Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20021203
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BAVARIAN INSUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT, Joyce Ohlson B. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD, Scott Woodford C. INFILL CODE AMENDMENTS, Chris Bendon, continued from 11/26 V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN lVA- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission FROM: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director .,,A� RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Subdivsion/PUD Insubstantial Amendment - Public Hearing DATE: May 28, 2002 APPLICANT /OWNER: Four Peaks Development, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC LOCATION: 835 West Main Street, Parcel 2 of the Bavarian Inn Subdivision/PUD and Parcel 1, including only the duplex, not the Bavarian Inn. CURRENT ZONING: Residential/Multi-Family with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (RMF/PUD) PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Modification of the architecture for the townhomes and duplex. SUMMARY. - The applicant wishes to obtain an insubstantial amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to change the architecture of the structures on Parcel 2 and only the duplex structure on Parcel 1. REVIEW PROCEDURE An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. In the case of the Bavarian Iim AH PUD, the amendment can not be handled administratively because of Item #9 of the PUD Insubstantial Amendment criterion, which , states, "Any change ... which is inconsistent with a representation of the project's original approval". The representation made at the time of final approval proposed different architecture, enough to invoke the provisions of the land use code requiring this to be handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commissions action shall be considered the final, unless the decision is appealed to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Four Peaks Development LLC, represented by Valui Associates, requests an amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (PUD) In order to change the architecture of the townhomes on Parcel 2 and of the duplex on Parcel 1. The application does not propose changes to the floor plans, massing, roof configurations or heights. The site plan layout is not changed either. At the original review of the Bavarian project, height, locational siting of the structures and roof design were important to achieving neighborhood compatibility. In order to formalize the dimensional standards that the Commission determined appropriate in the course of several public hearings regarding the original PUD, the following condition was adopted. "The dimensional requirements of the PUD shall not be in excess of the Residential/Multi- Family Zone District's dimensional requirements and are established as specifically put forth in the application. The Residential Design Standards of the City are found to be met through the PUD process and no additional approval is required... • A 2-foot and 4-foot variance in the required 10 foot front yard setback of the proposed Main Street and Eighth Street multi family structures, respectively, on Parcel 2. • A 2-foot variance in the 5-foot side yard setback on the west side of the proposed inulti family structure along Eighth Street on Parcel 2. • All buildings -o)ill have flat roofs. • The NI/N2 and SI -S5 building complexes ivill be limited to hveno) (20) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. (Note-AWM refers to the duplex behind the Inn, SI-S5 refers to the tojvnhomes on Main St.) • The W2-JV5 building complex will be limited to hventy-five (25) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. " (Note-W2-W5 refers to the townhomes on 8'h St.) Staff finds that the layout, siting, height and roof type is not changed by amendments to the architecture. The above -noted conditions must still be and appear to be met in both the site plan and elevation drawings of the application. (The more specific construction drawings submitted at the time building permit issuance will be reviewed and must be in conformance with these conditions.) However, this condition is restated in the proposed resolution to confirm that no changes can be made to these building parameters. The architectural changes do not affect the projects conformance with the residential design standards. Those are also met as they were in the original proposal. The proposed design is more definitive and interesting, but not overly fussy with multiple material types. The overall quality of the project appears improved by these changes as well. There are more horizontal members proposed as part of the new architecture, including both a heavier beltcourse and the cornice. These tend to pull the project together and make the visual statement of the architecture much more cohesive. Overall, Staff feels that the revised architecture represents and improvement over the original designs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning. Commission approve the proposed amendments to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing PUD with conditions. Staff recornmends the following conditions be applied to the approval of this application. 1. Within 60 days of this approval the applicant shall file revised Bavarian huh PUD plans reflecting this amendment. 2. The dimensional requirements of the PUD shall not be in excess of the Residential/Multi-Family Zone District's dimensional requirements and are established as specifically put forth in the application. The Residential Design Standards of the City are found to be met through the PUD process and no additional approval is required. a) All buildings will have flat roofs. b) The NI N2 and S1-S5 building complexes will be limited to twenty (20) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. c) The W2-W5 building complex will be limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No..