO HALFWA.f .WI .41#2.=-94'--'. 1 =26 111 11 491.11. lili 24 ' 11 ; POINT OF 22-3.'r,Â·.*BLE<entPWV 1:1â‚¬ 51.- i.Â·-:,2 5 â€¢1'r. ' ..~ 2.'Â·3(-2>11%~t 'Â· 3- -T~ORN.FLR.- SECOND_EVEL- EAV_ FT: S: ;@.IiaÂ·=.38-3-*-..1~~67. :~ i y ~t i i-i s.93:~ j i, Â·Â·; .( -E .2 ~i i Â¢ f i ;,li tit t .Â· .- 95919+9-Ml Ve.U I ' + . Ur . --,t. 4-. 1)F~J// 1~ KER~Â·21'fÂ·.WA,i'5'' ~ Â· , 1':I' lautwl#**M. 72;11~ 1 - lili 1:1 1Â¢1 21 1~ 11 .1 lilli 1 IIi': ;Al*Â©h :,!Â·20;.6;,47 i.**Â·kÂ·>18 k '- .: 2.-Â·Â¥*-N:XYGi 81 -7,1 .'' 12411 1,1 11Â· 1 111 1,111 .1! - .# -Â·1%â€¢. --/- 2'411? 1. :.7 'Â·Â· 4. '17Â· 1 1 Ma@y.Â¢*2e.4]0040*:142*. - i ,1,1 1 1 &**&**&/'-HI--I p i | I "rev 1 1, e l . 1 11 .1 16 1 11 1-1 1 '1 ..1 1 - - T.O.FIN. FLR.- LOBBY -EVEL/'h JL ' , :NeikEA:14.4.23:WRWS*,4#PLAW r-i - cdr *51RE...PQ~#*JEFTRP ' 41 -.*"Â· ' ' -'firÂ·0. rÂ·*}51,/ i.,R,5' - 1 DEEV 4 1. . 1 2.0 0 Â«19 1, 1 1- 1.1,~11'11,1111*J : 111 ,4,11,11'1. e,-10.~I. 1':<4'.:Vi/1:'i,y'P,#4*37<95~*A).IÂ·/4:yA<~~~544~:~/~~~~i ~~~~"24#i~'#*~:~::4215'7~W,~Ik~ki'kif~i&(4~~~~33~%6~j~~ -~~E>U~Il~,16 (3RA.DE TO REb.,1/1.~1Â·1- -49/~(4/,/9/Ls#f//APL~:&4524*#~),44#1//fff/>4/,iÂ»,1,;,4 043/61~.,* 1~465.~ti~~//*144.~~~7,49)l~~V~~,1ilt~i<Pr:i4 INDICATES MOST RESTRICTIVE GRADE T.O. FIN. FLR.- BASEMENT t. 1 "*25 492 O 0 Exhibit B -4 P21 East Elevation - SOUTH STAR TOAER EXTENSION ELEVATOR EXTENSION - NORTH STAIR TOWER EXTENSION --- T.O. PARAPET- ROOF LEVEL- , yfts.*/.p-7 A.2 3.iyr... 1-Of'r<timb Â·'-e .~ J N.g 134'-5 3/4"' T ! _.2.k~~3512 Â·23LdetittayÂ«41. . .Â· 1 1 i .21, 4 -' -.11| - N.vÂ·Â· ,.: .-3Â·.Â·Â·~ 33-31Â¢37 -i":,-Â·fÂ· r'â€¢0,1/1/8 17Â¥tâ€¢.1.0=11=0. :.2. :........ 'liam=' <Â·:._~ - , O -13 0/4 llc' 9 /4,1 T.C).ROOF DECI<~ .~ 1 73.i# Â·Â· 126'-0" - ' â€¢â€¢ :,â€¢3.:Â·,441!Allys"/9.94 111 ' Ir. â€¢ 1 Re-., 1 1 8'-10" T.O. FIN. FLR.--HIR -' /1 -' 1Â· r . - - 2---, /' 4-P~i Itill .'t -Â·-1.--.1-2 -:rli i ' 4 Â· - I.â€¢ - - â€¢ . - /1,â€¢â€¢. IrÂ· â€¢. - Â·. , *i'Â©I-.,+1%"il.AlkÂ·U*- T.O.FIN. FLR.- SECOND LEVEL/h . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 - .................----- ................ ..... - - - - - . lilli,1,1 .... ' 1 101 7".1., T 11,111,11 1.2 0 -, - - 1 1 1- 1- . 1 ' ...1 1,1 1 -- . 1 - ..11,1.1.1, lilli , 1, Â·Â· 8'-711 i t.'Â·Â·Â· Â·i.t Â·.1; . '11: 2 1 '01 -1 1; :~ L .' T.O.FIN FLR.-LOBBY LEVEL,â€¢h j~ lili \ 33311//7 JI11111 1â‚¬ ' FT. li . S /4?42<ftilft:==iÂ·, 1/ Â· 424Â»tÂ«Â»fÂ»fÂ»944((Â«43-44Â»firltroffÂ«fÂ»t~ 1 T.O. FIN. FLR.-BASEMENT/â€¢h 3-RE~ 720 .. P22 Exhibit A Section 26.412.050 Commercial Design Review An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context iii which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard, Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed a public amenity space that exceeds the required 25% of the lot size, and contributes to a pleasant pedestrian atinosphere. It will include landscaping ami a table and bench seating area. The Applicant has also proposed to continue the sidewalk that exists at the east end of the property across the length of the property's Durant Ave. faÂ¢ade. According to review of the City's Environmental Health Dept, the trash and utility area, as currently exists, do not meet the standards for the development, as it falls short ofthe required 15 linearfeet. Utility service pedestals for the lodge are located along the alleyway of the property. Delivery service areas are also incorporated along the alley. Mechanical equipment is proposed to be vented through the roof, and it set back from the street. This equipment is recessed behind a parapet wall so that it is not readily visible front the public right of way. Due to the need to update the trash and recycling area, Staff finds this criterion not to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: The proposal does not include the conversion of an existing structure to a commercial use. It exists currently as a lodge, ami the additions will not change the use of the property. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the proposal meets the Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base character area. Two of the key design objectives of this area are to provide a sense of human scale and to maintain views to the mountains and other natural features. Staff finds the proposed height of 39' 6" to be out of scale with the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the fourth floor element creates a need for additional 1 .. P23 egress by way of two stair towers and one elevator tower. These towers are permitted by chapter 26.575.020(19(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code to extend 5' above the height of the building when located on the front fagade, and tip to 10' above the height of the building when located at least 15' front the building's front favade. This additional height will have impacts on the design objective of maintaining views to the mountains (looking north), as well as creating a building that does not respect the human scale of the area. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2 .. P24 Exhibit B Section 26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards The following design standards, iii addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights- of-way or private property within commercial areas, On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: As the cmÂ·rent lodge exists, there is 2,282 sf of on-site public amenity space, representing approximately 38% of the total parcel. The Applicant has proposed a designated public amenity space of 2,202 sf, which represents approximately 37% of the total parcel. The public amenity space will be found along the Durant St fagade and will extend to both side yards of the building. It wili contain a bench and table seating, and will be landscaped with native vegetation. The Applicant further proposes to install a new sidewalk along the Durant St fagade, continuing the existing sidewalk to the east, and ending at the property's western edge. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to contain public seating and a table. The majority of the space wilt face south, which will serve to maximize solar gain, ami will have a view of Shadow Molintain to the west. It wil be directly accessible with an at-grade relationship to the street and proposed sidewalk extension. Staff jinds this criterion to be met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the public amenity space, which will receive maximum solar gain for the area, and is directly accessible by way of Durant St. The Applicant further plans to include a bench and table seating in this space. These characteristics contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 3 .. P25 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adj acent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Response: The proposed amenity does not duplicate any existing pedestrian space. It is proposed as completely on-site landscaped lawn with a seating area to the west side of the property. The proposed public amenity does not detract from the pedestrian environment, but rather enhances the environment by the provision of landscaping, public seating ami a large buffer of green space between the building and the street. To further promote a successful pedestrian environment, the Applicant is proposing to extend the sidewalk along this property that currently exists to the east. Sta#Jinds this criterion to be met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: No variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity is sought. Sta.ff.finds this criterion to be not-applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. Staff Response: The current trash/recycle area is located on the north side of the property, along the existing alleyway. According to the City's Environmental Health Dept staff, the existing area measures 10'x10'. Chapter 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycling service areas, of the Land Use Code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. Environmental Health Staff further recommends the Applicant provide at least four bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. Staff recommends this deficiency be remedied during the hotel's remodel. Staffjinds this criterion to not be met. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: The location of all utility service pedestals will remain in their current location, which is the on the northwest corner of the property, along the alleyway. On July 5, 1979 a Multipurpose Easement was recorded for this purpose (83721~80, Rec# 216075) and will continue to be utilized. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: The hotel receives laundry service biweekly. Delivery trucks park along the alleyway for this purpose. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 4 .. P26 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: All niechanical exhaust will be vented through the roof, towards the alley end of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. (Ord. No. 13,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: All mechanical ventilation equipment will be ducted internally within the building and ventilated through the roof. The existing condensation units will remain in their current location on the roof, recessed behind the parapet wal ami not visible from the public right-of-way. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5 .. P27 Exhibit C Design Objectives of the Mountain Base Character Area Design Objectives: These are key design objectives for the Mountain Base area. The City must find that any new work will help to meet them: 1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension that wil enhance the pedestrian-friendly street edge. The Applicant is further relocating the building's primary entrance to directly face Durant St, and is enhancing the environment with landscaping. Staff Jinds this criterion to be met. 2. Provide a sense of human scale. Staff Response: Staff is not convinced that the project provides an accurate sense of human scale. Staff finds the proposed height of 39' 6" to be out of scale with the character of the neighborhood, which contains two and three story buildings. Furthermore, the fourth floor element creates a need for additional egress by way of two stair towers and elle elevator tower. These towers are permitted by chapter 26.575.020(19(4)(c) Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations of the Land Use Code to extend 5' above the height of the building when located on the front fagade, and up to 10' above the height of the building when located at least 15' front the building's front faÂ¢ade. This additional height will have impacts on the design objective of creating a building that does not respect the human scale of the area. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level. Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing landscaping ami a table with bench seating at the street level. However, this is asmall lodge, with no restaurant or retail proposed for this space. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Reflect the natural topography. Staff Response: The proposed projectis a remodel ofthe existing building, and does not significantly alter the existing grade. The current design reflects the area's natural topograpity, and the remode! will do the same. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 5. Provide interconnected pedestrian circulation system. Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed an extension ofthe existing sidewalk that currently concludes on the eastern edge of the subject property, to run the length of the 6 .. P28 property on the Durant St faÂ¢ade. This extension will improve the pedestrian environment in this district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features. Staff Response: The proposed development will impact views to the north, dite to the addition ofthe fourth floor, which has the potential to interrupt the views to the northern natural features such as Red Mountain, as seenfroni the upper level of the Lift One Lodge directly across the streetfrom this development. This may be further compromised by the caps that are proposed for the two stairwells and elevator shaft, which are allowed to extend between 5' past the building's allowed height if located on the front facade, and 10' past the building's allowed height, if located atleast 15' back fronithefront favade. Although this proposed design does not take advantage of the full 5-10', the caps do add mass and height to the building by rising to 42' for the front stainvell, 43' for the western side elevator, (md 41' for the rear stainvel!. The proposal does not interrupt any protected view planes. Stajffinds this criterion to not be met. 1 .. P29 Exhibit D Mountain Base Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines 1. Street & Alley System Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to create a public sidewalk along the Durant St fagade which will increase pedestrian access to the property and circulation in the neighborhood, increase pedestrian safety, and will serve as an extension ofthe sidewalk that currently exists along the neighboring property'sfront fagade to the east. The Applicantfurther proposes a paved trail which will connect the sidewalk to the elevator tower on the property's west side. Both the sidewalk and the trail will meet ADA accessibility requirement. Staifinds the criterion to be met. Staff-finds the following criteria to be met: 4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will comiect to public sidewalks and trails. 2. Parking Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing no changes to the current parking. Chapter 26.515.020 of the Land Use Code requires 0.5 spaces per lodge unit in the Lodge (L) zone district. The property currently has one single parking space on-site, located off the rear alley of the property, and nine additional parking spaces off-site, along E. Durant Ave. Counting tile off- siteparkingspaces, thereisadeficitof oneparking space for the 20 lodge units. According to chapter 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking space, ofthe Land Use Code, this deficit is allowed to be maintained so long as the nuniber of lodge units does not increase. This application does not propose any increases to the number of lodge units, therefore no additional parking is required to be provided by the Applicant. Staffjinds the following criterion to be met: 4.2 Minimize the visual impacts ofparking. Staffjinds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.3 Structured parki,tg access shall not have a negative impact onthe character ofthe street. 3. Topography Staff Response: The proposed expansion ofthe building will have no significant impact on or changes to the site's topography. The Applicant proposes to use a natural color palette and materials that will serve to blend the development with the natural landscape. Stafffinds the following criterion to be met: 4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape. Stafffinds the following criterion to be not applicable: 4.4 A building on a stoping site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass and scale and reflect the natural slope of the site. .. P30 4. Public Amenity Space Staff Response: The public amenity space is proposed to be located primarily on the south end of the property, abutting the proposed sidewalk that will be adjacent to Durant Ave, and extending to either side of thefront fagade. This space is proposed at grade, is accessible to the public, open to the sky, and is visible from the public way. Access is further granted by a trail thatwillextend fromthe sidewalkto the elevator on the west side of the building. Sinceitis located in the front yard area on the south end ofthe property, at the lodge'sfront facade, the public amenity space will receive the maximum amount of solar gain. It is proposed to include a table and seating areafor public use along the property'swesternfagade. A sidewalk extension is proposed at the E. Durant Ave. property line, which will adjoin the existing sidewalk that currently ends to east of this parcel. Staff jinds the following criteria to be met. 4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible. 4.7 Locate Public Anienity Space such that it is visible from the public way and takes advantage of solar potential for outdoor activities related to hotels. 