HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication_Fence Height_PD AmendmentALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, LLC
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
970-920-112S
January 3, 2023
Ms. Amy Simon, Planning Director
City of Aspen Community Development Department
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: ST. REGIS HOTEL MINOR PD AMENDMENT
Dear Amy,
This is an application to amend the Planned Development (PD) that applies to Lot 1 of the
Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision, on which the St. Regis Hotel is located. The property's
street address is 315 East Dean Street and its Parcel ID # is 273718285033.
The purpose of the proposed minor amendment to the PD is to allow the existing fence
along the Monarch Street side and along a short segment of the Juniata Street side of the
Hotel to be replaced with a new fence which is six feet (6) in height. This increased height
is necessary to provide greater security from wildlife and from human intruders who have
been entering the courtyard, pool and spa areas from these sides of the property.
The St. Regis Hotel is owned by Aspen Owner LLC. (hereinafter, "the applicant"). Proof of
the ownership of the subject property is provided in the form of a letter from Mr. Chris
LaCroix, an attorney licensed to practice in Colorado, certifying as to the ownership of the
property (see Exhibit #1).
The applicant has designated Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc. as its representative
for purposes of this application (see the letter attached hereto as Exhibit #2). HOA
authorization to submit this application has also been provided as Exhibit #3.
Pre -application discussions were held between the applicant and staff of the Community
Development Department prior to submission of this application. A copy of the pre -
application form staff provided to the applicant is attached hereto as Exhibit #4. This form,
directs the applicant to respond to the following section of the Land Use Code:
26.445.110.E: Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Approval; and
26.575.020 (e): Allowed Projections into Setbacks
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Two
The following sections of this application are organized to demonstrate how the proposal
complies with the applicable review standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. First
however, some background information is presented describing the history of the prior
land use approvals granted to the property and providing an overview of existing
conditions at the Hotel.
Prior Approvals and Current Conditions
The St. Regis Hotel (legally described as the Aspen Residence Club and Hotel) is located
on Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Lot 1 consists of approximately 3 acres
of land (+/- 128,941 sq. ft.) that is centrally located at the base of Aspen Mountain. The
property is zoned Lodge and has a PD overlay applied to it. A vicinity map showing the
location and overall configuration of the subject property is included in this application
package.
The Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD was originally approved by the City of Aspen in
1985. The PUD/Subdivision Plat documenting this approval is recorded in Plat Book 17 @
Page 99 of the Pitkin County Records. The original PUD Agreement is recorded in Book
500 @ Page 656. The first significant amendment to the PUD/Subdivision was approved
by the City Council in 1988. The amended PUD/Subdivision Plat documenting the
amended approval was recorded in Plat Book 21 @ Page 35 and the amended PUD
Agreement is recorded in Book 574 @ Page 792 (Reception No. 304523). Several other
more technical amendments were approved by the City as the design evolved and can be
found in Plat Book 22 @ Page 85, Plat Book 24 @ Page 77 and Plat Book 29 @ Page 71.
Construction of the Hotel (originally known as the Ritz Carlton) was completed in 1992.
The property changed ownership in 1998 and the Hotel was re -branded as the St. Regis
Hotel. Then, in 2003, the then .owner of the property obtained approval for a land use
application to convert 98 of the then existing 257 hotel rooms into 25 timeshare units.
Approval was also given to modify the 22 approved but at that time un-built hotel rooms in
Building C into 20 hotel rooms and to convert a portion of the space on the Ballroom Level
into a spa. Approval for these activities was granted pursuant to City Council Ordinance
No. 25, Series of 2003 (see Exhibit #4). The amended PUD/Subdivision Plat documenting
this approval was recorded in Plat Book 68 @ Page 42 of the Pitkin County records.
The St. Regis Hotel and Residence Club currently consists of 179 hotel rooms (257 — 98 +
20 = 179), along with the 25 timeshare units. The timeshare residences are located in
their own wing of the hotel. The property also contains a variety of accessory uses,
including the conference/meeting space and ballrooms, the spa, several dining areas and
bars, and several retail spaces.
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Three
An updated survey of the property has been prepared and is included in this application
package, showing the overall configuration of the Hotel. The primary improvements which
are depicted on the survey include the retail building along Durant Street, the main entry
into the Hotel along Dean Street, and the wings of the residences and Hotel.
Description of this Application
The portion of the property which is the sole focus of this Minor PD Amendment
application is along the western and southern sides of the property, where the pool and
spa are located, within the area known as the Mountain Courtyard. A more detailed
drawing depicting the pool, spa and courtyard configuration has been provided.
The pool, spa and courtyard have long been enclosed by a metal fence located along the
properly boundary. Pictures have been provided illustrating the appearance of this fence.