�3> Series of 2002, approving the proposed. insubstantial amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of allowing a change in the architecture of those structures on Parcel 2 and the duplex on Parcel 1. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Proposed Resolution Exhibit C -- Development Application EXHIBIT A BAVARIAN INN PUD INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the AACP. The proposed amendment pays more attention to the architectural features and improves the project, creates a higher quality appearance and appears to be more compatible with the neighborhood. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding .land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. Th,e proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The existing dimensional standards as approved in the final Bavarian Inn PUD plan will not be varied as a part of this PUD amendment. Staff finds that the proposed amendment hinders traffic and pedestrian circulation by Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and falYorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion to be met by virtue of an improved architectural scheme for the project. The addition of new architectural features, yet removal of the diversity of the building materials as originally approved, improves the appearance of the project. Massing, scale and open space are not altered through this application. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximiO7 of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activio� centers in the city. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. 2 b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. S. The maximum allowable densioJ within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of nzudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) Tlie proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the CioJ . (1The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. 6. The maxinuim allowable densioJ within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if.• a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional densioJ and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and S, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to,.the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute. to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well -designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and varieoof ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 0 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the cioJ, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not change the overall architectural character of the development from that which was originally approved. Massing, scale, layout and height are not changed through this amendment. However, staff does feel that the amendment improves the architecture through the use of new architectural elements added to the scheme and the minimization of multiple building materials. The amendment achieves a more definitive and cohesive architectural character to the whole project. Standards 2 and 3, above are not affected by this amendment. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site 5 features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential develop»tent. Staff Finding The applicant must meet the outdoor lighting requirements set forth in the City of Aspen Lighting Ordinance if the proposed amendment is approved. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 3. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the Mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 4. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 5. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 0 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of securio) gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private .road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Communion Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. S. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Securi07 gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. 7 J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding propero� owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Z. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical., occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact. fees and fees -in - lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No changes to these standards will come about due to the proposed PUD amendment. RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BAVARIAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW -FOR A CHANGE IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE STRUCTURES ON PARCEL 2 AND THE DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON PARCEL 1, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Foul- Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunray Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Plaluied Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a change to the architecture of the structures on Parcel 2 and the duplex structure on Parcel 1; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.445, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve an Insubstantial Amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Staff, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the request for an insubstantial amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing PUD to allow for a change in architecture and reconunended approval of the amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Conuriunity Development Department, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public conunent at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, , WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ (_ - _) vote, an Insubstantial Amendment to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development for the purpose of allowing a change to the architecture to the structures on Parcel 2 and to the duplex on Parcel 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: gePtinn 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Insubstantial Amendment to the Bavarian In ri Affordable Housing Subdivision/PUD for the purpose of allowing a change to the architecture of the structures on Parcel 2 and to the duplex structure only on Parcel 1, is approved. Section 2: The following conditions apply to this approval. 