4.8 Provide Fedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access. Staff finds the following criterion to be not-applicable. 4.9 Provide Public Amenity Space whicli accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or close to and directly visible from the public way. 5. Building Placement Staff Response: The majority of the building is pre-existing, and any proposed additions do not change the placement of the current structure. The building is setback 9.8' on the E. Durant Ave. fagade, exceedingthe required fivefoot front setback. Thewestfacade meets the required five foot side setback, whereas the east fagade exceeds this at 10'. The primary entrance to the lodge is oriented toward E. Durant Ave. Thefrontfagade is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the pedestrian environment. Stafffinds the following criteria to be met: 4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale, enhance public access and accommodate landscaping where appropriate. 4.11 Orient a primary entrance to.face the street or an area of open space adjacent to the street. 6. Building Height, Mass & Scale Staff Response: At its highest point, the building is proposed at 39 ' 6". This exceeds the 38 ' height limit that is provided by right to a lodge unit of this density within the Lodge zone district. The Applicant is requesting an increase to 40', per Land Use Code chapter 26.710.190 (D) (8)(e), which states that this height may be increased to 40' through commercial design review. This does not take into account the elevator and stairwell caps that are permitted to exceed the indicated zone district height by 5-10' depending on location within the development, as per Land Use Code chapter 26.575.020(F)(4)(c) Measuring Building Heights. The tallest point on the 9 .. P31 frontfaÂ¢ade is the stainvell cap that measures to a height of 42% on the westernfaÂ¢ade the elevator shaft that measures to a height of 43', and the northernfagade, with a stainvell cap that measures at a height of 41 '. Due to this project being a remodel rather than a conipletely new development, none of the floor to ceiling heights nieet the nlininium 9 foot. requirement. The ceiling heights range from 8'7 " at thefirst and second levels to 8'10" at the third level. The fourth level is proposed at a height of 8'6 V. The Design Guidelines for the Mountain Base Character Area lists a number of reasons a request for height increase may be granted within this area. The majority ofthese do not apply to this project. However, the Applicant does present that this height increase will serve to make a demonstrable contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency. Variations within the proposed development are achieved in the height and profile ofthe building's design. Thefourth floor enclosed element is set backfrom thefrontfagade by approximately 25 ', and achieves its highest point of 39'6". staff.finds the following criteria to be met: 4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a development. 4.14 Provide variationin building height and roof projile through one or more of the joilowing: â€¢ Vary the heights for different sections ofthe development. â€¢ Vary the setbacks and waH planes of different building components. Staff.finds the following criteria to not be met: 4.12 A new building oraddition should reflect the range and variationin building height of the Mountain Base Area. 10 .. P32 Exhibit E Mountain Base Character Area Final Review Design Guidelines 1. Building Design and Articulation Staff Response: The proposed building is largely dependent on theform of the existing lodge, as the Applicant is maintaining many ofthe existingfeatures. This includes thefront stairwell on the bitilding's southfagade. Stafffeels the massing ofthefront stainvell could be significantly reduced by way of reduction in or size ofthe proposed glazing, and/or the materials that are proposed to be used. The proposed roofis lacks variation in providing an articulated faÂ¢ade, as the proposed roofs are flat, thereby adding to the mass of the building. Variation is seen in the proposed use of niaterials found throughout the design of the building. A green roof is proposed for portions of the third story and fourth story roofs According to the Design Guidelines the first floor should appear as the tallest floor of the building. The Applicant proposes a more pronounced front entryway that assists in creating the feeling that the first floor is the inost prominent, although the highest floor to ceiling ratio exists at the third floor level. The floor to floor heights do not meet the design guidelines of a minimum 11' for the first floor or the 9' floor to ceiling height on all floors; however, the Applicant is reusing the existing building, and is not proposing any changes to the existing floor to floor heights Jbr the basement through third floor levels. Staff feels the Applicant should be exempt from this design guideline. The primary entrance is not located at sidewalk level, rather access may be gained by aflight of stairs or by use of the elevator on the western portion of the property. No airlock entryway is proposed. Staffis concerned that the pronounced height of the building does not reflect the human scale and character of the area. The building's significant height is not in context with the surrounding area Staffjinds the following criteria to not be met: 4.15 To reduce the perceived mass of a building, the design shall respect the natural setting and reflect the human scale and character of the city. 2. Street Level Character Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to landscape the street edge area to create a visually inviting area to pedestrians, and has proposed a continuation of the existing sidewalk, which currently ends before this parcel. Any addition to this building is proposed to match the floor-to-floor height of the existing structure. The structure is not new, nor is there any retail proposed, therefore not all criteria is relevant to this review. 11 .. P33 Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.16 Develop the street edge to be vistially interesting to pedestrians. Stafffinds the following criteria to be not applicable: 4.17 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. 4.18 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet front.floor to ceiling oil allflt'oors. 4.19 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. 4.20 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structinÂ·es. 3. Roofscape Staff Response: A 1,149 4 green roof has been proposed for U U UU the building's upper roof The roof deck below is proposed â€¢ ivith a 793 sfdeck containing a hot tub and lower 55 sf green roof See Figure A, right. .W It - I ]} 3rd flow- ,* '.I . Green roof Variation in the roof profiles are achieved as this remains open for the first 25' (used as deck space), then increases to a height of 38'feet untilapproximately 48'fromthefront facade where the roof reaches its highest point of 39' 6", '.... 4th floor Green Roof andthenrecedes backto apoint ofjust below 39' atthe building's rear. 11 2 =11 - 1 0. Staff jinds the following criteria to be met: : 96 4.21 The roofscape should be designed with the same design 0. attention as the secondary elevations of the building. - 1 .Â·ift* Â· 4.22 Variation in roof profiles shotild be re.flected in both 0......1 1 the width and the depth of the roofscape of the 0 % f !,f 1, biii [di jig (s) â‚¬1 11 11 1 Figure A: Green roofs 6. Architectural Materials Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing to employ high quality and durable materials iii this design that reflect the quality cmd range of those foundwithin this character area. Stafffeels the Applicant shotild explore an alternative mix of these materials to aid in reducing the perceived scale of the front stair tower. As initially proposed, the tower's front face presents as an entire row of windows. This glazing crcates a sense of strong linear mass at this feature. After meeting with Staff the Applicant has proposed a secondary design that reducing the aniount of glazing on the stair tower, creating smaller punched openings. Staffdoes not support this alternative design as a reniedy to the design issue, as the number of windows within the tower creates a sense of even inorefloors than actually exists. The use of dark materials on this part of the front faga(le does not assist in creating afeeling ofreduced scale. Staff recommends the Applicant re-examine 12 .. P34 the use of materials on this stair tower with the goal of reducing the perceived scale of the building, and creating a more human scale. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.23 High quality, durable materials should be employed. Stafffinds the following criteria to befully met: 4.24 Building materials should have these features: â€¢ Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically. â€¢ Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of thefagade. e Convey human scale. e Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this clintate. 7. Paving and Landscaping Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to landscape the property with native vegetation, particularly along the Durant St fagade. A green buffer isproposed to be created between the on-street parking area and the sidewalk, and will between the sidewalk and the bitilding. The ,Applicantfurther proposes to continue the existing sidewalk that currently concludes at the eastern edge ofthe property along the Durant Stfagade. A pathway willatso be created.fromthe sidewalk to the elevator on the property's western side, to provide ADA compliance. Staff finds the following criteria to be met: 4.25 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics: â€¢ Enhance the street scene. â€¢ Integrate the development with its setting. â€¢ Re-fect the quality of the architectural materials. 4.26 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street (md sidewalk. 13 .. P35 Exhibit F Application 12 .. P36 Exhibit G Department Review Comments Inventory: â€¢ Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer, Engineering Dept. e Ashley Cantrell, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, Environmental Health Dept. â€¢ Brian Flynn, Open Space & Special Projects Manager, Parks Dept. 13 .. P37 Date: August 1, 2012 Project: Hotel Durant City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose o f the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A compliant drainage report and plan must be completed prior to final plat. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses FIL, it can only be applied to existing impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet tile Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoffrates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. This includes the following: â€¢ The curb and gutter proposed in the plan does not show if there will be positive drainage. Engineering is concerned that a low point will be created just to the west of the site. â€¢ Not sure if the curb and gutter meets the minimum slope requirements (.75%) â€¢ Minimum sidewalk width for multi family is 6 feet not sure i f plan meets this. â€¢ Sidewalk is required to be placed on the property line. Plans do not depict this. As a result a final grading plan showing the improvements in the ROW must be approved by the engineering department prior to final plan. .. Utilities P38 All above ground utilities must be located on the property ,instead of the alley. Plans do not show that there are any of these types of facilities. Not sure if this was overlooked or that indeed there are no above ground utilities. Parking The plans show configuration ofproposed parking. Since this parking is within the ROW it will not be dedicated to the Hotel. Additionally the configuration will be determined by City's parking dept. Construction Management - Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Building permit. Fee in Lieu -This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. .. P39 Sara Nadolny From: Ashley Cantrell Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:39 AM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: RE: Hotel Durant Redevelopment Hi Sara, After visitingthe site and reviewing the plans for the Hotel Durant Redevelopment, the Environmental Health Department recommends the existing trash area be expanded. The only existing trash area that I saw was a 10 1 x 10 ft. concrete pad, adjacent to the alleyway. This is only large enough to contain the existing dumpster. Two recycling bins were placed in the alleyway in front of the existing AC units. In the future, the Hotel Durant should provide at least four bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. It is unclear to me if the new plans will allow for the recycling to remain in the alleyway. 