They show that the fence has a traditional design, with vertical steel posts spaced evenly
and a horizontal upper and lower steel railing enclosure for the posts. The spacing
between the fence posts makes it possible for persons along the street to readily see into
the property, meaning that this is not a privacy fence but instead is for property security.
There are two primary problems, however, with the current design of the fence. First, as is
best illustrated in the photo of the southern fence along Juniata Street, there is a significant
gap of approximately 12" to 18" between the ground and the bottom of the fence in this
area. This gap has provided one way that bears and other animals can get into the
property. Second, the fence is not a particularly tall barrier around the courtyard, with a
height that ranges from about 48" to 56" above the ground. This rather modest height has
allowed animals to get onto the property and also enables human intruders to climb over
the fence. The Hotel has frequently had persons who are not guests use the pool and spa
and has even had intruders attempt to sleep in this portion of the property from time -to -
time. Because of this, the Hotel's insurance company has put the Hotel on notice that a
more secure fence should be installed around this portion of the property. This is a
primary factor which has motivated the applicant to submit this land use application.
The proposed solution to this problem is to replace the existing fence with a 6' high fence
of the same design which extends all the way down to the ground. A picture has been
provided of a demonstration section of the proposed fence which the Hotel inserted along
the Juniata Street side of the property. It shows that the new fence would extend both
above and below the existing fence to provide a more effective safety barrier around this
portion of the property. The fence materials and design would remain the same as today,
allowing for persons to continue to see into the courtyard area and through to the Hotel.
This design would comply with the requirement in Section 26.575.050 of the Code which
states that: "Fences shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron, concrete, metal,
wire, or masonry. Chain link, plastic, vinyl or synthetic fences are prohibited."
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Four
The applicant started the process of replacing this fence earlier this year. It was the
applicant's understanding that the Code permitted a fence of up to 6' to be installed around
the perimeter of the property. Therefore, the applicant submitted a building permit
application to install the fence. The application was accepted by the City and the permit
fee was paid. At this time the applicant began to install the fence. Subsequently, the
applicant was told by the Building Department that there was a zoning problem with the
fence. Therefore, the applicant stopped work on the fence before it was completed.
However, a significant portion of the new fence along Monarch Street was installed before
the applicant stopped the contractor from completing the fence (see attached photo).
The Code provision which caused the zoning problem with the fence is found in Sec.
26.575.020 (q) of the Code. This sub -section of the Code addresses permitted
encroachments into setbacks. It permits a fence to be located in a setback, because one
would typically expect a fence to be on or near the property line. However, the Code sets
forth the following unique limitation which affects the plans for the subject property:
"q. Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from
finished grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six
(6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas entirely
recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which
is closest to the Street. This restriction applies on all Street -facing facades of a par7cel."
The problem this language causes for the applicant is with regard to the statement that a
six foot (6') fence is only permitted in areas which are recessed behind the vertical plane of
the building fagade which is closest to the street. The improvement survey shows that the
Hotel building fagade along Monarch Street, which is to the north of where the fence is
located, has been set back from the property line. This was done as part of the original
Hotel design review to provide some greater visual relief from the mass and height of the
building along this street for neighbors. It also allowed for some articulation of the fagade
in this area, again for the benefit of the neighbors. The approved PUD provided for the
fagade to be set back by between 12' to 19' along Monarch Street, even though the
minimum side yard setback in this zone district is just 5'.
The detailed improvement survey and the photos show that there are two gates along this
side of the property which control access into the courtyard area. Given the change in
grade between the street and the courtyard, requiring that there be steps into the courtyard
area, the most effective way to fence this area is for the fence to be along the property
line. Therefore, this portion of the fence cannot be "recessed behind the vertical plane
established by the building fagade". This is what necessitates the Minor PD Amendment.
There is also a very short section along the Juniata Street side of the Hotel where the
fence would extend in front of the building fagade. The remainder of the fence on that side
is located behind the fagade and so need not be addressed in this Minor PD Amendment.
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Five
Considering all of these factors, the applicant hereby requests that the City grant a
dimensional variation to permit a fence which is up to six feet (6) in height to be located
along the property line around the Mountain Courtyard. This location is in front of the
vertical plane established by the building fagade along Monarch Street, requiring a
variation from that dimensional limitation.
Responses to Review Standards for Minor PD Amendment
Section 26.445.110 of the Code establishes the procedures and standards for PD
Amendments. It states that amendments to PUD's approved prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 36, Series of 2013 shall be processed by having the Community Development
Director determine whether the amendment is insubstantial, minor, or major. The
Community Development Director found that the proposed amendment exceeds the
threshold for an "insubstantial amendment" and classified it as a "Minor PD amendment".