1. Within 60 days of this approval the applicant shall file revised Bavarian Inn PUD plans reflecting this amendment. 2. The dimensional requirements of the PUD shall not be in excess of the Residential/Multi-Family Zone District's dimensional requirements - and are established as specifically put forth in the application. The Residential Design Standards of the City are found to be met through the PUD process and no additional approval is required. a.) All- buildings will have flat roofs. b.)The N 1 /N2 and .S 1-S 5 building complexes will be limited to twenty (20) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. c.) The W2-W5 building complex will be limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height measured to the top of the roof. Cectinn I - Thus Resolution shall not effect 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. Sectinn 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 3, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair 2 MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directorl�� FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planne;,/ RE: RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL, PUBLIC HEARING, CONCEPTUAL PUD RESOLUTION NO. 3 Y-, SERIES 2002 DATE: December 3, 2002 View of the existing Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant from the Silver Queen Gondola. The outdoor terrace of the proposed Residences at Little Nell will be located in this general area. To make way, the Little Nell Chairlift will be moved slightly to the east. REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen Land Fund, LLC, requests Conceptual PUD and other appropriate land use approvals in order to demolish the existing Tipple Inn Condominiums, Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant, Tipple Lodge and two adjacent single-family residences and to redevelop the property with a 109,500 square foot, multi -story structure to consist of 30 timeshare units, 1 condominium unit, 4 affordable housing units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial and ancillary space and a 72 space sub -grade parking garage. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONS RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 1 4J NOTE: Technically, this application request is to determine whether it meets the standards for a Conceptual PUD, but it is also appropriate to give the applicant direction on the other land use approvals that will be necessary to gain Final PUD approval. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant for the Residences at Little Nell proposes demolition of existing structures on multiple existing lots and to construct an approximately 109,500 square foot, 35-unit multi -story structure (consisting of 30 timeshare lodge units, 1 undivided condominium unit, and 4 deed restricted affordable housing units). The project would also include approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space and accessory uses, and a seventy two (72) space underground parking garage. As presently envisioned, the timeshare lodge units will be sold in 1 /7`h shares and will include lock off capability in the range of 60 separately occupiable rooms or "keys" all of which will be managed by the Little Nell Hotel. To help facilitate this arrangement, the new lodge will be connected to the Little Nell Hotel by an underground tunnel for service access. Twenty four of the 31 timeshare market units will contain three bedrooms, while seven will contain four bedrooms. The units, ranging from 2,300-3,600 square feet, will all contain full kitchens and wet bar. Although not finally decided, the applicant anticipates the majority of the 30 timeshare lodge units to contain lock -off bedrooms to allow flexibility with respect to occupancy and to allow rental. Of the two single family residences that are to remain on the site, one will be retained by WestPac Aspen Investments, a subsidiary of the Aspen Land Fund (proposed new Lot 2) and the other (proposed new Lot 3) will be acquired by the owner of one of the adjacent to -be -demolished single family residences. View of Dean Avenue from the plaza area below the Silver Queen Gondola. The "hump" of Dean Avenue is proposed to be leveled out as part of the proposed development. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Concurrent with the development of the lodge, the applicant also proposes several off -site improvements. Most notably, the existing "hump" in Dean Avenue will be removed and the grade lowered to create a more level grade from Galena Street to the Silver Queen Gondola Plaza and to facilitate easier pedestrian access, as well as create the opportunity for street level retail for this development. The applicant also proposes relocating the base (and 4-5 of the lift poles) of the Little Nell chairlift to the east in order to construct the lodge's large outdoor bar and dining terrace. To complement this amenity and to expand the base area dining and apres ski options, the applicant also proposes to extend the adjacent gondola plaza towards the lodge to provide a seamless interface between the two. REVIEW PROCESS' HEARING SCHEDULE: This is a very large and complex application invoking many different provisions of the Land Use Code. In order to adequately assess the proposal, staff has scheduled two public hearing dates for Planning and Zoning Commission review (December 3, 2002 and January 7, 