1 recommend expanding the concrete pad that is currently used for trash to accommodate all necessary recycling bins as well. The land use code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. The existing concrete pad does not meet these standards. Ashley (970) 429-1798 From: Sara Nadolny Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:00 PM To: Ashley Cantrell Subject: Hotel Durant Redevelopment Good afternoon Ashley - I am wondering if I can get your comments on the redevelopment project for Hotel Durant. This is a redevelopment of an existing lodge building, with substantialadditions being proposed. The four-story building's floorarea is planned to be increased in size by 3,738 st however, this update to the lodge primarily involves the increase in unit size, and no new units will be added (there are 20). Also, the lodge does not contain a restaurant or kitchen. The trash/recycling area is proposed to remain the same as currently exists. Staff would like to ensure thatthis will be adequate to serve the redevelopment, and also if there are any issues with this currently that these will be rectified during the redevelopment process. This project is scheduled to go before the Planning & Zoning Commission on August 7th. Therefore, I will need any comments you may have by Tuesday, July 3151 to ensure my memo is complete. I just realized that I do not have an electronic version of this plan set, so I will run a copy down to you in an interoffice envelope. Please let me know if you have any questions - Thanks! Sara M. Nadolny PlannerTechnician 970.429.2739 sara.nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 1 .. P40 Memorandum Date: July 23, 2012 To: Sara Nadolny, City ofAspen Planning From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: Hotel Durant, 122 E Durant St Landscapingwithin the Public Right of Way: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. For planting specifications within the streetscape, please refer to www.aspenpitkin.corn on the Natural Resource page/tree care. Tree Permit: Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural Resource page, click on the 2012 tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a finallandscape plan during the review o f the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. .. P41 Exhibit H Letters from Neighbors Inventory: â€¢ Anthony Imhof, Lift One Condominium Board of Managers e Larry Mages, Lift One Condominium Association â€¢ Arlene Nelson, 119 E. Cooper #6 14 .. P42 Lift One Condominiums 131 East Durant Avenue â€¢ Aspen, CO â€¢ 81611 970-925-1670 â€¢ fax 970-925-1152 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning City Hall 130 S. Galena Street 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 July 22, 2012 Attn: Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate Re: Hotel Durant Proposed Expansion As the across the street neighbor to the Hotel Durant, Lift One Condominiums appreciates their desire to update their physical plant. We are also mindful of the 'fitting iii the neighborhood character' dynamic as we have been involved with the 'up the hill' proposed developments on South Aspen St. for the past ten years. Lift One also managed a complete exterior renovation on our buildings five years ago without expanding our external envelope by one square foot. Several of us attended the Hotel Durant presentation of their expansion plans and have examined their Land Use application. We feel that to classify their proposed additions as "a minor lodge expansion" is an inaccurate representation of the proposed addition. Our problems with their proposal are as follow. o Although "Attachment 3" to the pre-application summary states no change to the west setback, the proposal actually is adding an 8 ft extension (16 ft at the elevator) 54 ft long and four and a half stories high- replacing what is currently only decks and a hot tub. â€¢ The same attachment also claims a height increase from 35.5 ft to 39.9 ft when iii fact they are comparing the peak roof height on their existing stair tower to the flat roof level o f an additional floor. The true comparable heights to the new stair tower and proposed elevator tower are about 45 ft. â€¢ There is nothing else in that entire square block that is higher than three stories and the adjacent Aspen Townhouse Central complex immediately to the west along Durant Street is only two stories tall (see attached photo-diagram). The Durant's proposed adjacent slab-sided west-facing elevation is four and a half stories. â€¢ Although the "Mountain Base Character" area outline does jog north to encompass this block (the only block north o f Durant Ave to be included in such?) this is basically a flat block and height differences between adj acent buildings are important. They should not be exempt from basic good planning practices as spelled out in the Aspen "Small Lodges Character Area" -Building 1-800-543-8001 o www. liftone.com â€¢ liftone@rof.net .. P43 Lift One Condominiums 131 East Durant Avenue e Aspen, CO â€¢ 81611 970-925-1670 . fax 970-925-1152 â€¢ Height Mass and Scale. We would prefer if it better reflected the human scale and character of the city As neighbors, we have no particular problem with their expansion o f the building horizontally to the west other than the cliff like transition created with the adjacent property. The fourth floor addition is our major concern (four and a half stories counting their half basement) which is out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposed fourth floor addition is quite monolithic compared to the adjacent properties whether looking at the west, east or south elevations. We therefore oppose the granting of any additional mass and height leeway in pursuit of this additional story. Their proposal only adds one hotel unit in this vertical addition plus a 'recreation room' which given its exposure, could seriously disturb the neighboring residences. We think that their renovation can be successful without this upward expansion. This last unit could be accommodated within the expanded three story envelope without economic necessity for, or hardship derived from the refusal of, the requested commercial review variance. We look forward to a continuing dialog concerning this project. Please keep us apprised of the process. Lift One Condominiums Board of Managers - Anthony Imhof, Vice President 131 East Durant Aspen CO 81611 CC: Planning and Zoning Commission: LJ Erspamer, Chair- Stan Gibbs, Vice Chair Jasmine Tygre Jim DeFrancia Cliff Weiss Bert Myrin Keith Goode Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate 1-800-543-8001 â€¢ www. liftone.com â€¢ liftone@rof.net 4 1 1 , '65 4#Â£ , 4 ./ 4 m. , 4 4% > Â·-:'Â·fÂ· U 11.it r. .., :t . .1 '41,1 Â· 1 6 ... ' lA . ir k . 1 I ./6. 1 40.1. =...... K , 0 6 29. 1~ , f. 42 . 1 : tife f. St ~. f, I 4 t - 49 z' ./44. 4' E 4.f F $ 1 f.9,-42 6~1 6. 1.46:iII 2 1-i :Â· 4-4 I Â·mi . 9.14 Â·:.1 : . >:<9:70 ..4.t + 4,1. 1 f . , 1 ls' , , 1. r - V t , 11 1 .-47% U . 7-4 83 m 1 ...' '. 2, 1 â‚¬r.NUL.14 0 I. P.. . , m 1. f" 4.44 0 U.113-. '~Ati,ji 2 kh' -4. p -:Lvil t. i M. 1 : 64X 1 -TrffH uvy . 7. 4 r}1 Â°11 Ef, Iti~il i. .121,1~1~~i'ji '1~kI3'1[3 ~.IL.;Lbil t. - if+ :C . - 41," f *70:22 -- 34.#ig . < .... . m - %2- 4.... 4 1. 92.*14 4 - 4 4 3: p b-Â·,vÂ» 1,tt~ Â· 7 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '.Â· i 4:'.~~.~~ ~ ' I ..POW 0/ 1 Â· 1 9 1 1 , 44, ~ K * . - 1 - $Â·I' 4. It.11 ' I h' i: :flth.j '. 1, - .- ..=Ul I - . I 4 I th..5- 3; Â·r;Â· p.di,661 i.,9"*- '' 1 #841 - * fi ,- 2 . 1 - 1 - -W . , -%9.1-- 21 -lf//m F '7 A. -a 4 , ' 5'1 ' 'Â·Â·04& * - -ir 1 ' i ki ri-'VT ~ ' Det!, .=-,---,/09 eli , D td i 467 --- I :.. 1. , 2..::'::T,nuf 2 - -25 R J=. T t. 2: + r., I. A I .. P45 Sara Nadolny From: Larry Mages [LMages@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:44 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: Hotel Durant -- Glass Deck Enclosure Attachments: CIMG3908.jpg; CIMG3909.jpg; CIMG3910.jpg; CIMG3911.jpg; CIMG3912.jpg; CIMG3913.jpg; CIMG3914.jpg; CIMG3915.jpg; CIMG3916.jpg Ms. Naldony, Thank you again for meeting with me to discuss the proposed expansion of the Hotel Durant. It was very helpful. As you know I am the president of the Lift One Condominium Association. We are located directly across Durant street from the Hotel Durant and will be one of the properties most affected by the expansion proposal. In a separate letter, we have expressed our opposition to the mass, size, height and related matters of the project. We are also concerned about the proposed glass enclosure of the proposed roof deck. We hope that the City will require some other enclosure. Although one might think that glass, being generally thought of as transparent, would be the . least intrusive of enclosures, this is not the case for several reasons: 1. The remainder of Hotel Durant (particularly their balcony enclosures), in fact most of the buildings in town and their roofs, are of wood and/or dark metal. The glass, being so different, is very noticeable, distracting actually. It is out of character with the neighborhood and the town. The glass enclosure on the top of the Dancing Bear illustrates this. 2. The glass is really not transparent. This particularly true when the: sun hits it at various times of day. I have attached photos of the Dancing Bear glass enclosure taken in the morning and late afternoon/evening. As you will see the glass becomes not just opaque, but highly reflective; one really cannot look directly at it. Reflection from a glass enclosure directly across the street from Lift One will be a significant intrusion -- people will not be able to look across the street and up at Red Mountain; and the brightness of the reflection or refracted sunlight will be similar to a very large, bright light outside one's window. We hope that you will not permit the request for additional height, and that you will require a different roof enclosure, one more consistent with the surrounding and not intrusive on the neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. Larry Mages President, Lift One Condominium Association 1 , : '*'i j 1.NES... I , . 9 114 ...Il..I.... ~e Aph 'f 'w~ .. . ~i~f~ 9 U: 5-9"Â·Â·3~~r Â·3Â·,A:'Â·Â·'<Â·910 43: -t ft' - *Q.. ' g=.It,Ira~. 14,~~1...:7.1,.. . ~~ ~ ~~ ~W b Â¥Â»,le. .. Rf . ' --- ' 4/h 1 5311 3.9 I . 4,372%#. ' . 0 -1. I ..r . . .elly i jTOP. . 44 T I I.B. ,-r.Mt4 742.43/3-,. a st. '12.11 4~ <rf- .194 â‚¬ -h.,.9, AS.-~,2. I , 22.. > . Â·Â· .; Â· c 7.--&W&(4Â»-C-*411'1,1 11?4 1.~re h ),C ..,- .$6 70. .. "F . .Ick 32 .: rfil~.7.2~-,ac r f* >44,1,1 I. 4.-~~~-i/ . I 4 .uÂ·. li?, f . - *'34, h, - ' 1 '* 5'- 2,7 4.41:0. , LÂ». , 4 : 1 ./ ' ' '.1<~~'r /10 : 4 *f~Â·t~O,fir.4-~4#'42 k,:4. .t. , 4Â·..Â·. '4 ' 4 * 'I'.''A 'Â· t, e . r /54*Jal. N.L.1 . Ft . *>'*tlÂ· ., ft:.yj.,4 >fi.ly:4~.,1,i.4,1<74~415.,0.*Mir.111*.1 ,~/11.~1- - : v.* i < -+2v flp=de--:. ~~U~..~~';r*9~: Â·' .: 2'k., ". f.'Ilialll:#i# I' 'b-i Za 04.29 :7171. , -/. 4 , 1 1* -NI- â€¢t.Â·1 - .00 : m 9*SS>j J 4 -~ I ! .4, .Â® , ..i,7,4.Ar: 4% .~ Â£.4 'r 3/4-Â·,5 . 22/,2,<,4,-,Â·Â» 4 --1. V ... 7 I '41 91,1 I A *Aft 4 4 .. 4 1." 5 4 -5 . . I. &.. . .-A ..455 , 1 , . 44 - - ~ -- i â‚¬ 14: 1 .. , + Â· Â· . bit, .4. . I i-- .1 91 . 4 10.2 2..22 .0 -'.I Â· : :39 - I '' b ~ , ....1 19. 1 e , - 0 T.1 . A .21 p 1 - j. 4..+ Â¥ .- :* f 3. . I - 1 pit.1.2 I ...1,9 L,6.1 ; me u Ar- â€¢ ' 4 2 1 .b. . ..Â·* .'3Â·re 1.-h~7757~".9 4, . r Atgo:i ..- ... I b * ..C Â» Â¥ , 3,â€¢IrÂ·. '2/irAM*'4: . V., Â· ..9-4.;7 - It . t'*240 :2 be . j. : Â·92,1.41 .,.. 9,..1.-3, '4 - . eâ‚¬â‚¬9. . /teÂ·<t 3, y*,724 442,%,i , 0 -i,r , I . f : 6*j / 4 5. 9 . -t' $4'11:9 . .+2 I i je.1.,1~ : Er'Â· e %*Ar., 1 - . I. 4'. .A 0 0 Sara Nadolny From: Arlene [970arlene@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:27 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: RE: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant I LIVE AT WINFIELD ARMS AND MY PATIO FACES HOTEL DURANT, ARLENE NELSON 119 E COOPER #6 1 HAVE SOME DEEPCONCERNS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW: LARGE PINE TREES CUT DOWN IN ALLEY AND ON THE SIDE OF BULDING NOISE AND PRIVACY TO OUR PATIOS IF THERE IS A HOT TUP AND PARTY ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR LOSS OF VIEW TO ASPEN MTN. IF AN ELEVATOR IS PUT IN MORE ALLEY TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN THE ALLEY DUE TO AN UNPAVED ALLEY, IF OUR ALLEY WAS PAVED IT WOULD CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THE NOISE THIS,IS A RESIDENTIONAL AREA AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CONCERN I hope these concerns will be addressed as I will be out of town. As nothing was ever done about the noise in the alley f.rom their air conditioning fans which make a tremendous amount of noise when they go on and off.. From: Sara Nadolny [mailto:Sara.Nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:50 PM To: 970arlene@gmail.com Subject: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant Good afternoon Arlene - I just received your voicemail message. I will call you in just a couple of quick minutes, but thought I'd shoot you an email to get things started. Sorry I haven't received your earlier sent email message. Please let me know if you receive this one. Sincerely, Sara M. Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2739 sara.nadolnv@ci.aspen.co.us Email secured by Cheek Point 1 .. P50 Sara Nadolny From: Arlene [970arlene@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:27 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: RE: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant 1 LIVE AT WINFIELD ARMS AND MY PATIO FACES HOTEL DURANT, ARLENE NELSON 119 E COOPER #6 1 HAVE SOME DEEPCONCERNS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW: LARGE PINE TREES CUT DOWN IN ALLEY AND ON THE SIDE OF BULDING NOISE AND PRIVACY TO OUR PATIOS IF THERE IS A HOT TUP AND PARTY ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR LOSS OF VIEW TO ASPEN MTN. IF AN ELEVATOR IS PUT IN MORE ALLEY TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN THE ALLEY DUE TO AN UNPAVED ALLEY, IF OUR ALLEY WAS PAVED IT WOULD CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THE NOISE THIS IS A RESIDENTIONAL AREA AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CONCERN I.hope these concerns will be addressed as I will be out of town. As nothing was ever done about the noise in the alley from their air conditioning fans which make a tremendous amount of noise when they go on and off. From: Sara Nadolny [mailto:Sara.Nadolny@ci.aspen.co.usl Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:50 PM To: 970arlene@qmail.com Subject: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant Good afternoon Arlene - I just received your voicemail message. I will call you in just a couple of quick minutes, but thought I'd shoot you an email to get things started. Sorry I haven't received your earlier sent email message. Please let me know if you receive this one. Sincerely, Sara M. Nadolny PlannerTechnician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2739 sara.nadolnv@ci.aspen.co.us Email secured by Check Point 1 .. Exhibit G Department Review Comments Inventory: â€¢ Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer, Engineering Dept. â€¢ Ashley Cantrell, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, Environmental Health Dept. â€¢ Brian Flynn, Open Space & Special Projects Manager, Parks Dept. .. Date: August 1, 2012 Project: Hotel Durant City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose o f the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A compliant drainage report and plan must be completed prior to final plat. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses FIL, it can only be applied to existing impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet the Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. This includes the following: â€¢ The curb and gutter proposed in the plan does not show i f there will be positive drainage. Engineering is concerned that a low point will be created just to the west of the site. â€¢ Not sure if the curb and gutter meets the minimum slope requirements (.75%) â€¢ Minimum sidewalk width for multifamily is 6 feet not sure if plan meets this. â€¢ Sidewalk is required to be placed on the property line. Plans do not depict this. As a result a final grading plan showing the improvements in the ROW must be approved by the engineering department prior to final plan. Utilities All above ground utilities must be located on the property instead of the alley. Plans do not show that there are any of these types of facilities. Not sure i f this was overlooked or that indeed there are no above ground utilities. Parking The plans show configuration of proposed parking. Since this parking is within the ROW it will not be dedicated to the Hotel. Additionally the configuration will be determined by City's parking dept. Construction Management - Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Building permit. Fee in Lieu -This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. .. Sara Nadolny From: Ashley Cantrell Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:39 AM TO: Sara Nadolny Subject: RE Hotel Durant Redevelopment Hi Sara, After visiting the site and reviewingthe plans forthe Hotel Durant Redevelopment, the Environmental Health Department recommends the existing trash area be expanded. The only existing trash area that I saw was a 10 ft. x 10 ft. concrete pad, adjacent to the alleyway. This is only large enough to contain the existing dumpster. Two recycling bins were placed in the alleyway in front of the existing AC units. In the future, the Hotel Durant should provide at least four bins to collect recycling in addition to a dumpster for trash. It is unclear to me if the new plans will allow for the recycling to remain in the alleyway. I recommend expanding the concrete pad that is currently used for trash to accommodate all necessary recycling bins as well. The land use code requires a minimum of 15 linear feet for the trash area. The existing concrete pad does riot meet thesestandards. Ashley (970) 429-1798 From: Sara