Section 26.445.110 E. of the Land Use Code, which governs Minor PD Amendments,
does not contain its own standards for review of an amendment. It instead refers the
applicant to the detailed review standards that apply to all PUD's (Sec. 26.445.050). Most
of these review standards are more applicable to new development than to a minor
amendment to an existing development to change the height of a fence. Therefore,
substantive responses are only provided to those standards which apply to this proposal.
A. Compliance with Project Review Approval.
Response: When this PD was approved there was no "Project Review" step. Rather, the
Code provided for a conceptual and a final PUD review, which were then documented on
the recorded architectural and site plans for the Hotel. The applicant has reviewed the
recorded drawings in the County Clerk's Office for the original PUD and the four PUD
amendments which were subsequently adopted prior to the completion of the construction
of the Hotel. We have examined the architectural elevations, the landscape drawings and
the other drawings in each of these sets. We could not find a single drawing which
specified the design, height or materials for this fence. Therefore, it seems reasonable to
conclude that the fence height, materials and design were most likely too minor of a detail
to rise to the level of being reviewed as part of the original PUD and its amendments.
It is also important to note that at the time the Hotel was built there were no limitations on
fence height within the setback. At that time, fences were allowed to be 6' tall in the
setback without limitation. The language about having a fence recessed behind the street
fagade of a building was introduced into the Code at a much later date.
Given all these factors, we believe that this proposed amendment is in compliance with the
terms of the original and amended PUD approvals.
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Six
B. Growth Management.
Response: There are no growth management provisions which apply to the proposed
fence.
C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria
shall be used.
(1) The landscape plan exhibits a well -designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of
ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal,
protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks.
(2) Buildings and site grading provide simple, at -grade entrances and minimize
extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for
emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is
accommodated.
(3) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a
manner that enhances the site.
(4) All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference
of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's
outdoor lighting standards.
(5) Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with
Title 29=Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Response: The only proposed change to the site/landscape plan is the request to have a
6' high perimeter fence that is located within the side yard setback. The fence would
continue to be located where it has historically been located and would have a design
which is essentially identical to that of the existing fence. The design would continue to
allow for views into the property as is the case today and would leave the existing site
grading and landscaping untouched. The only notable change will be the increased
security the new fence provides to guests of the Hotel.
D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize
quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following
criteria shag be used.-
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Seven
(1) The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day
details and use of materials respectful of the community's past without attempting to mimic
history.
(2) Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design
standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards,
Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation.
(3) Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding
effects
(4) Energy efciency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner
that enhances the architecture.
(5) All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with
the City's outdoor lighting standards.
Response: The proposed steel fence will use high quality materials. The design, which is
shown on the photographs, will be respectful of the community's past without attempting to
mimic a particular historic style.
E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas or Facilities.
F. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities.
G. Engineering Design Standards.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities.
1. Phasing of Development Plan.
Response: None of the above standards apply to this proposal.
Ms. Amy Simon
January 3, 2023
Page Eight
Conclusion
The above responses and the attached drawings and exhibits provide the information the
City has requested to process this application. The materials submitted demonstrate that
the application complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need anything else during the review process.
Very truly yours,
A MAN PLANNING SERVICES, LLC
Z4
Alan Richman, FAICP
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT #1
Aspen Office
625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: (970) 925-1936
Facsimile: (970) 925-3008
VIA EMAIL
Aspen Owner, LLC
c/o St. Regis Aspen Resort
315 East Dean Street
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Since 1975
www.garriieldhecht.com
September 28, 2022
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Attn.: Kim French, Director of Event Planning and Operations
Email: Kim. Frenchastregis.com
RE: OWNERSHIP OF ST. REGIS ASPEN
Dear Ms. French:
Chris LaCroix
Aspen Office
clacrobaZzarfieldhecht.com
Alan Richman asked me to write to you because I understand that you need a letter from a
Colorado lawyer to confirm ownership of certain real property in Pitkin County, Colorado known as the
"St. Regis Aspen" which is located at 315 East Dean Street in Aspen, Colorado 81611.