2003). The major discussion items will all be discussed, but divided among the two meetings, as follows: December 3" meeting: Staff will discuss the anticipated review process and the applicant will make an overview presentation of the entire project; then staff and applicant will specifically focus on the physical characteristics of the proposal (i.e. building mass, height and architecture; site planning, urban design, building orientation, setbacks, parking; and off -site improvements), and what the threshold code issues will be. January 7`t' meeting: Given the long layoff between meetings, a recap of the December 3' meeting will take place followed by discussion on remaining items (i.e. affordable housing, timeshare, rezoning, proposal for management of the lodge, and any outstanding items) and then direction on threshold decisions that would allow the applicant to proceed or not with the project. Prior to the completion of the Conceptual review, the Planning and Zoning Commission should also address whether any of the other land use actions pose a problem to the project as a whole. APPLICABLE LAND USE ACTIONS: In order to accommodate the proposed development request, the following land use approvals will be required with the Final PUD Plan: 1) Planned Unit Development (PUD); A PUD is requested to 1.) to establish the open space and building height requirements for the proposed lodge, 2.) allow timeshare lodge development, 3.) establish the non -conforming dimensional standards of the single-family residences as conforming, and 4.) establish the non -conforming parcel of land (smaller than minimum lot size) to be conveyed to the applicant by the Aspen Skiing Company as a conforming parcel. 2) Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions; GMQS Exemptions are requested for conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Tourist RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 Accommodation Units, Replacement of Demolished Units through the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program and Reconstruction of Existing Commercial Square Footage. These exemptions will provide the development rights for the timeshare lodge units. 3) Subdivision; Subdivision review is required because the timeshare lodge units are proposed to be condominiumized, a portion of Aspen Ski Company land is proposed to be subdivided and transferred to the subject site, and the existing lot lines are to be vacated and the property re -subdivided. 4) Condominiumization; Approval is required in order to sell the units individually. 5) Timeshare; The applicant proposes to sell 1/7thundivided fractional interests in thirty of the lodge's units, therefore is subject to the timeshare regulations (the applicant proposes to be reviewed under the recently adopted regulations for timeshare even though the application was submitted prior to that adoption date). 6) Special Review; Off-street parking requirements for affordable housing units are established through special review. 7) Rezoning; A rezoning is proposed for the timeshare lodge lot, going from the existing L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) to CL (Commercial Lodge). The rezoning is necessary to accommodate the proposed commercial uses in the lodge. A rezoning to PUD is also required with a PUD overlay. 8) Specially Planned Area Amendment (SPA); The applicant proposes to amend the SPA for Lot 2 of the Little Nell Subdivision, so that a portion of it can be subdivided and transferred to the Residences at Little Nell site. 9) 8040 Greenline; All development within 150' above or below the 8040 foot elevation are subject to specific environmental impacts review. BREAKDOWN OF WHICH BODY HAS FINAL REvIEW AUTHORITY: Planned Unit Development Advisory X GMQS Exemptions �Advisory ��— Residential to Tourist: ��— Advisory X Replacement of Demolished MF Units: X Subdivision Advisory X Condominiumization X Advisory Timeshare Advisory X Special Review �(— X 1� RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 Rezoning - 11 ir Advisory X SPA Amendment 1�IF X --- 18040 Greenline � � X *All of these items will be approved with the Final PUD EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject site currently contains eight contiguous parcels of land assembled by the applicant to accommodate the proposed development. In order to help understand what uses currently exist on what parcels of land and what new development is proposed on those existing areas, a cross referencing table and map on the following page is provided: Parcel '' New :. Existing Legal Ezisiing Use . Characteristics of the Proposed .New : # - Legal Deseriptinn Existing Use: Me . . Parcel Lot 1 Tipple Inn Tipple Inn Tipple West Building: Lodge A* Condominiums Condominiums 9 units Little Tipple Building: 3 units Parcel Lot 1 Tippler Tippler Approximately 15,000 Lodge B* Townhomes Nightclub/ sq. ft. of commercial Subdivision** Italian Caviar Restaurant Parcel Lot 1 Tipple Lodge Tipple Lodge 10 Lodge units/2 studio Lodge C * Condominiums units *** Parcel Lot 1 Lot 3 Tipple Henn Single Family Lodge D* Woods Residence Residence Subdivision Parcel Lot 1 Lot 4 Tipple Anderman Single Family Lodge E* Woods Residence Residence Subdivision Parcel Lot 2 Lot 6 Tipple Westpac Single Family Single Family F* Woods Residence Residence Residence Subdivision Parcel Lot 3 Lot 5 Tipple Jacoby Single Family Single Family G* Woods Residence Residence Residence Subdivision Parcel Lot 1 Aspen Skiing Aspen Skiing Lift ticket booth, Outdoor Plaza H* Corporation Property portion of Little Nell and Dining Land chairlift & lift shack, Terrace for etc. I Lodge * Parcel designations A-H are used only for purposes of this application and are not legal descriptions of the parcels ** Tract B of Parcel B is also known as Lot 1 Tipple Woods Subdivision * * * Parcel A is also known as Lot 2 Tipple Woods Subdivision RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 KEY ,PROPERTY BOUNDARY ZONING BOUNDARY �Ts� �_, lr+�� ��� ♦ E` �- G �i�1i;y �.i 7y.f1=�i�1+�7j�r:�*`�Y�f� i �. ,r 71 ����sfiFol'i•� r .);',!L't'14 �S"�i.".'u��.Raa3y,� iur�� •i� :;� r Ht' `d3lr � ar�`'� ^t• .F� si� � r t 5 s t r4t�' ) t H suit PARCEL D NEW LOT 1 aFf, '+��dtaltJ�'t s� I �) �'+i-�R ?