Nadolny Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:00 PM To: Ashley Cantrell Subject: Hotel Durant Redevelopment Good afternoon Ashley - I am wondering if I can get your comments on the redevelopment project for Hotel Durant. This is a redevelopment of an existing lodge building, with substantial additions being proposed. The four-story building's floor area is planned to be increased in size by 3,738 st however, this update to the lodge primarily involves the increase in unit size, and no new units will be added (there are 20). Also, the lodge does not contain a restaurant or kitchen. The trash/recycling area is proposed to remain the same as currently exists. Staff would like to ensure that this will be adequate to serve the redevelopment, and also if there are any issues with this currently that these will be rectified during the redevelopment process. This project is scheduled to go before the Planning & Zoning Commission on August 7th. Therefore, I will need any comments you may have by Tuesday, July 311 to ensure my memo is complete. I just realized that I do not have an electronic version of this plan set, so I will run a copy down to you in an interoffice envelope. Please let me know if you have any questions - Thanks! Sara M. Nadolny Planner Technician 970.429.2739 sara.nadolnv@ci.aspen.co.us 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 1 .. Memorandum Date: July 23, 2012 To: Sara Nadolny, City ofAspen Planning From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: Hotel Durant, 122 E Durant St Landscaping within the Public Right o f Way: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. For planting specifications within the streetscape, please refer to www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural Resource page/tree care. Tree Permit: Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural Resource page, click on the 2012 tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. .. Exhibit H Letters from Neighbors Inventory: â€¢ Anthony Imhof, Lift One Condominium Board of Managers â€¢ Larry Mages, Lift One Condominium Association â€¢ Arlene Nelson, 119 E. Cooper #6 .. Lift One Condominiums 131 East Durant Avenue â€¢ Aspen, CO â€¢ 81611 970-925-1670 â€¢ fax 970-925-1152 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning City Hall 130 S. Galena Street 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 July 22,2012 Attn: Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate Re: Hotel Durant Proposed Expansion As the across the street neighbor to the Hotel Durant. Lift One Condominiums appreciates their desire to update their physical plant. We are also mindful of the 'fitting in the neighborhood character' dynamic as we have been involved with the 'up the hill' proposed developments on South Aspen St. for the past ten years. Lift One also managed a complete exterior renovation on our buildings five years ago without expanding our external envelope by one square foot. Several of us attended the Hotel Durant presentation of their expansion plans and have examined their Land Use application. We feel that to classify their proposed additions as "a minor lodge expansion" is an inaccurate representation of the proposed addition. Our problems with their proposal are as follow. â€¢ Although "Attachment 3" to the pre-application summary states no change to the west setback, the proposal actually is adding an 8 ft extension (16 ft at the elevator) 54 ft long and four and a half stories high- replacing what is currently only decks and a hot tub. â€¢ The same attachment also claims a height increase from 35.5 ft to 39.9 ft when in fact they are comparing the peak roof height on their existing stair tower to the flat roof level of an additional floor. The true comparable heights to the new stair tower and proposed elevator tower are about 45 ft. â€¢ There is nothing else in that entire square block that is higher than three stories and the adjacent Aspen Townhouse Central complex immediately to the west along Durant Street is only two stories tall (see attached photo-diagram). The Durant's proposed adjacent slab-sided west-facing elevation is four and a half stories. â€¢ Although the "Mountain Base Character" area outline does jog north to encompass this block (the only block north of Durant Ave to be included in such?) this is basically a flat block and height differences between adjacent buildings are important. They should not be exempt from basic good planning practices as spelled out in the Aspen "Small Lodges Character Area" -Building 1-800-543-8001 â€¢ www. liftone.com â€¢ liftone@rof. net .. Lift One Condominiums 131 East Durant Avenue â€¢ Aspen, CO â€¢ 81611 970-925-1670 â€¢ fax 970-925-1152 â€¢ Ileight Mass and Scale. We would prefer if it better reflected the human scale and character of the city As neighbors, we have no particular problem with their expansion of the building horizontally to the west other than the cliff like transition created with the adjacent property. The fourth floor addition is our major concern (four and a half stories counting their half basement) which is out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposed fourth tloor addition is quite monolithic compared to the adjacent properties whether looking at the west, east or south elevations. We therefore oppose the granting of any additional mass and height leeway in pursuit of this additional story. Their proposal only adds one hotel unit in this vertical addition plus a 'recreation room' which given its exposure, could seriously disturb the neighboring residences. We think that their renovation can be successful without this upward expansion. This last unit could be accommodated within the expanded three story envelope without economic necessity for, or hardship derived from the refusal of, the requested commercial review variance. We look forward to a continuing dialog concerning this project. Please keep us apprised of the process. Lift One Condominiums Board of Managers Anthony ImhoÂ£ Vice President 131 East Durant Aspen CO 81611 CC: Planning and Zoning Commission: LJ Erspamer, Chair Stan Gibbs, Vice Chair Jasmine Tygre Jim DeFrancia Cliff Weiss Bert Myrin Keith Goode Ryan Walterscheid, Alternate 1-800-543-8001 â€¢ www. liftone.com â€¢ liftone@rof. net 3 . j, . 1,4. , , . Â·Â·b 1 * le 9 . . IKE i Â·26% 4 ., . . r *134 2 ' y .t 16 4/(* 24% ~ 1 E..9 - n 4, 4.41 1 94 44 +2 63 . ~. 44 Ff L vp-,-- . 1* 7/â€ž -i~ 4 4 - 4 - 111~ 'll I , .;/*21 4 1 :.1 : Al.;. ' I//i ./.=a - U1: t ~ 6 I 4. .' i -rilliak:/ I TH##4 r ./ . I -1 *:10 .44 Â· 1 11 i -=JU~77%- Â·-Â·.c 4,4992'" ., h . *21'm .J./1 * I rvy.. Fc- L 1--- Â¢ VtÂ» fn . 1 - 4.M.- 2 .'r.. ~,1- 23-1.1 . '1 :/>4 icill/'ll'Kil: * &611/i*/4.. 44/'llilliEA. Aspen Central To 6 Proposed Hotel Du~<E/aRsi~~IF ~ East Durant Ave Pines Lodge .. Sara Nadolny From: Larry Mages [LMages@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:44 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: Hotel Durant -- Glass Deck Enclosure Attachments: CIMG3908.jpg; CIMG3909.jpg; CIMG3910.jpg; CIMG3911.jpg; CIMG3912.jpg; CIMG3913.jpg; CIMG3914.jpg; CIMG3915.jpg; CIMG3916.jpg Ms. Naldony, Thank you again for meeting with me to discuss the proposed expansion of the Hotel Durant. It was very helpful. As you know I am the president of the Lift One Condominium Association. We are located directly across Durant street from the Hotel Durant and will be one of the properties most affected by the expansion proposal. In a separate letter, we have expressed our opposition to the mass, size, height and related matters of the project. We are also concerned about the proposed glass enclosure of the proposed roof deck. We hope that the City will require some other enclosure. Although one might think that glass, being generally thought of as transparent, would be the least intrusive of enclosures, this is not the case for several reasons: 1. The remainder of Hotel Durant (particularly their balcony enclosures), in fact most of the buildings in town and their roofs, are of wood and/or dark metal. The glass, being so different, is very noticeable, distracting actually. It is out of character with the neighborhood and the town. The glass enclosure on the top of the Dancing Bear illustrates this. 2. The glass is really not transparent. This particularly true when the sun hits it at various times of day. I have attached photos of the Dancing Bear glass enclosure taken in the morning and late afternoon/evening. As you will see the glass becomes not just opaque, but highly reflective; one really cannot look directly at it. Reflection from a glass enclosure directly across the street from Lift One will be a significant intrusion -- people will not be able to look across the street and up at Red Mountain; and the brightness of the reflection or refracted sunlight will be similar to a very large, bright light outside one's window. We hope that you will not permit the request for additional height, and that you will require a different roof enclosure, one more consistent with the surrounding and not intrusive on the neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. Larry Mages President, Lift One Condominium Association 1 0 4 $ 4 11 Sara Nadolny From: Lawrence Mages <lawrence.mages@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:34 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: Hotel Durant Sara, I hope that you will recall that we met in mid-July and communicated by e-mail about the use of glass on the proposed Hotel Durant modifications. Others will express themselves about the height and mass, and also about the intrusion created by a rooftop hot tub and recreation deck directly across from us. I am writing about the use of glass. The Staff is approving of the use of glass on the balconies, whereas we sought the elimination of its use from the roof. We pointed out the problems emanating from reflection. But we sought the use of wood and wrought iron on the roof as was shown on the balconies in the original submission, not the addition of glass on the balconies The glass is completely out of character with the neighborhood which has none except for the rooftop of the Bear (which is an intrusion). And the Bear relates much more to the center o f town, overlooking the field, the Regis and its companion building on the south side of Durant. It is not part of Lift One's neighborhood. The substitution of non-reflective glass and, particularly, the addition of it to the balconies, is even more discordant. It creates a mass look closer to the front, whereas wood and wrought iron will serve to break up the mass and add depth. Glass is really not see through. Even i f non-reflective, it will be opaque when the sun hits it. But it is the consistency with the neighbors and the overall aesthetics which are at the core of our request for elimination o f the glass. I hope that you can present this to the Committee, and that you can get some reconsideration by the Staff. Thanks, as always. Larry Mages Lift One Email secured by Check Point 1 90* td ?<4(Drr I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 122 9 D..â€žr-=_,dr- S K , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 10'Â¢4&1 Xw1 -1 e 4 :Sofin , 20-121 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: v Publication of notice: By Ole 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 ofnotice: 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 and was continuously visible from 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. 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 ot vitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date o f the public hearing. A copy o f t he owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 91. I , ... I 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 o f 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 o f 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. = 20---n Signature The foregging "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 27 day of JÂ·tâ€¢tvl , 2012-by '471-9,6.t--1 SkÂ»--L--~-j 0 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL . My com sion expires: 3 -22-70,4 I mu LAR %1< tjcalÂ»t I â€¢ fa : I 9 - ,4â€¢ Notar)>+ublic My Commission Expites 030/2014 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: * COPY OF THE PUBLICATION * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 1 gE f:*titi@23Â£2%383~22& 2&2 f **0 3033*355â‚¬227-52-291=9*,0 262 C 1 =*E =22-2-=22239-52&-gfisz=g-* E 6 d .e 2 :0@ 2 ultuw â€¢No .3 ElogE c.focco..=E.9 .W ./ I /*.I Câ€ž ./ -0 Z WREE 3 GISV:Â¤ EE.~23 : Â°c h. O ME 251 1 < 51-10 @TEEr-ugg:=1 . S I . 6 m 8-Â® 41 E .....0 #4 3>i#Â§21029:expailifif Fic@ & 0 1 74 / 0 0Â¥ Â£3Â¥*23#3-222*#35~â‚¬#52 -223# 2 2 ~~ ,*g 224#01*aw30Â©22-8EarEE Enip wi /0 ZI~NrÂ°Â°-0:ZÂ¥14352:3~ &8921 0-1 A -1 6 %52%-5#233*5*525%253-3-9 53*3 j 0=Â®SEEvOc'CE.2.22>EcEvEE.2 -Ec'N ,& mo< 2 * Ea.065203 223 Y>288% 288 2623 0~2 Z P b h d n e Asp n me Weekly on July 19. amer 0 2.~ 4160~81] I .Exhu J 1 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 Z. a ~5-4- bon'.,4 Avc-4J t , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: A O i 0 51- 7 4-- 920~.17- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, ENULL 4 2 2-1 +3(1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: J< 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. 1 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 ~-5) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the li day of JJ LY , 20*_13=, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph ofthe posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. J 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. (continued on next page) D L .. rl ~(4- 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 ofthis Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal ofthis 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. r-- Signlibife U The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowl,dged before me this Â¢, day of /hÂ© 146+- , 20Â» by Fhill; p R,91 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ".2// . My commission expires: 0~-- / 9 -1 A 1 L.*g,oÂ«u ;7~IREA/1V ...43 /4 10*f?=:f...WW:.,.1. Â©eyiz., f ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .t ' EY 14% K Hotel Durant Public Outreach Summary Dates: June 24th & 27th Summary: Applicant held 'Open House' style forums to present our development plans to the neighbors. A postcard invitation was mailed 3 weeks prior to all neighbors within 300' of the Hotel Durant. This invitation included contact information where neighbors may request copies of the information if they are unable to attend either meeting. We received zero (0) RSVPs confirming attendance for either evening. Despite the lack of response we held the first open house on Sunday evening and supplied pizza and drinks for potential attendees. Unfortunately, no neighbors showed. We had set up a computer and large-screen TV to display images and elected to go through our presentation for our own benefit, with a handful of long-time hotel guests joining us as an interested audience. The presentation/discussion lasted roughly an hour, including the question and answer session at the end. The guests were highlysupportive of the plans and excited to see the New Hotel Durant, so long as itdidn't mean missing a ski season. On the following Wednesday evening we again set up. Despite no official RSVPs, we had received some informal indications that a few interested neighbors would attend. Snacks and drinks were offered this night. Seven people showed up at 6pm; 3 from Lift l A Condos (directly across Durant Ave), 3 from Aspen Central Townhouses, and one neighbor from Cooper Avenue (a block west). We walked through the plans for the remodel and expansion of the Hotel Durant, fielding several questions throughout the presentation. We received feedback and heard concerns regarding a few of the facets of the design; notably the height of the building, the fate of the existing trees, the rooftop deck, and the glass railing along the east and southeast perimeter of the rooftop deck. All concerned comments were received from the attendees from the Lift l A Condos. They voiced their worries that their views of Red Mountain would be greatly impacted, that the rooftop deck may be noisy and invasive, and that the glass railing would be highly reflective, glaring into their units. Otherwise, all comments were supportive of our intentions and complimentary of the design. The meeting lasted roughly an hourand a video of the event was recorded. Five neighbors emailed me before and after the meetings to request copies of the plans. 