Please accept this letter to confirm that according to my research of the real estate records of
Pitkin County, Colorado, Aspen Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the owner of the
real property described as follows:
Hotel Unit and Commercial Unit
Aspen Residence Club and Hotel Condominium Map
According to the Plat recorded January 21, 2005 in Plat Book 71 at Page 86 as Reception No.,
506237 and as defined and described in the Declaration and Plan of Club Ownership for Aspen
Residence Club and Hotel Condominium recorded January 21, 2005 as Reception No. 506236.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
By:
Chris LaCroix
Copy via email to: Alan Richman
DocuSign Envelope ID: B32079A1-EFB1-4CS7 A80E-EE8F22AC8AD7
EXHIBIT #2
Ms. Amy Simon, Planning Director
City of Aspen Community Development Department
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ST. REGIS ASPEN RESORT
Dear Ms. Simon,
Aspen Owner LLC is the owner of the property commonly known as the St. Regis Aspen
Resort and I am the Manager of that entity. I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning
Services, Inc. to submit an application requesting a Minor Amendment to the approved
PD for the purpose of installing a taller fence around certain sections of the property. Mr.
Richman is authorized to submit the PD Amendment application on our behalf and to
represent the St. Regis Aspen Resort in meetings with City staff and the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Should you need any further information from us during the course of your review of this
application, please contact Mr. Richman or you may contact me directly.
Sincerely,
ASPEN OWNER LLC
DocuStQned by:
S� Pt, bAds
E8187B18C1A84R...
Stephane De Basts, Manager
100 Campus Drive #400
Florham Park, NJ 07932
DocuSign Envelope ID: 98FAl14A-8AE1-4286-82AF-286A140AE658 EXHIBIT #3
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to Include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying that the scope of work included in the land use application
complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be
si nQ ed by the property owner or Atfomey r+eMsentin_a the property owner.
Property Name: Aspen Owner LLC
Owner M: Email: stephane@elevatedretum§„ Phone No.: 970-429-9521
Address of 315 East Dean Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
❑ This property is not subject to a homeowner association or other form of private covenant.
19 This property is subject to a homeowner association or private covenant, and the Improvements
proposed In this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
❑ This property Is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the Improvements
proposed In this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not Interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this dccun1enWu%pybfic document.
Owner signature: I S1t'r&'a4A't' VE, i 2adS Date. 10/6/2022
Owner printed name: Stephane De Baets
or,
Attorney signature:
Attorney printed name:
Date:
April 2020 City Of nsi)en 1 130 S. Galena St. 1(9 70) 920 5090
k4
EXHIBIT #4
CITY OFASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PRE-22-123
DATE:
November 11, 2022
PLANNER:
Luis Prado I luis.prado@aspen.gov
PROJECT:
St. Regis Fence Height Variance Request
PARCEL ID#:
273718285033
ZONING:
Lodge, Aspen Mountain PD
OWNER:
ASPEN OWNER LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Brian M Pawl I brian.gawl@mardott.com 1 970-355-5715
REQUEST:
Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review
DESCRIPTION:
The St. Regis Aspen Residence Club and Hotel Condominium is in the Lodge zone district on
Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD was originally
approved in 1985 via Ordinance 14. In the 1990s this location was known as the Ritz Carlton
Hotel until 1998, when the property ownership changed, and the location became the St.
Regis Hotel.
The Applicant has indicated that their fence must be raised in height, as instructed by their
insurance provider, to better protect against bears and for pool area safety. The proposed
height of the fence stands at six feet tall, while currently being restricted to a height of 42
inches by Municipal Code Sec. 26.575.020(e) (5) (q). Altering the height to surpass 42 inches
requires an amendment to the Aspen Mountain PD Detailed Review.
The request to increase the height of the fence to six feet requires review and approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review
approval. The P&Z may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the height variance
request.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use Code
Land Use Application
Commercial, Lodaina, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines
Relevant Land Use Code Sections:
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.110.E Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval
26.445.040.B.3 Step Three - Detailed Review
26.445.070 Detailed Review Standards
26.575.020(e) Allowed Projections Into Setbacks
Review by: Staff for complete application.
Planning and Zoning Commission for decision.
Public Hearing: Yes
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1 P: 970.920.5000 1 F: 970.920.5197 1 cityofaspen.com
i
CITYOFASPEN
Fees: Planning Fees: $3,250.00 (10 hour deposit) Any unbilled portion of the
deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff
hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour.
$975 Parks Department Referral Fee - Flat Fee.
Total Deposit: $4,225.00
To apply, submit one PDF copy of the following information directly to luis.prado@aspen.gov:
❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
❑ Pre -application Conference Summary (this document).
❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is
proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from
a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the
property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for
the Development Application.
❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the
applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
❑ HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application).
❑ Site Improvement Survey (no older than one year from date of application submittal)
prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado.
❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or
model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards
relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals
associated with the property.
❑ Written responses to applicable review criteria.