1 provided each of them with a link to download digital the land use application materials as well as a copy of the video of Wednesday's presentation. We have received no other feedback or comments at this time. Copies of the postcard invitation and receipts for the pizza, snacks & beverages are attached. .. - *411: r.2 - >*1 - - r -5 - Â·Â· I Â£ 21.2 .. 4 fq 41. 1 0 t. It. A. ./- ' - *2, \ T \(ANt- h I â‚¬ I )'.2.E ~~ % i 1 - i ..1 - .4 42 33: /9 -Â· r . -- . 4 -* 1024 . tÂ· F ..%*m J m./ _ r- a ..F 4.4 -- 9.2 . I - 9% HOTEL. DUIAANT tt '~*1~~ii.-'.j. :~ ~~~~~~~ - j- FS.. _a-4 22 East Durant Street Â· Aspen, CO:8.1:611.- : . F-~{ Â· Â·Â· Â·7 Â· -T . ~"9~.# Dear friends and neighbors, You are cordially invited to a short CZEZZE~ presentation of the remodel and expansior{<Â·27Â¢44".Â».1 plans for the Hotel Durant. We hope you C34, i i can join us at the hotel at 6 pm either Sunday, June 24 or Wednesday, June 27. 44 Â«i- 1/04 4 f Ught snacks and drinks provided. '4 i &le w 8 k ' 7 Dlease RSVP to phillip@rds-aspen.com so that we may be prepared for the CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC 44.-opriate number of attendees. If you are 0115 BOOMERANG RD #201 B unable to attend, but are interested please ASPEN, CO 81611 let us know and we will direct you to copies of the plans online after these dates. 1 11,1, â€ž,11' 11" " i l lâ€ž, 11, 1, rl! f Il, i â€ž 11,1,1,9 j ji,lili, i, li ll N.pe . f Ya;kls '4 MARKET Taster' s Aspen Inc. 455 Rio C rande Pl ace Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-1952 Store # 1 Week No. 25 Peri Do # 6 CLARK ' S MARKET ASPEN 06/24/12 5:44 pm 1 RY OlÂ·JR NEW CHEF PREPARED SOUPSI ! ! Emp:2 ND DINNER DRIVE 925-8046 Order # 48 NuaLLE Delivery 0001 04 )4077448 06/27/12 5:09pm 009 Ph# 618 - 9033 COKE SPK 802 $3.99 TF BRIAN SPRIT- 8PK $3.99 .7 122 E DURANT LUND RICE CHIP B $2,79 TF ASPEN 2.63 10 @ $0.69/1 b Quadrant BANANAS $1.81 TF Di ree ions at house. hoti durant front d CLD SNWCH SE)02 0 $7.49 TF esk LUND RICE elli-) S $2.79 TF 1 * GIE $21,00 NOO PRET Z Rh,D SA $3.79 TF 1 $17,25 2.73 10 @ $0.69/lb ot -ERONI BANANAS El. 68 T F 1 CHE K RE-CLOSED 2.68 10 5 $0 69/1b Sub Total $38.25 BARANAS $1.85 TF 2,89 11 @ $0.69/1 b Tax $3.57 BANANAt $1.99 TF 2 4 very Charge $1,00 W-r-AM 2% MILK 04 $3.29 TF WF 2PERCENT MI $0.29-SCTF Cust#1 Total $42.82 IT=M SUBTOTAL $35.66 SAVINGS TOTAL $0,29-S SUBTOTAt $3537 ciTy $0 74 COUNTY $1.41 STATE $0.45 TOTAL $37.97 AMERICAN EXPRESS $37.97 Purchase $ 37.97 Ameri can Express#SXXX>(XXX)(XXX1008 Auth # 537710 Lane # 34 Cashier # 9 06/27/12 17:10 Ref/Ser # 041358 Mrcn=565219 Term=001 1 C=Ce EPS Secuence # 041358 CHANGE $0100 SAVINGS APPLIED WF 2PERCENT MIL X 0001 $0.29 YOU SAVED: $0,29 # OF ITEMS: 11 CLARK ' S MARKET PHARMACY 9 00AM - 6 00PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10 OOAM - 2 DOPM SATURDAY AFTER HOURS PICKUP AVAILABLE TO loPM DIRECT PHARMACY LINE- 925-2728 KIDS COME FIRST AT CLARKS PHARMACY ! ** 1 * *91(** K******* ** **** 1:** *1: * ***,-**** ** 9 9 . %6 . , 1. .die - . I C - .4:f 1/ 1 . . Â· g.* . . . ..#Il ' 4 . 1:/.P '.**/.I ' t~ I f i:.,33;1-l:?Â¢t~ . .% . h.80'. , . = 2 -2.- Â· fI.,1,0.411# ~-I ff*9~~iyÂ·,F#W Â·6'. . -7.4 #12Â«k.5 :..- i. 11 ./ *-AVZF , -'t :B*<4005 9Â·~9 F . -yee:.,..4,4-*'r 1.9422# // n 3 Â· . .Â·- v 331 3?vi '\ * Mm,64,* Z. 0 ~4:ir:-0->%-'Â·O.,---~-i- i:'~1%3iff-7.4-~:~f~~14"*4 *ffmt*-1,,-- 2 i â‚¬ I . -.Â·~~**t.t.'.1*t:46*44/.4.Â· - ~ . F jr*Â·;1'*444#4,4%14 199 9*fltt : Â· 1.- 2-+rt- Â·2*,40-~ fi: 4414.,5.-:Â·fi#79#2Â¥aÂ· + -~, 4-7- TE i ~ 4. ;' c'Â·01'-:Â·~ 0 2-20Â·.-iÂ·:.'<2~;,-i,>--4. .1, ! 1 I 3 'Pir Â·'4* y .2 2 -Â·' r Â«34 -4.44 3 , - -7 : - ~:,6 -, 14 --:iâ‚¬ 47~6 ~AL Â·-31,2 - U . W lowurt""2%23<-'< LOM"jp,4,8,",41#&14&9*ks# u. Â»p..'.le.:.1:3,5 Ice. .... k :3 1~ -/ - I 16Â« 1.>7 4..1.Kit-2 â‚¬4.- . .Â·-' 7 465.4*4%&#Mat' -44VL. Â· D . ~- 9 Â· Â© 4 1 3 1â„¢9 4-p -i---v,y *.03'.,4.'Â»-' 1 #~' 2-*~ ~6 ' 4. I ~Ed ' , . . 1 , . 1. ... Ix*/10--' 1 , I I -; -A 4 ..., ., " '1 . - ' I q. i-Filt.---' :' 4.,7-- ri pt il * /- 9 6%/A. 2 ,4 -f_ 13*?ter~ iÂ·. 1~117-_fu*; 6 1 ~:pm 8 - ; 1 ;Elfi P M.'~ , gl 26- ~ ' 14' 12Â».Â· -Â·- Â·lifff 3 - dÂ·. i- . . >Â·Â· ~ 44 2-<09Â¥5.r~ - 7. I A - I & ,-2 Â·Â· Â· - - 4-2 -2Felff*â‚¬Â· -- t. 11 . 3/ -f . 'Wit,27 -- - *Â«_ .._ -4.â€¢121#1%*Itt*i:/Il.Â£ .4/4;4:r.I . . 31 . -/91.44 4-apt S 1 1, 4*i & 4,~<*..1.2 .. ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING 124 E DURANT AVENUE LLC ALYEMENI ALICE AUTHORITY 533 W FRANCIS 3109 OAKMONT DR 530 E MAIN ST #001 ASPEN, CO 81611 STATESVILLE, NC 28625 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASV ASPEN STREET OWNER LLC ATTERBURY ANDREW L & PRENTICE BARRETT STEVEN R ASPEN STREET VENTURE LLC GWYN A C/O JP WEIGAND & SONS INC ONE POST OFFICE SQUARE #3520 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKY 150 N MARKET BOSTON, MA 02109 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66205 WICHITA, KS 67202 BECKLEY KATHERINE BENNIE THOMAS & CHRISTINE TRUSTS BERHORST JERRY & CAROLE 2 COLUMBUS AVE #5-C PO BOX 9884 7161 LINDENMERE DR NEW YORK, NY 10023 ASPEN, CO 81612 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 BOGIN ROBERT M BRAYMAN WALTER W & PATRICIA BRENNAN JOHN PATRICK 4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN 844 ROCKWELL LN 31 TRAINORS LANDING EVERGREEN, CO 80439 KANSAS C{TY, MO 64112-2363 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROADSCOPE PTY LTD BRIGHT GALEN BRYAN HELEN CATLOW TRUST 407 S HUNTER ST #3 2011 LAKE SHORE DR 223 RIVERTON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78746 SHELLEY AUSTRALIA 6148, CABELLJOE CAIN DOUGLAS M CALLAHAN PATRICIA CO THE CHART HOUSE WAIKIKI CAIN CONSTANCE MOFFIT TRUSTEES 0184 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR 1765 ALA MOANA BLVD 1960 HUDSON ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HONOLULU, HI 96815 DENVER, CO 80220 CARLSON KEITH REV TRST CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR CARRUTHERS MARILYN 10 COMMUNITY RD 2S526 WILLIAMS RD 101 E COOPER #301 BELVEDERE, CA 94920 WARRENVILLE, IL 60555 ASPEN, CO 81611 CASA KESS LLC CASPER MARY LYNN CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST 100 E COOPER AVE #12 124 E DURANT #4 1887 STILLWATER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST PAUL, MN 55110-8507 CHAPLIN ARLENE & WAYNE CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC CHRISPAT ASPEN LLC 54 LAGORCE CIR 0115 BOOMERANG RD #201B 1107 5TH AVE MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10128 CITY OF ASPEN CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST NO 1 CHU FAMILY TRUST ATTN FINANCE DEPT C/O GUNDY MGMT CO 42 HILLSDALE DR PO BOX 47 130 S GALENA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926604234 ASPEN, CO 81611 MORRIS, IL 60450 .. COHN PETER L COLEMAN ISAIAH COOPER TWO LLC PO BOX 2138 PO BOX 11239 950 HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 WINNETKA, IL 60093 CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL CROCKETT RUFUS DANCING BEAR LAND LLC CZAJKOWSKI SANDRA J PO BOX 3837 411 S MONARCH ST 90 LA SALLE ST APT 16G ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10027 DB ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC DOLLE NORMA L REV TRUST DONCER ASPEN LP 3400 N CAUSEWAY BLVD 1103 HERITAGE DR 9651 W 196TH ST METAIRIE, LA 70002 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 MOKENA, IL 60448 DUNN DAVID & POLLY DUPLEX INVESTMENTS LLC 50% ELLIS PAUL DAVID 611 S UPPER BROADWAY 10601 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE 100 E DEAN ST #2F CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78401 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 ASPEN, CO 81611 EVANS DAVID COURTNEY FARR BRUCE K & GAIL H FAULKNER JOHN L PO BOX 952 PO BOX 4844 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 FEINBERG HELEN HOUGH FIORE MOIRA FOUR JLM LLC 702 PASS A GRILLE WY 150 BRADLEY PL #611 101 DESTIN LN ST PETERSBURG BEACH, FL 33706 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123 FOX THOMAS H FULSTONE AMY HAYDEN FUQUA ALVAH D JR & DIANNE L 630 W HALLAM ST 100 E COOPER AVE #5 446 LAKE SHORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1763 SUNSET BEACH, NC 28468 GEORGIEFF KATHERINE TRUSTEE OF FYRWALD JON ER[K & GUDRUN L GALAS THOMAS E & PATRICIA A THE 126 EAST HEKORY ST 713 ARMSTRONG BLVD KATHERINE GEORGIEFF REVOCABLE HINSDALE, IL 60521 COPPELL, TX 75019 LIVING TRS 11 TOPPING LN ST LOUIS, MO 63131 GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST GINSBURG ANNE C & ROBERT B GLENOCK INVESTMENTS LLC 775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 4010 NW 10TH ST PO BOX 207 DESTIN, FL 32541 DELRAY BEACH, FL 334451929 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREGORY NEIL MARTIN & LYNETTE GOODFELLAS LLC GREINER JERRY M & TERESA U 1801 PITTWATER RD 60 S MARKET ST #1400 323 HOLMECREST RD MONA VALE NSW 2103 SAN JOSE, CA 95113-2396 JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 AUSTRALIA, .. GROOS NICHOLAS D 40% GSS MONARCH LLC GUBSER NICHOLAS J 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD PO BOX 3377 PO BOX 870 HASTINGS, MI 49058 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81612 GUNION JOHN F GUTNER KENNETH H REV TRUST HANSEN JULIA 1004 MARINA CIR PO BOX 11001 255 SEASPRAY AVE DAVIS, CA 95616 ASPEN, CO 81612 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 HARRIS NORMAN LINDSAY JR HATCHER HUGH S HEIM WILLIAM D 232 CLIPPER PL 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E 124 E DURANT AVE APT 1 CARBONDALE, CO 816238618 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1769 HENRY WAYNE SCOTT HERRON SANDRA A HINES TOM & CAROLYN 100 E DEAN ST 3C 119 E COOPER AVE APT 19 21 TRAINORS LNDG ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1761 ASPEN, CO 81611-1652 HOLYOAKE LAURENCE M & COX HOLLY TREE INVESTMENTS LLC HONE THOMAS A & CAROL A HEATHER J 4823 HOLLY TREE DR 130 E WAYNE ST 555 E DURANT #4A DALLAS, TX 75287 CELINA, OH 45822 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOSKIN REEDE IAVARONE GIANFRANCO & RITA IMHOF FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2478 341 ORIENTA AV 2409 GREEN ST BASALT, CO 81621-2478 MAMARONECK, NY 10543 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE JACKSON BISQUE JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST 219 E LAKE SHORE DR #5D PO BOX 9054 2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR CHICAGO, IL 60611 ASPEN, CO 81612 FALLBROOK, CA 92028 JOBE MARCIA JOHNSTON MARGARET S 9.87% JRD 2004 IRREV TRUST PO BOX M-3 30 DEXTER ST 510 BERING DR #455 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80220 HOUSTON, TX 77057 KAUFMAN STEVEN TRUST & HARLOW KAMINER NINA KAPLAN BARBARA VIRGINIA TRUST 25 BROAD STETSF 3076 EDGEWOOD RD 0554 ESCALANTE NEW YORK, NY 10004 PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 KENT STACEY KEBER VINCENT M 111 KEITH JOHN 111 TOMLINSON JAMES 1301 WAZEE #2E PO BOX 4783 100 E COOPER AVE DENVER, CO 80204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 .. KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST KNAPP MICHAEL KOSTER DEREK N PO BOX 198 1001 MEDICAL PK STE 213 100 E DEAN ST #2E HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546 ASPEN, CO 81611 KULLGREN NANCY A LACY ROANE M JR & ANN MINYARD LARKIN FRED C & LUCETTA M 205 E DURANT AVE UN[T 2-C PO BOX 367 ONE COVE LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 WACO, TX 76703-0367 BOW-MAR, CO 80123 LARKIN THOMAS J & MARYANN K LARRABEE DONALD C JR LEATHERMAN ROBERT D 1 SHELDRAKE LN 1417 POTTER DR STE 105 PO BOX 11930 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80909 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEDINGHAM DAVID CHARLES 160/0 LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST LIFT ONE 105 LLC 124 E COOPER ST 421 WARWICK RD 105 S CHEROKEE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KENILWORTH, IL 60043-1145 DENVER, CO 80221 LIMELITE REDEVELOPMENT LLC LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% CONDO ASSOC 131 E DURANT AVE 24 LINDENWOOD LN C/O GENERAL MANAGEMENT ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80127 1201 GALAPAGO ST #101 DENVER, CO 80204 LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S LITTLE RED SKI HAUS LOFINO MICHAEL D LORING WOLCOTT & COOLIDGE OFFICE 1464 TECHNY RD 3255 SEAJAY DR 230 CONGRESS ST NORTHBROOK, IL 600625447 DAYTON, OH 45430 BOSTON, MA 02110 MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV LU NANCY CHAO TRUST LUBIN SHAFIGHEH TRUST 38 CORMORANT CIR PO BOX 3748 44 W HANNUM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAGINAW, MI 48602 MACHUCA EDGAR F MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 84% MANDICH ROBERT M 11 TRAINORS LANDING 216 LINDEN AVE PO BOX 1230 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091 CRESTONE, CO 811311230 MARK KENNETH A MCKENZIE BART B & PAIGE PARAVANO MESSNER CHRISTIAN 10 KATH CT 4840 30 YR ST NORTH 119 E COOPER AVE #21 SAN'VILLE, NY 11782 ARLINGTON, VA 22207-2716 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILLER R GREG MOP LLC MULKEY CHRISTOPHER IRR TRST PO BOX 4577 5348 VEGAS DR 1340 W HENDERSON ST #2W ASPEN, CO 81612 LAS VEGAS, NV 89108 CHICAGO, IL 60657 .. MULKEY JOHN IRR TRST MURRAY DENIS NELSON ARLENE 8913 PLAYERS CLUB DR PO BOX 3770 119 E COOPER ST #6 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R NOBLE GUY T NORRIS JOAN 617 PRINCE DR PO BOX 9344 3334 E COAST HWY PMB 145 NEWBURGH, IN 47630 ASPEN, CO 81612 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC OTT JOHN & CAROL 6318 23RD ST NW 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE BOCA RATON, FL 33434 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251-2773 SNOWMASS, CO 81654-9318 PATERSON JOHN PARKER RICHARD C & KAREN S PAY ERIC GEOFFREY 88 GRANGE RD 3029 BAKER MEADOW SE 119 E COOPER AVE APT 12 SANDRINGHAM ATLANTA, GA 30339 ASPEN, CO 81611-1772 MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3191, PAY-ASE PROPERTIES LLC PEONY LLC PIECE OF THE PIE LLC 2200 ROSS AVE # 3838 121 BARRANCA AVE PO BOX 2492 DALLAS, TX 75201 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109 ASPEN, CO 81611 PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC PITNER N KATHRYN 152 E DURANT AVE 2353 IRVINE AVE PO BOX 11930 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81612 POPKIN PHILIP G PRASAD REV TRUST PRODINGER IRMA PO BOX 7956 3776 W 3700 N PO BOX 1245 ASPEN, CO 81612 DARLINGTON, ID 83255 ASPEN, CO 81612 PURVIS ROBERT K TRUST RINGSBY GRAY RLC ASPEN LLC PO BOX 3089 PO BOX 1292 12500 PARK POTOMAC AVE #207N ASPEN, CO 81612 HAIKU, HI 96708 POTOMAC, MD 20854 ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ROARING FORK PROPERTIES ROSE JON E & RITA L ALVAREZ CRISTINA N 9242 SOUTH SHORE DR 333 TRISMEN TERR MONTES URALES 350 EAST TROY, WI 55120 WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32789 LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO 11000, ROSENFELD EUGENE S & MAXINE M ROSSI ELAYNE R TRUST RUDERMAN ERIC P & MIMI E FAM TRUST PO BOX 7961 1536 OGDEN ST 10601 WILSHIRE BLVD #20 EAST ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80218-1406 