Once the application has been deemed to be complete by the Planning Director,
you will be requested at that time to submit the application fees. if any additional
information is necessary, you will be informed accordingly.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The
summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 31611-1975 1 P: 970.92a5000 I F: 970.920.51971 ci tyofa sp a n.com
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen ('City") and
Address of Property:
315 East Dean Street, Aspen CO 81611 Plaase two or Print In all cans
Property Owner Name,.AspenOWrI@r —I"'C Representative Name(d Merent from PtoperwOW Wrj; -IC�n Richman
_..
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
Brian Pawl, St. Regis Aspen, 315 East Dean Street, Aspen CO 81611
Contact info for billing: e-mall-bdan.pawl@stregis.com Phone: 970-355-5715
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2020, review fees for Land Use applications, and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner, I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees
are non-refundable.
$. 975 flat fee for Parks Dep't
S. flat fee for
$ Jat fee for
$, flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature, or scope of the proposed project, It is not
possIle at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved In processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that It Is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration unless Invoices are paid In full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices sent by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the
City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an
Invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the land Use Review Fee Policy, Including consequences for non-payment. I agree to
pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does
not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for processing my application at the hourly rates
hereinafter stated.
$ 3,250 deposit for 1 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. •.
City of Aspen: ,
lhgff�ror Signature,
Phillip Supino, AICP . Brian Pawl
Community Development Director PRINT Name.
City use:
fees Due: $_Received $
Case q
Title: Chief Engineer
April 2020 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Gatena St.1(970) 920 5090
LAND USE APPLICATION
Project Name and Address:St. Regis Aspen Resort Minor PD Amendment
Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) 273718285033
APPLICANT:
Name: Aspen Owner LLC, c/o St. Regis Aspen Resort
Address: 315 East Dean Street, Aspen CO 81611
Phone #: 970-429-9500 email: stephane@elevatedreturns.com
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 3613, Aspen, CO 81612
Phone#: 970-920-1125 email:-alan@alanplans.com
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
See attached application packet
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Planning and Zoning Commission
Required Land Use Review(s):
Planning and Zoning Commission
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net leasable square footage lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ 4, 225.00
✓ Pre -Application Conference Summary
✓ Signed Fee Agreement
✓ HOA Compliance form
MAII items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
DRAWINGS AND
PHOTOS
ALTOSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF
LOT 1, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY ONE O Sz ATEOF COLORADO
]./4e ppsa
ArQ R1w[O wl QaLa,al, tMi, ff howl SIIF R Flf/M4
:oi'rY�.�.�roisrzmEa .s ff fnLo.!<
I[d IT A n IL M E-FAY LRf V [4Aad n 7 AAA) W xP]K4r tK p y 11
Sr4L1 IKxq ride 5+0 f.slEwr N[ . I.PC.Y' L sOLl4 RE] m M Ittehf ut mR(R 6 t.6 LOf L
nulvrl .xL..[, .,x R,] rRRIGs w,r1.4o W4. Kunrl
mEx1c a¢vx kn.c sw sw�itr t.[ s Rar,r t. uufx rtri: iWI1Q s
IKta; s ]s�LYt' L ,son 1[[1 ro R Pm.'I Rf9C n[ rlStt4r Lr[ w IW. nL SiPF[I: n[.tl AA ALdO
SAO 1[fl[RYLa,C Rs £CupwS Msl W� LOWS[S
5 R, l
1 IKA[F S nPrll- L .I1 41t;
S MrR S I,Y/.Y x xf].M IQS:
Sidi Rlin Kt xQ i 15tg5o' L tY2a mS m apn>I'S r]Suc(In[r�ul9faf t[Ln[it6�axA al�
n[.t¢ A, s.y rnuaa. tK . nmvc a In n rif t m rK niAT v RpwIC p•lArc ] M
KKf vhK to LCTS
QTP.Flx} PR nitf mrll[Al, R[ rRat ptD-m..wl uomt K a v4vAR:o n S[A.AI A.
rortl e91 wtl mvE:vR uRl.
aglt 4:nR¢ aLe Mo lam cu[pwRrs
.QLau,c r6 M cpaoswRy YY 4[pIA, - ..r A. ]nP5 . Rai II h at A- A,M _.A..
4PQKL [llB XL9 }�10 min ar�cat�0 +IfuYi n� Lin A, ._`AAA A.
=1. _.
[Oa'n p n,aL sia¢ ff fao,Yo ]04Y
WES,
Linnrs N5 [15t QM sIIUI.
3 w}px eN(R AKai-t0[ [ IxYil uId RW wAP M
a101l055v]FwM M [ffECMT OxK p lr•[ 4 ,l0,.
S Ptlif LMC M[A6 25f AtlFS
. ,wQRPsarp PMuxG N4➢ d M ]ae] M.1[.p4Y1 RYS try LGt I, agFX
YnRISM fi�CY111 Ala RYy[p W! QW1V4ti, 4CARP . m N ragl Xn-10
M4 ..[ I51 A.4AWf rMs.y YKiS
5 uh,tti Sr[w AI[ 9k[D pr Fs I8}[mnpl
[ ry. WRI,m FrWQ K Pr[ POff Lin! WSY m *+N o.tuS [Yn Aoxxc
], SWt( Rps� r4T OR[CS R.PC.r �yS m IIINo• lrar un tvm rL Ta[[; R
Lm[IFO fNLC St4[l.
6 Pf. ORSLVA[P [t4i 0.. 1K PR o¢s n! Yf[Y to wW ours eFO As R sno .asq
LiIP. 9Y p TAYlYr 1a1Q4L L ci mgtipp K m Xm A0.4.G, KSmIC
9 O[ ..n04,[At5 P R[ 1®un AIfFM m w4 Ow!n Xtas ,O aSAs➢ RBC
IwK ugyPL LLl. Aq QY SPUR
, YOK. Wo,R (^1 f.p, AxP[p ROOa •1 IOIN Afti55 (•j 111d fw9[6 ROOX
EtY FtOK
r 4f41 n[ rttFRY LI.1 rr t01 I, A)I[A Y9wIM PeonPo, a1G
S RRwKO wl IX1ROKn4 IX..1•l• x I.tP.a' L Rn[Fx M fa.a rYy4]Ltt a1
91011, 1[RI0.
}]. 1��0....PPrOGtt511M LRRO. SUfPYIf I-x [r4Pf0�[ RX -..In¢E OIYwi,
,A gSSRYt4f APf EYR[SAO NN LLS 91XlEr 4[1 arp pf tlYls Sr[I[S- a us 91MY lOat
Is p[fMP u R].cPr t]m(MS] u[FAS AIL C[El s'C5 rA]' n Qf%CS-
Y w RRid w•o -1 Kw45, RRRS LR WI S M, RBSC I- P T
1 vduKxl R tAtO Bn.nMY 19RA[xl R AmMA, (pars R MSS Sb []3
IRfOfr(uM vW9.M1 m s¢F navtL lr.-1PG rs.s
n .aln. Rttvmea ro caa.+Po I.w ]tu rrtr w.Rxrz w, ury. KPa uPn ,vo•
w.r ufEn w n.s arKr rrw. rx4L rxA.11 AfrtX m, t.s, 4smwtt Pa Qf]n R
,9 FtP.I wY .f]p NRO R'q YS tll[OI • 1rI1 Ynfi Q [LR[,.�,aIF Swx
x .N'xo ;coc�n°:s .poi sEl4ii win IW 9wxm
al. M f.O.OSf9 [n.Kis h fPFiS PWl-p-w.f ulft wW ad .rQ RrrAeF 10 H
9Ar1fYOl
Il K ]WIMrG x[x.Xf• xAs nmQP w M rLR 4nXt of M 0.wXwlc 4 ]OAW QI
11IbtIY O.A.',, O.yl ,, GW p/l1/]O}l. r}r 94 A -A. MAU
Pialc lP•r{Q90rAluL 1-Po-tin-R.rrEo 4a,0=AfXr
in01C 5[1-IOu Y[f KOAR ip•IryQAgY . ! 11[I
lIROI•G 1(RYfo . w ]QS
YAI.[.I N.IwG MLdI d Slp4t ,Y�9u4a a:a wi¢'u5[ WS
M ¢II Of I [mtE 11.1 Kv siw
1W-rttl Q POSf LOi M[R- ]61[I1
FIp.0 Qxan fgayt. KR OaMhld tL-]�N
Na>,IIW xOttL f[Odi MLA .Ara
-]0.aa0 ]OU][ 11[I
4i0YW Xd-rettL-r l00.-A4A RDd
.44 gOOtl SWY{ rift
RAIIIIWLL tt��.LGI xu¢uR[R. Ad] ROp1T
rxnxc 4y[S 4¢Mn! ]
maw 9 RYl [ twine
M 1plLpwa IttK IX[flhPrrL1R 011 EOnBR t[ w,w, p 1MnA¢Y wtwk SW AR{[! rctylttr .a uav
K5[f.Y.v Pt Wx'1rf61[4 Kvc r[R'Rvf vmr]mir fl n SnRIIULiYMt�
[plYr, IK I6 ISNIQ; 4L.SDI C, wp, • mrnn[xl P.s p aWaNr,[ Rma
1[.f IX.o+m .tn M w1xeP[ L•] a4 wl UIC soft rm[s
7 KY.tA,a, K .GP R.pEM M A.C41]w pl ,1 00[ F [rn ua q;14[6iu a n[Y
9apo +[ s.Y a[ £wo lv Iv4n.rz a .larxn x 1cw4z Y 4sRW�. wRn n.¢s w
O tw�lnmoKF.l�rpxQ�xl�xl. Fr ro ..YI %...L.P
-.s Paw xad
Q [agAFxl Ala wut ff w, Rr TAVMM u 3 Tl"` .r d 10 .nv,IW iT dttA S
4cp4[O Qta[ .. tan . Bin[ ea .! vwr IH AS 4ftr9ox
-As Paw r[ad
•,] K--1 ift[LOWFxI/P.Fa,NO• apQw[xl .n L,e QI APsx 4494f0 QtLf[e ], ,1pf .