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 .. RUMSEY DANIEL W SCHAPIRO MARC & PATRICIA SCHAYER CHARLES M 111 1325 PACIFIC HIGHWAY #1902 1685 TAMARAC DR 2601 S QUEBEC ST #17 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 GOLDEN, CO 80401 DENVER, CO 80231 SCHUMACHER JUDY M SCULL JAMES E SEVERY FAMILY TRUST 70.39% 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR PO BOX 2051 8815 YUBA CIR #1103B ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HUNINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 SEVERY RICHARD L 9.87% SHAW ROBERT W SHEFFER DOUGLAS & BARBARA 30 DEXTER ST 5720 LOCKE AV PO BOX 2763 DENVER,CO 80220 FORT WORTH, TX 76107 BASALT, CO 81621 SHENK ROBERT D SHENNAN MELISSA A SILVERMAN MARC A & MARILYN L 0326 HWY 133, STE 130 822 LANE LORRAINE 937 DALE RD CARBONDALE, CO 81623 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045-1643 MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 SIMPSON JANET MARIE SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% SLOAN SUSAN MARIE 233 E COOPER AVE #205 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 500 S ORANGE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SARASOTA, FL 34236 SMITH FRANK FORD JR & KATHARINE SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC LINDSAY ASSOCIATION 150 N MARKET 2506 STRATFORD DR 205 E DURANT AVE #2F WICHITA, KS 67202 AUSTIN, TX 78746 ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTHPOINT ASPEN lB LLC SOUTHPOINT-SUMNER CORP SPACCARELLI SELMA I PO BOX 1499 3940 7TH AVE #212 300 S POINTE DR #2403 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 SPAULDING RICHARD W & THOMPSON STARK RENEE A STETSON WILLIS J JR & SALLY W ELEANOR M 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1D 23 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR 200 WHEELER RD FL 2 ASPEN, CO 81611-3813 NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073 BURLINGTON, MA 018035501 STITT ELIZABETH WILES IRREV TRUST SULLIVAN JOHN B TRUST SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R & LYNNE E 1450 SILVERKING DR 1300 E REUSCH RD 131 E DURANT AV #409 ASPEN, CO 81611 ELIZABETH, IL 61028 ASPEN, CO 81611 TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD TAYLOR ELAINE D THREE REEDS LLC 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 W301N9430 COUNTY ROAD E 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW ASPEN, CO 81611-2909 HARTLAND, WI 530299515 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096 .. TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP 60% ASSOC INC RLLP 1730 IROQUOIS TR CO ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 210 AABC #AA HASTINGS, MI 49058 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT & UNIFIED CREDIT TRUST VANOVER STEFANIE KAI BEVERLY J 300 S POINTE DR #2403 406 WILLET AVE #1 PO BOX 189 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 NAPLES: FL 341082179 LONE PINE, CA 93545 VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M VISCONSI DOMINIC A JR VORTEX INVESTMENTS LLC 50% 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 30050 CHAGRIN BLVD #360 3336 EAST 32ND ST #217 DENVER, CO 80206 CLEVELAND, OH 44124 TULSA, OK 74135 WALSH WILLIAM LLOYD WEINGLASS GABRIELE PEPPER TRUST WEINGLASS LEONARD 120 WEST THIRD ST SUITE #400 PO BOX 7816 PO BOX 11509 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 WHITE JALEH WICHMANN VICTORIA WILTGEN JOHN & KATIE HONE THICKMAN DAVID 119 E COOPER ST #4 130 E WAYNE ST 152 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CELINA, OH 45822 ASPEN, CO 81611-1737 WINFIELD ARMS CONDO ASSOC WOLF FAMILY TRUST 12/23/1986 WOLPERT BILL H & WOLPERT JUDE 600 E HOPKINS AVE #203 1221 MYRTLE AVE 2280 KOHLER DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 BOULDER, CO 80305 WOODING MERRITT B WOODSON TATJANA REV TRUST WOW LIFT ONE LLC PO BOX 339 PO BOX 1845 3225 ELK CANYON CIR HOPE, NJ 07844 WILSON, WY 83014 SEDALIA, CO 80135-8573 WRIGHT LISA WWSP3G LLC YEWER ELISABETH B PO BOX 3770 PO BOX 4290 6259 HWY 83 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHENEQUA, WI 53029 YOMAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED ZAUNER HEINZ JUERGEN REV TRUST ZEFF CAPITAL LP 410 GILES BLVD E 0451 STAGECOACH LN 555 E DURANT AVE WINDSOR ONTARIO CANADA N9A4C6, CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 Hotel Durant Public Outreach Presentation i Sign-in sheet 'Name Property/Address ~ Phone # email address , d ~p -n---* ~-Â· n i---4 43 - - --- (i:.'.92427 --~- 1' 3.Â·.tit,~ 14.41.j ~l G E,-,rbj.,11.Â·L tzYÂ·Â· . tain_/ 111\ - f 2.1.-0-9 kj -~ 4 1 i L - 6 0,/â‚¬ c e_,K- AÂ»~ 9 *09 ' ra~f-- 11.1. 1 ~1.30.-IN--19 0 ~e i.-in-le q? Ele< ,Â·:,un 1 1 1 t.2 4, '1.-12* u i~Â£Â·t. 03 f 7 1 1 990- 1/93 9 7,/co fu ;,1 -t~ i Â¢. Â·,v L -17 / 6 7 0 1 ~ Â» t>F *A.- i ('~,3 f~ , ruz ..f- i LE_A > / 3 c L L) CciLA-t F ' ' 39 3 0 -2.- 4/5 92, 4 6 9,7.,' "-M Al./ 36 S-ory 4 *4- /LÂ£'Â·Â« 1 k/Rh /44-5 2 513(G LOR A L. 917 5 Al *vul~ r yulÂ£>Ly,0 i d ) -6, 4,~_inn-j'vÂ¢l~ Â·lf.Jj ,1 el (11.1- 100,3 26-3 501'8 3) 42 tÂ¥Â»/0-, . 7 1 r. 3 k ck-, - 13>c~..3 L I .2-4 0 02.- C. O 0 'fe L 3 C , 4,892 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 : 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Page 1 06/27/2012 0 â€¢ 6<kie, E L_ c Sara Nadolny From: Josh Rice Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: Phillip M Ring (phillip@rds-aspen.com); Kenneth Adler, AIA (ken@ka-designworks.com); Sara Nadolny Subject: Hotel Durant Phil, Ken and Sara: Phil and Ken came by the office today to clarify the Engineering Department's concerns and requirements prior to the P&Z meeting. Sara, for background you should know that there is currently a low point along Durant between the Pines and the Hotel Durant. There is also a manhole along the Hotel Durant's western property line that drains stormwater via a 12" pipe to the 24" storm sewer in Durant. The system does not drain the low spot. In Trish's 8/1/12 Memo, she stated that the Engineering Department was concerned that the curb and gutter improvements could potential create a low point to the west of the property. That is, Trish is concerned that the construction of curb and gutter in front of the Hotel will create a drainage situation similar to the one that exists today (low spot), only further west. The Engineering Department will require that the drainage issue is alleviated to the City of Aspen Engineering Standards. One potential solution that Phil, Ken and I have discussed is to 1) construct an inlet along the curb and gutter and 2) connect it to the existing manhole located in front of the Hotel Durant. The project's civil engineer may also have other viable solutions. I hope this clarifies the Department's position. Thanks, Josh Rice, P.E. Development Engineer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429-2750 We are interested in your opinion. Please fill out the survey below and tell us how we are doing: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2012EnqSvcs "The mission of the Engineering Department is to enrich Aspen's distinctive character so that it remains one Of the world's premier mountain communities by protecting the natural environment, improving water quality, enhancing the pedestrian experience and minimizing construction impacts for the enjoyment of residents and guests alike." 1 . 0 21<kib,6 City of Aspen August 7,2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Final Commercial Design Approval Hotel Durant Commissioners: As an adjacent property owner, I would support the staff' s recommendation to continue this review until a future date certain with consideration at that time of the applicant's response to staff comments. It is very likely that granting the additional height requested above the rights by use of 3 8' would impair the view of the natural surroundings, such as Aspen/Shadow Mountains. Should the additional development be contained within the height and set-backs prescribed as rights by use, I would have no basis for objection. I also understand that elevator chases and stairwells receive some additional height allowances. Should consideration of additional height variance continue, I would request that "story poles" or some form of skeletal benchmark be placed upon the existing building so that one may truly judge the impact of such variance on adjacent view planes. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Robert K. Purvis Winfield Arms Unit #27 119 E. Hopkins St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-3795 7 1.4. dill - --.A~..1&2.J,L. 2 .. i. 4 'Â»t* *49*5 i- 7- 1./.... Id.L I....... k I. Â·~Â·89 . GaA; /4 31Â¥k ' 3 1 .*'. 2 . '1:k>;1,9 - 1 V = Â£ 2:- 22 r r 1 -' 444 44.4 3 %.41/ iy . I 0, 37 , 1 2% 67 N.4 , I. & 7... . .= n., 4: ./5. - " r.- - 44 fvtÂ» r ..31 11 ,. f' * ./ k. i: 4 /2/ . 't 9 .P â‚¬ 11 . .. ~47 L 2. 'F -f ..1 + '< . 1 2 Â£ Â· 4 â€¢.341 .... . C. 45.01 9 . 4.4 0 . :/1/1 ' 31 Il#. I 4*1 -- Ir ...9 .. 2% 1 nÂ¥%0 '41 2 * -15= e ':1~ t.. *r:940Â·'Xt. _.13>f lii< a~ - * 3/Â·*Â·43'-Cel '. 7 *9"- . 1% . %4 1 1 4 I .9 9*:i. 1,42 - . C ./ 9"40, 2 ...: G4* + 2411. 4 Â¥ r .' tf,Â· .. Sara Nadolny From: Arlene [970arlene@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:27 PM To: Sara Nadolny Subject: RE Redevelopment of Hotel Durant I LIVE AT WINFIELD ARMS AND MY PATIO FACES HOTEL DURANT, ARLENE NELSON 119 E COOPER #6 1 HAVE SOME DEEP CONCERNS WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW: LARGE PINE TREES CUT DOWN IN ALLEY AND ON THE SIDE OF BULDING NOISE AND PRIVACY TO OUR PATIOS IF THERE IS A HOT TUP AND PARTY ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR LOSS OF VIEW TO ASPEN MTN. IF AN ELEVATOR IS PUT IN MORE ALLEY TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN THE ALLEY DUE TO AN UNPAVED ALLEY, IF OUR ALLEY WAS PAVED IT WOULD CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THE NOISE THIS IS A RESIDENTIONAL AREA AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CONCERN I hope these concerns will be addressed as I will be outoftown. As nothing was ever done about the noise in the alley from their air conditioning fans which make a tremendous amount of noise when they go on and off.. From: Sara Nadolny [mailto:Sara.Nadolny@ci.aspen.co.usl Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:50 PM To: 970arlene@gmail.com Subject: Redevelopment of Hotel Durant Good afternoon Arlene - I just received your voicemail message. I will call you in just a couple of quick minutes, but thought I'd shoot you an email to get things started. Sorry I haven't received your earlier sent email message. Please let me know if you receive this one. Sincerely, Sara M. Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2739 sara.nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us Email secured by Check Point 1 2Xlu bi LP ft. JIZoritz LodgP August 21, 2012 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: As the owner and operator of the St. Moritz Lodge for 43 years, I would like to lend my support to Brian Schaefer and his plans to redevelop the Hotel Durant. He needs to bring his property up to today's competitive standards. Aspen's lodging community needs more owners willing to do what Brian is proposing. I am long familiar with the Hotel Durant, having considered purchasing the property 15 years ago. The rooms are terribly small and the architecture dated and nondescript. There are limited amenities and no opportunity to add any in the existing building. lam impressed with the character of the building they have proposed. In my experience, it is particularly difficult for smalllodges to be successful. We are competing with larger, well-known branded hotels. Without unique amenities and reasonable pricing, we can't survive. The proposal is moderate enough in its scope and I believe it fits well into the neighborhood. They need to do this, Aspen needs thi>.Rle@ie suppolthem. < ~ 1~ f j 4 A Sincerely, 176,4%*~-~6,237~ V -4 Michael Behrendt St. Moritz Lodge 334 West Hyman Avenue Â· Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-925-3220 Fax: 970-920-4032 Reservations: 1-800-817-2069 www.stmoritzlodge.com . C e . DESIGNWORKS INC. PO Box 12204 Aspen, CO 81611 phone (970) 948-9510 ken@ka-designworks.com August 5, 2012 Stephen Kanipe City of Aspen Building Department 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 CC: Denis Murray, Sara Nadolny, Phillip Ring, Brian Schaefer RE: Energy Efficient Measures for the Proposed Remodel/ Addition of the Hotel Durant Dear Stephen: Thank you for meeting with us this past Friday to review the energy efficiency potential of our proposed remodel/ addition of the Hotel Durant. To recap, you requested that we summarize our efforts in letter form, so that you may in turn respond to P&Z Staff's request that you weigh- in on the energy efficient merits of our projects. Our project, as proposed, asks P&Z for a height limit of 40' to be applied, instead of the usual 38', so that we may incorporate flat roofs into the project. The municipal code and Design Guidelines states five reasons for allowing this extra height, but the only reason applicable to us is the last, which states that, 'Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added to make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting." (Section 4.12 of the Mountain Base Character Area, Design Objectives and Guidelines) We feel strongly that the flat roof concept is more energy efficient than a steep sloped roof for multiple reasons. In order to present our case, I will first go through the 2009 IECC Chapter 5 on Commercial Energy Efficiency and discuss how we meet applicable code and more often than not exceed it. I will then discuss specific design features of our project that add to the overall energy efficiency. Lastly, I will present energy performance evaluations taken directly from the 3D computer building model, which will compare our flat roof design to the Staff requested sloped roof version that meets the lesser height requirement. 2009 IECC Compliance: Note: While section 101.4.3 requires that only new construction shall be required to meet the energy code, we recognize that the existing building, constructed in 1963, of mainly precast concrete floor panels bearing on CMU walls is extremely energy inefficient. It has always been a main objective of any remodel/ addition to address this concern. While the new addition will fully comply to the 2009 IECC, our intention is to improve the existing building envelope as well, making a concerted effort to get the entire building as close to meeting code as possible. Page 1 of 7 4, .. Chapter 5: Commercial Energy Efficiency 502 BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS All proposed assemblies of the new addition shall meet or exceed the requirements of Table 502.2 (1) and 502.3 for Climate Zone 7, "Group R". In most case R-values will exceed the minimums. For instance, wood framed walls above grade are required to be R-13, with an additional R-7.5 of continuous insulation. We would likely utilize a standard 5.5" R-21 fiberglass batt in the wall cavity in addition to the 1.5" of rigid insulation. The below grade wall assembly requires R-10 of continuous insulation, to be achieve with 2" of rigid insulation at the exterior of the concrete. 2x4 furring at the inside of the concrete wall will accommodate additional R-13 fiberglass batt insulation. The existing exterior CMU walls, of which approx. 70% will be retained as exterior wall, are filled with vermiculite. This is a poor insulator (R-2 per inch), and there are likely major voids at the top of each section of wall, where the loose fill vermiculite has settled over that past 50 years. We plan on running 1/2" of rigid insulation along the interior of most of these walls, then adding 3.5" of framing and insulation. This will undoubtedly improve the thermal envelope. With the advances in architectural modeling and the use of BIM software, I am in fact able to run an energy performance evaluation of our model, and determine the difference this makes. I will go more into depth about these evaluations later, but to summarize, adding this furring and insulation to the existing CMU results in 30% less CO2 emissions annually. 502.3 Fenestration (Prescriptive) All fenestration will comply with Table 502.3. 502.3.1 Maximum Area Vertical fenestration area does not exceed 40% of gross wall area per Table 502.3 502.4 Air Leakage Window & Door air leakage testing meeting Section 402.4.2 will be labeled on all manufacturer provided doors and windows. 502.4.2 Curtain wall, storefront glazing and commercial entrance doors All curtain wall, storefront glazing and swinging entrance doors shall be tested for air leakage per this section. 502.4.3 Sealing of building envelope All openings and penetrations of the building envelope to be sealed per this section. 502.4.5 Outdoor air intakes and exhaust openings. Dampers to be employed at all stair and elevator shaft vents per this section. 502.4.7 Vestibules A vestibule/ airlock conforming to this section will be added to the plan, as we discussed in our meeting on Friday. 502.4.8 Recessed Lighting Page 2 of 7 .. Any recessed luminaires (of which there will be a limited number due to the exposed structural nature of the building) shall be sealed to limit air leakage per this section. 503 BUILDING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS All mechanical systems and equipment shall comply with either Section 503.3 or 503.4 depending on the type of system. While we have yet to determine a mechanical system, a key component of this renovation is the relocation of the mechanical room from the lobby level to an area within the footprint of the new basement. Given the extremely dated electric baseboard heating system currently in place, we are planning a complete overhaul and replacement of the mechanical systems to go along with the new mechanical room. Considering the importance of this matter, we are planning on consulting with SGM's energy and mechanical auditors to come up with an efficient mechanical solution, assisted via renewables such as PV and solar hot water. 503.2.4 HVAC system controls The intent is to have a highly customizable and controllable set of HVAC controls. Rooms will be zoned individually for manual guest control of programmable thermostats located in all rooms, while public areas will be controlled centrally. All controls will conform to this section. Ideally there will be overall control and monitoring available to management. 503.2.5 Ventilation Natural and mechanical ventilation will conform to Chapter 4 of the International Mechanical Code. 503.2.5.1 Demand controlled ventilation Demand controlled ventilation of the lobby space will be met per this section. 503.2.6 Energy recovery ventilation systems Energy recovery ventilation system will be installed per this section if required. 503.2.7 Duet and plenum insulation and sealing Any ducts and plenums will be insulated per this section. 502.2.7.1 Duct construction Any ducts will be constructed per this section. 503.2.8 Piping Insulation All pipes to be insulated per the requirements/ exceptions in this section. 503.2.9 HVAC system completion Prior to CO, system completion shall be demonstrated, including providing a means to balance air or hydronic system. Operational manuals per this section must be provided to the owner. 503.4.3 Hydronic systems control We are strongly considering a hydronic heating system. Any such system shall conform to this section. Page 3 of 7 .. 503.4.6 Heat recovery for service hot water heating Condenser heat recovery of service hot water shall be installed per this section if required. With the generous amount of solar hot water that we are planning on incorporating into this project, I doubt this will be the case. 504 SERVICE WATER HEATING All service hot water heating shall conform to this section. 505 ELECTRICAL POWER AND LIGHTING SYTEMS The lighting will be upgraded as part of this renovation. High-efficacy lamps will be installed throughout, preferably LEDs, including in all guestrooms. A highly customizable and intelligent lighting system, such as Lutron Quantum with Smart Grid, will be installed to alleviate a major management issue with lights and TVs being left on while guest are out of the room. System installed will comply with this section. 505.2 Lighting controls All Manual controls in public areas and support spaces to be installed per this section. 505.2.3 Sleeping unit controls All guestrooms will have master switch installed at the main entry per this section. Lighting in guestrooms will also be dimmable. 505.2.4 Exterior lighting controls Exterior lighting will be tied into lighting system, which will set exterior lighting per pre-set program. 505.4 Exit Signs Exit signs to be LEDs, no more than 2 watts per side. 505.5 Interior lighting power requirements With high efficacy lighting throughout, we should have no problem successfully completing COM Check for the public areas and support spaces. 505.6 Exterior lighting All exterior building lighting to comply with this section. 506 TOTAL BUILDING PERFORMANCE Building compliance to be demonstrated via documentation and calculation per this section. Energy Efficiency/ Sustainable Features of Flat Roof Concept: 1) Increased Glazing at South Stair Tower- Undeniably, the building as it currently exists is under-lit. Low ceilings and the dropping precast slab beams contribute to a dark space all times of year. While enjoyable in the summer, it would be nice to allow more southern light to penetrate into the lobby. We propose to Page 4 of 7 .. accomplish this by increasing the glazing in the south stair tower. As this stair is an open riser configuration that opens down into the lobby, it is the ideal place to allow day-lighting to filter into the most prominent/ public space in the building. While we are not yet showing this, I would like to incorporate your idea of using PV panels as shading devices/ awnings at these windows. This will of course help negate the summer heat gain caused by these windows, and may help us with P&Z Staff who feel the tower needs something to break up it's verticality. I will be sure to give you full credit as well as a share in any royalties/ etc... 2) Green Roofs- Flat Roofs can accommodate green roofs, while sloped roofs over 4:12 cannot. The green roofs are something that we really wish to pursue for multiple reasons. The greatest benefit to us is the primary treatment and retainage of stormwater. I know you expressed your opinion that this was not a building efficiency matter, but rather a stormwater management issue, but I would argue that the 2 are indeed linked. With a conventional metal roof there is the need for a secondary system located somewhere between the roof and storm sewer. This is a redundancy that would be negated with the installation of green roofs, which we also feel will create the most inviting environment for our rooftop deck. Combining roofing and primary stormwater systems is an efficient solution to our problem, and reduces the embodied energy of the construction project by the exclusion of one less system. I would argue that this should be factored into a "building's overall energy efficiency", which should be the sum of all parts, not just the basic thermal envelope efficiency. That being said, there is some insulation benefit to the system we are proposing during the winter months, when the soil medium is wet. Additionally, green roofs will likely reduce the summer temperatures of the rooftop deck, and create a more comfortable atmosphere. Green roofs are also a good way to reclaim green space within an urban or semi- urban setting, providing habitat for songbirds, butterflies, and numerous other creatures. 3) Flat Roofs Accommodate Larger Solar Arrays- We intend to maximize our solar renewables potential by adding a combination of PV and solar hot water panels. If we were to go to with a sloped roof concept, the primary roof slopes would want to be east and west given the orientation of the building (long axis is north- south). With a few gables, such as we included in a "Option B" concept that we developed to incorporate all of P&Z Staff's comments, we are able to get a few south facing roofs, but not nearly as much prime real estate for the installation of solar panels. The upper flat green roof provides a perfect location to install an extremely flexible renewable solar system. 4) Quantitative Energy Performance Evaluation- Using the virtual building model that has been developed for the Hotel, I am able to measure the energy demand and C02 emission of different building designs. It is done through a program called "EcoDesigner", which runs as a plug-in to my BIM software, ArchiCAD. As a baseline, 1 ran our 40 foot "green roof" model through the energy evaluation, let's call this design "Option A" from here on out... I have attached the 2 page Energy Performance Evaluation at the end of this letter- it will be the first of four, called "Option A". According to the Evaluation, this design has a carbon footprint of 37,548 lbs of carbon annually. For something to compare it to, I then remodeled the existing CMU walls, removing the added insulation that I discussed previously. The results of this Evaluation can be found under "Option A- Minimum Reg'd Insulation". Simply removing this insulation brought the footprint up to 53,143 lbs of carbon annually, or an increase of over 40Â°/o. The next logical step was to conduct an energy evaluation of the aforementioned "Option B" model. Page 5 of 7 .. Option B: Option B was developed in the past few days. As already mentioned it incorporates and addresses Staff's comments and recommendations to P&Z commission. Ultimately, they are recommending a redesign to meet the 38' foot height requirement, as they currently feel there is inadequate reasoning behind the 40' height request. To meet the 38' height requirement, a sloped roof must be incorporated over the penthouse level. As shown in the images below, Option B is a close approximation to Option A, with comparable layout and area, as well as penthouse setback, but it depicts a sloped roof concept. While we do like some of the plan implications of Option B, we feel that the sloped roof actually adds to the mass, resulting in a much taller building overall. % ----ill-..... I ME,mm~zezmvimam. - R .-IJ~~~ 29*3! ~ .- 1111011111~4* Â· -- -l' 1 <C--1.1 - -~ jil i I. TiliT.j7Z.-7..I.T:MeN . Option A Option B Page 6 of 7 .. When running Option B though the Energy Evaluator, there was a substantial difference in Carbon Footprint. As can be seen in attachment labeled "Option B", the annual carbon footprint is 54,894 lbs. This number reflects the reduction of available roof space for solar, but much of this increase can be explained by the larger building volume caused by the sloped roofs. As a final comparison, I ran another Evaluation on Option B, but removing the existing CMU wall insulation as we did for Option A as well. If you refer to "Option B- Minimum Reg'd Insulation", you can see that 38' sloped roof version with reduced but allowable insulation values weighs in at a hefty 71,609 lbs of CO2 annually, nearly 91% more than our proposed Option A. Therefore, it is my hope that you are able to convey to P&Z Staff that our project does indeed meet the 5th criteria for additional height, that once again states: "Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added to make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting." (Section 4.12 of the Mountain Base Character Area, Design Objectives and Guidelines). Also, if there is any way to carefully consider and draft your response to staff prior to this Tuesday afternoon's P&Z meeting, we would be greatly appreciated, although I completely understand if this cannot be done in such a short timeframe. Hope I kept your attention through all of this. Thank you for encouraging me to make our case in such detail- it has been a very informative process. If there are any questions, comments, or concerns please don't hesitate to call or e-mail. I would also be happy to meet with you and Denis and show you the energy evaluator in action. Thanks again you for your time, Sincerely, 1161.04 Kenneth M. Adler, AIA Principal KA DesignWorks, Inc. Page 7 of 7 Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option A Key Values General Project Data Heat Transfer Coefficients U value [Btu/sq ft,F, hr] Location. Aspen Building Shell Average: 0.10 Primary Operation Profile: Hotel room (100Â°/o) Floors: 0.07 - 1.51 Evaluation Date: 8/5/12 2:31 PM External: 0.02 - 0.38 Underground 0.05 - 0.40 Building Geometry Data Openings: 0.09 - 0.23 Gross Floor Area: 12088 sq ft Building Shell Area: 11124 sq ft Specific Annual Demands Ventilated Volume: 89831 cu ft Net Heating Energy: 15.64 kBtu/sq fta Glazing Ratio: 9 % Net Cooling Energy: 1.87 kBtu/sq fta Total Net Energy: 17.51 kBtu/sq fta Building Shell Performance Data Air Leakage 1.46 ACH Energy Consumption. 60.89 kBtu/sq fta Outer Heat Capacity. 27.58*10A-4 Btu/sq ft,F Fuel Consumption: 33.98 kBtu/sq fta Primary Energy: 63.91 kBtu/sq fta Operation Cost -- USD/sq fta (02 Emission: 5.15 lb/sq fla Energy Consumption by Sources Energy (02 Emission Source Type Source Name Quantity Cost MBtu/a USD/a lb/a Renewable ~~ Solar Collector 275 0 NA Environment 28 0 Fossil ~ Natural Gas 225 -- 31503 Secondary ~~ Electricity 157 -- 6044 Total: 686 Not Applicable 37548* Energy Quantities Energy Costs (02 Emission 16 23 ~~ 1 , / .,~ 40 Applicable I041 33 ' . 33 , 4 ~ 84 * This amount of COy is absorbed in one year by 0.2 acres (roughly equivalent to 3 tennis-courts) of tropical forest. 112 Energy Performance~valuation Hotel Durant- Option A Energy Quantities 12 7 ////A 27 Energy (02 tty' Target Name Quantity Cost Primary Emission .~- MBtu/a USD/a MBtu/a Ible ~~ 5 . Heating 187 0 182 21974 49 ~ Cooling 35 0 20 268 ~ Hot Water Generation 332 0 123 10268 * Ventilation Fans 49 0 149 1907 Energy Costs . Lighting & Appliances 81 0 244 3130 Total: 686 NA 720 37548 ,/ / - NA / I Energy /1\ Source Name Quantity ~~ Solar Collector IMI mil Environment EE9 i I CC)2 Emission 8 1 Natural Gas mi ~~ Electricity 1~ , 32% 8 I ill 5 #-- 8'l' 1/ I -Ill [MBtu] 0 100 200 215 Monthly Energy Balance Supplied Energy per Month ~ -102.7 ~ Lighting and Equipment . 75 ~ Hot Water Generation ~ Mechanical Heating ~ 50 ~ Internal Heat Ga n ; -25 . Green Energy Solar Gain Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec [MBtu] *Ele'.4*=....0 Â® Transmission R Infiltration * Mechanical Ventilation ~ Hot Water ~ Mechanical Cooling Emitted Energy per Month 2/2 .1.1. Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option A- Minimum Reg'd Insulation Key Values General Project Data Heat Transfer Coefficients U value [Btu/sq ft,F, hr] Location: Aspen Building Shell Average: 0.17 Primary Operation Profile: Hotel room (100Â°/o) Floors: 0.07 -1.51 Evaluation Date: 8/5/12 3:53 PM External: 0.02 - 0.38 Underground: 0.05 - 0.40 Building Geometry Data Openings: 0.09-0.23 Gross Floor Area: 12121 sq ft Building Shell Area: 11193 sq ft Specific Annual Demands Ventilated Volume: 91103 cu ft Net Heating Energy: 24.62 kBtu/sq fta Glazing Ratio: 9 % Net Cooling Energy 1.38 kBtu/sq fta Total Net Energy: 26.00 kBtu/sq fta Building Shell Performance Data Air Leakage: 1.45 ACH Energy Consumption: 69.95 kBtu/sq fta Outer Heat Capacity 15.37*1OA-4 Btu/sq ft,F Fuel Consumption: 43.53 kBtu/sq fta Primary Energy: 74.69 kBtu/sq fta Operation Cost -- USD/sq fta CO2 Emission- 7.19 lb/sq fta Energy Consumption by Sources Energy C02 Emission Source Type Source Name Quantity Cost MBtu/a USD/a lb/a Renewable ~ Solar Collector 280 0 -- NA ---- Environment 21 0 Fossil ~ Natural Gas 336 -- 46951 Secondary ~~ Electricity 161 -- 6191 Total: 799 Not Applicable 53143* Energy Quantities Energy Costs (02 Emission 12 20 -Wii / 35 A.