m Srl 11 PKx m. 4[pmFO AWnI IS. ,/f0 r FIX[ L]1 .1 rA4 .1]: K@A Avs.9[v ]A
tIn w eow IM a! rAQ m 4IXiSFP ]1. At Kw-
.-
.m 40s4 A
MwMYA.w A 1o0I YK__ I�19Mpvr m ]m, 4 uP .v1va] w
w-14GedRc r woa 5PA0.1 .-..wl I ,nx w Iau .111 NIX AIR Rs
4mta w »,eo.
Q LAnwA' A10 ap! ¢ W, Ip r0.] L4)4 fll(twL ARIrq 4�0 Ywuv xi rws h m rn
AS fKL p1 .f 4lFPIQ W 5511P!
,L CIAR Paw•�d r "vla� iAs][Pv4LIPRX �n .if
IIAQ .1 K4 gKtf� ,��i1a grt�m n+lAl l- I nR.rmaxo ¢wvw.1, lw p
]a] T. RRImm
rA4 .z
-At 9axx WKm
p i AI 4 n[ A]R1 W - 5a6111 roU maoMLry uN At. -1 V. NM w Iod T
-Y 9a.x Wttd
"6 R.XWD tY! QAFI6rFx1/y®'.9d .o![r[x, 400�o YuwY ,S lab rs 4cfP14x x0 .I]al
-I. laaa 4 l 4 .11 la Y n .P145 Mel. GL Asw. m A O¢sou5w 4� w]wAe>t 4
—• A -'A +.Im.I.Rr�v, Fim ws nn>•11� m. MET. It[ Ya YqY., Ir¢O
.frt[t rM AMa 5t8[_I -I,
,! Lw[A9v fq AY[x 45[IRQ aM MO •4r6 [P90XWA..[tDm[6
♦V.Iwxr A, ]® As 4¢Fad •rP SwT]4 P.OKff Ip .SYS9atR
Ktp uRp l 5[IILS G afa4 1]{Srxa A 0.5Lrf➢ Wr
RKM[w(xl nfg4Xt In 51 Kvi rosL KCgQO I.- a xSOi Y q[gPcw W pr]y
•] M 1A RSP[R 45aGtf 6u1 ..[ wrtL
faaor...r 41]amEo Lcrrsn . ]nods 'Al srw1.
•]. ROM O APwP�AL-Y,4L[II rzI[mRrw[And P.xQ] 1AOu n1 A10 IOF[(RS XWd4 .[-D
r]w.wr 10. ]m] u naP,IVL w¢ snxm
,F5 vY uo amass -IWtl T (atri. KWIAX CAW ARO xettL LdrpwwR+l 4[P�aFP
Aau+p a. xorn As 4¢vtla xo soez•5.
•It 4[¢wP Q4.Hw ]. Mr1 .54Q11i4, M. WIOM MO K-4[¢a[O IXLiAaEe 1). 1LL1
M 40.vrp x6 soetN
�11 g51uSd NfAgLO LLPB[R iF. ]p] Rf 4Qslp x0 p.tfJ.