~ ~ 20 . 12 0 Not [%] Applicable 42 , 88 3 , 42 ' 88 * This amount of CO2 is absorbed in one year by 0.3 acres (roughly equivalent to 5 tennis-courts) of tropical forest. 1/2 Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option A- Minimum Reg'd Insulation Energy Consumption by Targets Energy Quantities 10 t ~ 38 Energy C~2 Target Name Quantity cost Primary Emission . [0kl ] M Btu/a USD/a MBtu/a lb/a 7 . Heating 300 0 300 36040 43 -/=7 3 ~ Cooling 26 0 16 209 ~ Hot Water Generation 339 0 138 11784 ~ Ventilation Fans 50 0 151 1934 Energy Costs ~ Lighting & Appliances 82 0 248 3173 Total: 799 NA 854 53143 \+/ / - NA / I Energy /1\ Source Name Quantity I~ Solar Collector MI Environment ~ (02 Emission 1 Natural Gas ' I I I 46 ~~ Electricity Â»f = 1 - [MBtu] 0 100 200 300 336 22 ~ - Monthly Energy Balance Supplied Energy per Month . -125 ~ Lighting and Equipment . I -100 ~ Hot Water Generation - 25 -- 75 ~ Mechanical Heating ~ Internal Heat Gain - 50 . Green Energy Solar Gain - - -- -0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec [MBtu] 0 U Transmission Infiltration - 50 E~ Mechanical Ventilation ~ ~ -- 100 ~ Mechanical Cooling --75 ~ Hot Water Emitted Energy per Month 212 ..lili Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option B Key Values General Project Data Heat Transfer Coefficients U value [Btu/sq ft,F,hr] Location. Aspen Building Shell Average: 0.11 Primary Operation Profile. Hotel room (100%) Floors 0.07 - 1.51 Evaluation Date: 8/5/12 3:18 PM External: 0.02 - 0.38 Underground. 0.05 - 0.40 Building Geometry Data Openings: 0.09 - 0.59 Gross Floor Area 12396 sq ft Building Shell Area: 11698 sq ft Specific Annual Demands Ventilated Volume: 96888 cu ft Net Heating Energy: 17.33 kBtu/sq fta Glazing Ratio: 8 % Net Cooling Energy: 1.61 kBtu/sq fta Total Net Energy: 18.94 kBtu/sq fta Building Shell Performance Data Air Leakage: 1.49 ACH Energy Consumption: 63.10 kBtu/sq fta Outer Heat Capacity: 28.37*10 A-4 Btu/sq ft,F Fuel Consumption: 44.10 kBtu/sq fta Primary Energy: 74.74 kBtu/sq fta Operation Cost: -- USD/sq fta (02 Emission 7.36 lb/sq fta Energy Consumption by Sources Energy C02 Emission Source Type 1 Source Name Quantity Cost MBtula USD/a lb/a I Solar Collector 194 0 Renewable I - - = --- -= - -- - NA -- ~~ Environment 24 0 Fossil ~ Natural Gas 349 -- 48780 Secondary ~~ Electricity 159 -- 6114 Total: 728 Not Applicable 54894* Energy Quantities Energy Costs (02 Emission 11 22 j~ ' 27 .22 30 ~ 11 Not [%1 [04] Applicable 48 ~ ' 89 / \ f \ / ' 48 89 * This amount of CO2 is absorbed in one year by 0.3 acres (roughly equivalent to 5 tennis-courts) of tropical forest. 1/2 Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option B Energy Consumption by Targets Energy Quantities 11 7 ~~30 Energy C~2 Target Name Quantity Cost Primary Emission . I%1 . MBtu/a USD/a MBtu/a lb/a - ... ~ Heating 48 214 0 236 29105 9---7 ~ Cooling 31 0 19 243 ~ Hot Water Generation 344 0 195 20286 *@ Ventilation Fans 53 0 160 2057 Energy Costs ~ Lighting & Appliances 83 0 250 3202 Total: 728 NA 862 54894 \1/ .. - NA - /. Energy /1\ Source Name Quantity ~~ Solar Collector 980/6 Environment ~ I (02 Emission 1 Natural Gas 46 ~~ Electricity [MBtu] 0 100 200 300 349 - Monthly Energy Balance Supplied Energy per Month ~ 6 109.5 ~ Lighting and Equipment .. ~ Hot Water Generation ... 75 ~ Mechanical Heating m.l.....1 ~ Green Energy -- 50 ~ Internal Heat Gain Solar Gain -- -0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec [MBtu] 0 4% 1-&-0-1 *I Transmission 25 :. . Infiltration i i I i i â€¢ 1 1, i -.- ~ 50 * Mechanical Ventilation ~ Hot Water - 1 ,-m 1 1 1 100 ~ Mechanical Cooling Emitted Energy per Month 2{2 ..... Y.....9*& -8#*=././==/im==/#AM==/14279/~/W Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option B- Minimum Reg'd Insulation Key Values General Project Data Heat Transfer Coefficients U value [Btu/sq ft,F. hr] Location: Aspen Building Shell Average: 0.17 Primary Operation Profile: Hotel room (100%) Floors: 0.07 - 1.51 Evaluation Date: 8/5/12 3:59 PM External: 0.02 - 0.38 Underground: 0.05 - 0.40 Building Geometry Data Openings. 0.09-0.59 Gross Floor Area: 12428 sq ft Building Shell Area: 11756 sq ft Specific Annual Demands Ventilated Volume: 98139 cu ft Net Heating Energy: 26.29 kBtu/sq fta Glazing Ratio: 8 % Net Cooling Energy. 1.22 kBtu/sq fta Total Net Energy: 27.51 kBtu/sq fta Building Shell Performance Data Air Leakage. 1.48 ACH Energy Consumption. 72.29 kBtu/sq fta Outer Heat Capacity: 15.68*10A-4 Btu/sq ft,F Fuel Consumption: 54.00 kBtu/sq fta Primary Energy: 85.91 kBtu/sq fta Operation Cost: -- USD/sq fta (02 Emission: 9.48 lb/sq fta Energy Consumption by Sources - Energy C02 Emission Source Type Source Name Quantity Cost MBtu/a USD/a lb/a Renewabk ~~ Solar Collector 194 0 NA Environment 19 0 Fossil ~ Natural Gas 468 -- 65348 Secondary ~~ Electricity 163 -- 6260 Total: 845 Not Applicable 71609* Energy Quantities Energy Costs (02 Emission 9 / 1 23 9 Not [%] Applicable 56~ '~ 91 0 , / \ / \ t ' 56 91 * This amount of CO2 is absorbed in one year by 0.4 acres (roughly equivalent to 6 tennis-courts) of tropical forest. 1/2 Energy Performance~valuation I Hotel Durant- Option B- Minimum Reg'd Insulation Energy Consumption by Targets Energy Quantities 10 Energy C~2 Target Name Quantity Cost Primary Emission . [%] 1 MBtu/a USD/a MBtu/a Ibla . Heating 331 0 366 44824 42 -9,IV 3 ~ Cooling 24 0 15 193 ~ Hot Water Generation 350 0 206 21262 ~@ Ventilation Fans 54 0 162 2083 Energy Costs ~ Lighting & Appliances 84 0 253 3244 Total: 845 NA 1004 71609 \!/ / - NA I . Energy /,\ Source Name Quantity I~ Solar Collector 1] Environment (;02 Emission 1 Natural Gas I.ima ~ II~-1Ill 35 ~~ Electricity ~ 433% E 52Â°' 1 I [MBtu] 0 100 200 300 400 468 30 / . Monthly Energy Balance Supplied Energy per Month I -132 ~ Lighting and Equipment -Il ~- - 100 ~ Hot Water Generation ~ Mechanical Heating ~ Internal Heat Gain I - . Green Energy Solar Gain 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec IMBful *:%4 622* 4@13% . 0 4 Transmission Infiltration 2,0.. ~ Mechanical Ventilation - . 1 8 2 --75 ~ Hot Water ~ Mechanical Cooling Emitted Energy per Month 2J2 .l-.. ELEVATOR TOWER EX{fEEDS p HEIGHT UMIT @XLESS THAN S' SOUTH STAIR TOWER EX HEIGHT LIMIT BY LESS T 40' ABOVE E~Â»G GRADE A-~~ 1, 10.3 980 f=*5 . f. A f â€¢ 44 . L .*r 9 -: 11 41 & . .. :9.01. 1:.1-*-* g: ' ... I 1.:r.-2 2 L.DE ~~id:*1~ ; ~ - *71 1- , - r . 4 925 R -2-- 1 + ...12 U. . . ..5-- 04 r. IFI -1Fmt ~14. ~4*A. 4 k,Â»-r- -- - - - , * ... 7:.-91//mi j.. lit'- 9 1 211.-11 0'fild'.1 4. :.... & * if 1 1- AA@UU@'* Â·Â·t*~I . 1- : .* 897 -- 7 -7-1 1 -- - .W ./14.1 /- :t' .- '"r-eâ€¢* 01- *0â€¢â‚¬M ..0,-'* Â· ' ' fEEZE - . . 9 t. ..~â€¢~ 6 u.u. 1141{14,4#; mi I -- 1% Â»L. ..P: -f .=4464, - : 0 ...7. -- -: r . 4-Â· S 7 1 - 12, .. Hotel Durant Public Outreach Summary Dates: June 24th & 27th Summary: Applicant held 'Open House' style forums to present our development plans to the neighbors. A postcard invitation was mailed 3 weeks prior to all neighbors within 300' of the Hotel Durant. This invitation included contact information where neighbors may request copies of the information if they are unable to attend either meeting. We received zero (0) RSVPs confirming attendance for either evening. Despite the lack of response we held the first open house on Sunday evening and supplied pizza and drinks for potential attendees. Unfortunately, no neighbors showed. We had set up a computer and large-screen TV to display images and elected to go through our presentation for our own benefit, with a handful of long-time hotel guests joining us as an interested audience. The presentation/discussion lasted roughly an hour, including the question and answer session at the end. The guests were highly supportive of the plans and excited to see the New Hotel Durant, so long as it didn't mean missing a ski season. On the following Wednesday evening we again set up. Despite no official RSVPs, we had received some informal indications that a few interested neighbors would attend. Snacks and drinks were offered this night. Seven people showed up at 6pm; 3 from Lift l A Condos (directly across Durant Ave), 3 from Aspen Central Townhouses, and one neighbor from Cooper Avenue (a block west). We walked through the plans for the remodel and expansion of the Hotel Durant, fielding several questions throughout the presentation. We received feedback and heard concerns regarding a few of the facets of the design; notably the height of the building, the fate of the existing trees, the rooftop deck, and the glass railing along the east and southeast perimeter of the rooftop deck. All concerned comments were received from the attendees from the Lift 1 A Condos. They voiced their worries that their views of Red Mountain would be greatly impacted, that the rooftop deck may be noisy and invasive, and that the glass railing would be highly reflective, glaring into their units. Otherwise, all comments were supportive of our intentions and complimentary of the design. The meeting lasted roughly an hour and a video of the event was recorded. Five neighbors emailed me before and after the meetings to request copies of the plans. 1 provided each of them with a link to download digital the land use application materials as well as a copy of the video of Wednesday's presentation. We have received no other feedback or comments at this time. Copies of the postcard invitation and receipts for the pizza, snacks & beverages are attached. .. \[ 01 A Cotmmtinent iÂ¢,/17/06) \LTA Commitment Form COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by p- stewart , title guaranty company Stewart Title Guaranty Company, a Texas Corporation ("Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance. as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A. as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements: all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue. whichever first occurs. provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Countersigned: p stew~t ~affl ~~~FA ~9 - L.-- title guaranty company Ally/JUZU , t Senior Chairman of the Board .\Borized Countersignature 41>3469.,fe~ ,. 1,1 Stewart Title y i !1466,ld FkOL.~ Aspen Division 18& 1908 ...tâ‚¬/ ' ' ! Chairman of the Board . 620 East Hopkins Avenue l.~.~--I.:I~<0;.~ Aspen. Colorado 81611 ~'~~4'~tl___ Phone: 970-925-3577 Oresident Fax: 866-277-9353 Order Number: 958184 ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) .. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: April 6.2012. at 7:30 A.M. Order Number: 958184 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner' s (b) A.L.T.A. Loan 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the referenced estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: HOTEL DURANT, LLC 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Fractional Lots P and Q, Block 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN and Fractional Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, EAMES ADDmON TO THE CrrY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO. Purported Address: Statement of Charges: 122 East Durant Avenue These charges are due and payable before a Policy can Aspen. Colorado 8]611 be issued: Title Commitment Fee $100.00 Order Nurnher: 95 8 1 84 ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) - Schedule A Title Officer: Linda \Villiarns - title guaranty company Page 1 of 1 .. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 958184 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantorts) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. NONE AT THIS TIME NOTE: This product is for informational purposes only. It is not a title insurance product and does not provide any form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance. and does not warrant, or otherwise insure, any condition. fact or circumstance. This product does not obligate this Company to issue any policies of title insurance for any subsequent transaction based on the information provided or involving the property described herein. This Company's sole liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount that was paid for this product. (*der Number: 9Â·8184 - SteV~/EU t AI.TA Commitment ff,/17/06) Schedule B 1 - ttle guaranty company Page 1 ot- 1 e . COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - Section 2 EXCEP1IONS Order Number: 958184 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or homeowners association or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 1 0. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 11. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 175 at Page 298. 12. Multipurpose Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded July 15, 1979 in Book 372 01Â·der Number: 9581 84 AI.TA Commitment (6/17/06) Schedule B 2 -stevvart Page 1 of 2 - title guaranty company 0 . at Page 80 as Reception No. 216075. Order Number: 9581 84 U. 1-A Commitment 1 6/17/06) - Schedule B 2 -steâ€žvar-t= Page 2 of 2 - ttle guaranty company .. THE CITY oF AspEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: May 3,2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0032.2012.ASLU - Hotel Durant. ~Zi~ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1) Proof of Ownership, consisting of a current certificate from a title company (ownership and encumbrance report) or a letter from a licensed Colorado attorney outlining all judgments, liens, etc. affecting the property and demonstrating applicant's right to apply. 2) A landscape plan, for consolidated Commercial Design Review. 3) Public Amenity, design and operations standards for public amenity. Please submit an addendum with regard to the standards. 4) Lodge Zone District requires a trash and utility area. Please verify compliance. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, Ll@kirer Id@an, Deputy Director City o f Aspen, Community Development Department .. Z-73 5-- l.% 1. 5 4 Â· 001* 0032.20(2 ~*5661 7?ful]S : -1.- -T- f . j .- t. ,@01 Elle Edit Record Navigate Fgm Repor& Format Tab tlelp i@ 9 * 4 e -8 41'i QI 6 3 Z d' 0 i N d / 4 0 @ 1 lump 1 t 0~ji 0 | 6 ~ ittl~,id J â€¢1 i@@(3#al#:.4. Routing Status | Fees | Fee SummarY ~ Actions ~ Attachments Routing History ~ Valuation | ArchÂ£Eng 1 Custom Fields | 5ub Bermits 4 I Permit type aslu Aspen Land lIse [ Permit # ]0032.2012.ASLU Li * Address 122 E DURANT Apt/Sulte 2- City ASPEN State F-1 m 81811 . Pe.~mit Irformation Master permit Routjng queue aslu07 Applied 5/1 2012 Project State pending Approved ; Description LAND USE APPLICATION FOR HOTEL DURANT - COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Issued Cbsedlfinal I Submitted PHILLIP RING 948 3464 Clock ~1 Days 1--al Expires 4/262013 i i Submitted Yla i Owner -~.*~ Last name HOTEL DURANT First name 122 E DURANT 1 62* ASPEN CO 81611 ~ ir Phone (970) 925-8500 Address i~ f] Applicant i k- Il Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is applicant? 1 3 Last name SCHAEFER First name BRIAN 122 E DURANT ST ASPEN CO 81611 I ; Phone (970) 618-9033 Cust # 29272 Address i ' Lender i i Last name First name Phone () - Address . Displays the permit lender's address AspenGoldE (server] angelas #@~ 1 oil .:E c..taf 2 * f Amor GOLD -- fl Q-m 1 PÂ« / PIgvvi4 'Lote E 3{ 9-7 9- smON 'p,61I *Oqlooll sdno,g ge 11 /9 . L-/ i I 1 r \ F ' ' t'.1 5, (JI 6 1 C C . f n -~L~~~4 39Â£te'~ /(/1-P-/th /1-6/7 - '-2 -- 2<1.1 . 15'~U/L ' 9 j li <f i': Â·' 4 4 9 Â·i ,,+'. 1 f 0 2 0 i J r. Al I .1 'll- O-Or-. 7- A-P tÂ· 1, r C C '3 I Ut (.1/4./P!~ p 20 ~Â·~1 4 1 6 1~jÂ»ri~ 22 (r,) # (ti.' 2.f r. 1 / ., 1 1 , l,.t C 4,4 A j f ./6- i./ c J,+4; 0 ," 1, Â· I 1 V 6 1 1 2~: O.)0' OVU 1 +U - - 1 *. ' if '1 { *.3 ..f A , ./ =% . 6. j, C ly '. '