']4 aWRQ 4mm lI[ 10. x0:. u Mtirtp .¢ auM]
']I xOM p .A'.Ox.t KfOYfO ayWr51 10. xplX Y 4Qrgs A. H1M
b ROM 6 .m10.I1 4�0 wxp, ,4 rnr at 4rFPlp a].uf
•1,. StpS9u,la ][Tr .MAQI[XS v.KMiT fR.A,OR W uwrtxY¢ w][[axl KmY[6 yK }],
MLI Y 4Qatp• p 61W5]
L, kt -FA.f Palh fw ]W ur./A[ LAxO IrIll :1.111Y n' GGT OPf Akl cG O.t[O RMip 15,
xp5 .vo Isv.tm yr[ 14 rn4 sRotcl ro �-uYpruwr
unnnm Tn
M-1 W WAAAAW '.1
944 [Aunt It A LRAu -n IUBIIry -.1
At[w F451W AS{ [IL A Qlaor[ tpF9 4aRurt m/MT, aF t'al,th fMt4i6 La S.1l5i ,1 A
YrLuq ?19Wi6 144L .,C Tud p sAl 4PrzGtnE fum9lef A•a ASPpti
r n m 4fi, nul Oti ww a Rn .ro >H P{r[r d w.o, ,1 6 4YP xr 9rIX 4 .urAc+riQ
wM m " w.nP.. SIh01R0."L 4[uitLnrS fm 41a.1@S lYp Am 11a4R. a[rLY
411f 1 14 11 an ti s t ruaa 1[E 0.6. G[ stAR v3llLRL1 D OI�.wMRY n. 10,411 ]lv1 6
u% . RAr .XIyXPr A. ]IO]R
4� !
MQL L POUR, l MO x5xn uEO Pdl PI.R.fie m4l
1L'L.a Wprrfol.rb1e011 .--
Fountain Courtyard
Mountain Plaza
LOT I, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PTTIGN, STATE OF COLORADO
Mill Street Courtyard
Pool Deck
Fence and Gate Replacement
St Regis Aspen-315 East Dean St. Aspen Colorado 81611
Red lines indicate Gate Locations - Yellow lines indicate Fence Locations
All Existing to be increased to 6' height
sr,- or 4A ft
p 4441
�$
_ 722
r
GAS Luc=
WATER MICE � � \�.�✓
SNITCH
17 CABII1IETS / jc ! 504
!
HOLY MM !
ELECTRIC EASEMENT t
OK. 701, K 818-$21 P
," B'Jil:ltrG �
6 foot Gates f /
Emergency
Exit W/key
access
� P 7
LS ZQp f GP.P.TEPOINT S r�
BEG W% CO BETE k rFEt Rob,
CURB
0 IV
6 foot Steel Rail Fence l 4
SGM
S 29033
7r_
SEE
DETAL-1
u
2
�
LAW
b •Yr`.� r'
` `Vy
4
. - 7-7
NO
? 'j�,kry a - ■ - �.
1
r 1 UJ
^ i(••p fi if I'n i 1 d .� i -goof
two �' M.• ..
W. MFM
2F '�
"�• �w •w I i a '
S
•ir I
�,♦��t�nh. > wig � l 1 i _�,..
.4V
1 •��. JF \h \irk - Y - u F .
rfr
fir
Np-
ZAP
Demonstration
of
New Fence
Next
To
Existing
Fence
ft
1'�III lupi
�. .- s;_sa_ ..- � - •.ate ���:� _
t
TOP OF WALL CAPSTONE
EDGE OF ST. REGIS STRUCTURE
NEW BLACK METAL SECURITY FENCE
6'
-
0
"
6'
-
2
"
0'
-
7
"
3'
-
1
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
28'-3"
Existing Grade
NORTH GATE LOCATION: 6' HIGH GATE
EMERGENCY EXIT WITH KEY ACCESS
6' HIGH BLACK STEEL FENCE STEPS
DOWN WITH GRADE
3'-0"
6'
-
0
"
3'-0"
6'
-
0
"
NORTH GATE
Existing Grade
SOUTH GATE
42" METAL SECURITY RAILING ALONG TOP OF WALL
3'
-
6
"
SOUTH GATE LOCATION: 6' HIGH GATE
EMERGENCY EXIT WITH KEY ACCESS
3'
-
6
1 2"
5'
-
2
"
5'
-
2
"
5'
-
4
"
6'
-
5
"
3'
-
0
"
6'
-
8
1 2"
7'
-
5
"
7'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
5'
-
3
"
8'
-
1
1
"
SOUTH GATE
NORTH GATE
PLANTER
PLANTER
PLANTER WITH 42" SECURITY RAILING
2 NORTH GATE ELEVATION
3 PLANTERS WITH RAILING ELEVATION
1 FENCE AT CORNER OF BUILDING
4 SOUTH GATE ELEVATION
6'
-
9
"
6'
-
7
1 2"
6'
-
3
1 2"
PLAN VIEW LOCATION OF ELEVATION
piñon sage
landscape architects
carbondale, CO, 81623
devin@pinonsage.com
(970) 379.0816
ST
.
R
E
G
I
S
H
O
T
E
L
31
5
E
A
S
T
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
PS job# - 249
drawn - DG ckd - DG
revisions
description#date
L2.0
FENCE
ELEVATION AND
PLAN
ISSUE DATE - 08/18/23
VARIANCE
REVIEW