� oil 1.li Imo! /Jay�SQ � � iy s s���;+ �g�, ♦ � & 'S x. 5� >{�Y �rs4`Ir r Ilf�'rN`('",rnt r"! ��'rtG! YI`1}� c PARCEL E V NEW LOT 7960 15/Q (PUD) o i� a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w. \ _ 14, x, PARCEL F Al�. NEW LOT 2 �; a fc5� :'t"r✓ ��44, ` F�it7 Prj,i�, ���1p{(1`s,'��� f ', : i � t r r srMLpF'`�t ' �, '" ^�i S'� K'1;1�i•. `•H�` tzf �� t rL.0 CANE S:: �4r t y is3 al .ci1�•• y ti-. lt�'tt. �fUG� rt �: 3 � i PARCEL G it 'TOBE °.CQUIRED A NEW LOT 3 • � -• • LITTLE ._ NELL SKI.* SLOPE `Q n PARCEL H NEW LOT I EXISTING CONDITIONS 0' 15' 90' 60' N G PARCEL B NEW J,OT I SILVER CITY ICE. RINK Lu u PARCEL A NEW LOT LOT GALENA, STREET . . ....... itv 2; -tq ,f OND S' 77, . ;E. L T ij - VIEW El Lu p K k M L . . . . . . . . . . . . GALE G F1 CNDOLA PLAZ A Ilk' CSP A ) I I /--I RM11-11�11` I HUNTER STREET E , YINALI!, HISTORY OF EACH PARCEL: PARCEL A: This parcel contains two, 3-story multi -family structures known as the Tipple Inn Condominiums and a small parking lot. One structure, referred to as "Tipple West", contains nine units and the other has three units and is known as "Little Tipple". Both were constructed in the early 1960's. A small portion of the adjacent Dean Avenue right- of-way which was vacated by the City in 1965. View of the Tipple Inn Condominiums that will be demolished as part of this application. The structure currently houses twelve condominium units. Ten of the units are lodge units to be used for reconstruction credits. Two are dwelling units and subject to RMFRP replacement. PARCEL B: This parcel includes a 15,000 square foot structure that once housed the defunct Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant. The Parcel contains two tracts - Tract 1 consisting of 9200 square feet and Tract 2 consisting of 8600 sq. ft.. Tract 2 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. in 1959 and annexed to the City in connection with the so-called "South Annexation" in 1967. The Tippler Townhomes Subdivision, a four free market and four affordable housing unit project, was approved on May 26, 1998. After approval, the project was the subject to a complaint for judicial review with the District Court, which lasted approximately 21 months. Because the developer was unable to build during this time, the City granted an extension of the development's original vested rights period, until February 26, 2003. A building permit application was made to the City in March, 2002, but has not yet been approved due to necessary revisions and required fees. The applicant is delaying construction of the approved project to see the outcome of this application. Another extension of the vested right's period will be submitted to the City prior to the next deadline. PARCEL C: The existing Tipple Lodge Condominiums were approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1959 and annexed into the City in 1967. Constructed in 1967 or 1968 as a three-story duplex, it was converted into a lodge by Mary I. and John L. Faulkner in 1971. In 1979, the lodge units were approved to be condominiumized. The condominium structure contains 10 lodge units that were historically rented on a short R.EsIDENCEs AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 term basis and two studio units that were occupied long term. An eight space surface parking lot directly adjacent to the condominium provides parking for the owners of homes on Lots 3-6 of Tipple Wood Subdivision (aka Parcels D, E, F, and G), located to the south and up the hillside from this site. An agreement between the properties assures this parking arrangement and requires that the parking be addressed with redevelopment. Access to those homes is provided via a covered, wooden stairway and adjacent tram. PARCELS D, E, F, AND G: Single-family residences of various sizes exist on each of these parcels. The existing lot sizes are approximately 8,000, 3,800, 3,800, and 6,000 square feet respectively. The final plat for the Tipple Woods Subdivision establishing these lots was approved on March 23, 1959 and created five lots. Lot 4 of that original plat was further subdivided in 1983 into two residential lots. PARCEL H: This parcel of land is to be created with this application and acquired from two different lots owned by the Aspen Skiing Company and will be incorporated into the subject site. It consist of approximately 26,000 square feet of land area. The northern area of newly created Parcel H will consist of a portion of Lot 2 Little Nell Subdivision and the southern area of Parcel H will consist of a portion of land from the fathering parcel from which Lot 2 Little Nell Subdivision was created. The two lot Little Nell Subdivision was approved by City Council in 1986 to facilitate the development of the Little Nell Hotel and adjacent Silver. Queen Gondola Building. STAFF COMMENTS - ISSUES: The following items are discussed in detail in this section: ■ Planned Unit Development ■ Growth Management Quota System ■ Affordable Housing Requirements ■ Architecture ■ Rezoning ■ Setbacks ■ Timeshare ■ Parking PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The PUD is a mechanism that can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district in exchange for providing a more creative development. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to 1.) establish the open space and building height requirements for the proposed lodge, 2.) allow timeshare lodge development, 3.) establish the non -conforming dimensional standards of the single-family residences as conforming, and 4.) establish the non -conforming parcel of land (smaller than minimum lot size) to be conveyed to the applicant by the Aspen Skiing Company as a conforming parcel. (Section 26.445.050 provides Review Standards for making a determination of compliance to be eligible for a PUD. Staff s Findings related to PUD criteria compliance can be referenced in Exhibit B.) Staff review of the requested dimensional standards follows: RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 BUILDING HEIGHT: The maximum height allowed in the CL zone district is 28', however, the project proposes to exceed that limitation at its highest point- by about 28', topping out at 56'6". While the overall average height of the building is a more modest 42', the portion that rises up to a height of 56'6" is a concern for staff, because it is located on the portion of the structure that is higher up the hillside and will be prominent from viewpoints below. Even though this higher building mass is a relatively small percentage of the building and is oriented toward the ski area side of the site away from the homes on the west side of the project, consideration should be given to lowering its height. OPEN SPACE: A variation is sought not for the required amount of open space - the project exceeds the minimum 25% requirement - but for how it is oriented on the site. The Code requires that the open space be visible from the street, which is a difficulty for this project because it has very little street frontage on Galena Street. Currently, the site plan designates the majority of the open space along the southeast portion of the site, adjacent to the Lower Little Nell ski run. Because the ski run already functions as open space, it is our opinion that a portion of the open space would be more beneficial as a buffer between the lodge and the existing residences to the west. By shifting the south portion of the lodge to the east, more open space could be provided along the west property line that would, in the process, bring some visual relief to the neighbors in the area. This would help the applicant more closely meet the spirit of the Code requirement regarding open space and be a benefit to both those within the project and those that would have to look at the structure from next door. EmsTING NON -CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMII,Y RESIDENCES: According to the application, the two remaining single-family residences on proposed Lots 2 and 3 are legal non -conforming with respect to minimum lot area per dwelling unit, setback and floor area requirements of their underlying zone districts and may, also be non- conforming with respect to building height and required open space -(See Exhibit B, pg. 21, for Dimensional Requirements Comparison). As such, the applicant is requesting to use a PUD overlay to establish the existing non -conformities as conforming. Both residences were originally built in the County and later annexed into the City at which time, each lot was subject to new zoning regulations. This made each lot legally non- conforming, which means that they were legally established when they were originally built and allows them to continue to be used, but prevents any further changes that would make them more non -conforming. The old residence on Lot 2 has since been demolished and replaced with a new single family house. Staff is still investigating the building permit files to determine if it is still non -conforming or whether the structure was built as conforming. It should be noted that both Lot 2 and 3 are non -conforming for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and are proposed to be made even smaller with this proposal. Lot 2 is presently 3,793 sq. ft. and is proposed to be reduced to 3,540 sq. ft. (L/TR zoning requires a minimum of 6,000). Lot 3 is presently 6,000 and is proposed to be reduced to 4,600 (R-15 zoning requires a minimum of 15,000). According to the applicant, this reduction is to clean up the irregular existing lot shapes and to help accommodate the new lodge. In effect, this change facilitates the encroachment of the lodge up the hillside to a RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 small degree because the lot lines are proposed to be shifted to the south; however, because there are no setback requirements of the CL zone district, the lodge could still be generally situated in its proposed location even without the change to the lot lines of Lots 2 and 3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); The development rights for the proposed lodge on Lot 1 are to be derived from the Tippler Townhomes Subdivision's four unit residential GMQS allocation and the demolition and reconstruction of existing residential and lodge units and commercial square footage. The demolition and reconstruction is exempt from the GMGS subject to meeting the requirements of the relevant GMQS exemptions, which are the conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Tourist Accommodation Units and for the Replacement of Demolished Multi -Family Units. The applicant proposes to convert sixteen of the project site's eighteen existing residential dwelling units to forty-seven lodge units based on the applicable conversion rate of 2.95 lodge unit per residential unit and three of the Tippler Townhomes four residential units for an additional eight lodge units. With the ten reconstruction credits, the resulting total is 65 lodge development rights, which is adequate to cover the anticipated 60 keys or lock -off rooms. Staff finds the development to be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the GMQS. Reconstruction of demolished commercial square footage is exempt from GMQS subject to the provision of parking and affordable housing. The previous commercial businesses contained around 13,200 sq. ft., while this development proposes about 10,200 sq. ft. of commercial, so there is sufficient commercial reconstruction credit available. Adequate parking and affordable housing mitigation is being proposed to meet the applicable criteria for an exemption. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) REQUIREMENTS; The affordable housing mitigation requirement for the proposed development is derived from four separate components: 1.) the operation of the timeshare lodge; 2.) the project's proposed commercial space; 3.) the replacement provision of the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP); and 4.) the Tippler Townhome's previously approved housing mitigation (even though the applicant does not propose to construct the approved Tippler Townhomes Subdivision project, they are proposing to convert three of the four previously approved dwelling units into lodge units). The following chart breaks down the requirement of each component. Lodge Operations (Employees) 38 Commercial Space (Employees) ..................... 50 8,180 sq. ft. Restaurant/Bar Space @ 5.25 Employees/1,000 sq. ft...................... 43 2,020 sq. ft. retail space @3.5 Employees/1,000 sq. ft.......................................... 7 Total Lodge/Commercial Employees Generated E 88 (38+50) RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 LOCATION OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) UNITS (ON -SITE Per the above chart, a total of 61 employees are required to be housed in addition to providing 12 bedrooms. The applicant proposes to satisfy their affordable housing requirements by constructing housing both on and off -site. Four (4), 1 BR affordable housing units (this translates into 7 employees mitigated @ 1.75 employees per 1 BR unit) are planned on the first floor of the west side of the building. Staff has initial concerns with the proposed location of the housing next to the parking garage ramp. While it is recognized that, because of financial realities, these affordable housing units will never be located on slopeside of the building, we are somewhat concerned that the units will be located immediately adjacent to the ramp that leads down to the parking garage. With this location, it would be expected that the residents of such units will incur the constant sounds of vehicles accelerating up and breaking down the ramp, the exhaust emissions that could get trapped outside their unit, and possible headlight intrusion into their living and bedrooms. As this is still a conceptual stage, staff would encourage the applicant to consider trying to mitigate these impacts and/or finding a new location for the units. LOCATION OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) UNITS OFF -SITE); Once the four on -site units (7 employees mitigated) are accounted for, the remainder of the required affordable housing (53 employees and 12 bedrooms) is proposed to be located on a 1.6 acre site in the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) that the applicant has under contract to purchase. Since the parcel is located in Pitkin County (but within the Urban Growth Boundary), the applicant plans to submit an application to the County RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 at the beginning of 2003 and hopes to have an approval for the affordable housing project prior to the Final PUD for the Residences at Little Nell being approved by the City (the City will not schedule the final hearing until the applicant has County approval). In our recollection, this would be the first project to mitigate a portion of its affordable housing requirements outside of the City limits. Both the AACP and the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines prefer that required affordable housing mitigation occur on -site with off -site mitigation a second choice. Some of the policies and goals of the Housing Section of the AACP that support this notion include: ■ INTEGRATE AH INTO THE FABRIC OF THE TOWN • EACH PROJECT SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO FURTHER A MIX OF INCOME RANGES TO AVOID SEGREGATION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CLASSES BY PROJECT ■ EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON PROXI IITY TO TRANSIT, EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS • DEVELOPMENT OF AH WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL TOWNSITE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PROTECT OPEN AND RURAL LANDS • GOAL: ENCOURAGE AH WITHIN THE ASPEN COMMUNITY GROWTH BOUNDARY The applicant's proposal of off -site mitigation somewhat conflicts with AACP policies that discourage segregated housing developments and those that are not located in the city and located away from employment areas and social connections. Another (and somewhat contradicting) goal of the AACP, however, is to ensure that housing is merely located within the urban growth boundary, which this is. It also encourages that housing be located within the city to reduce environmental impacts, but this site is located within an established business center and the land is already impacted. Because of this, the affordable housing development would not degrade any rural or high quality open space. Sufficient land to mitigate a large redevelopment project is difficult to find in the core of town, therefore, alternatives are necessary. In order to support positive redevelopment of antiquated portions of the city, as with this proposal, staff supports the concept of off -site mitigation, as long as its located within the urban growth boundary. RESIDENT MULTI-FAMII,Y REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, A portion of the timeshare lodge units are exempt from the City's growth management quota system, subject to compliance with the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). One guideline of the program is that the multi -family replacement units be re -developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner demonstrates that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be difficult due to the site's physical constraints. As proposed, the required replacement housing will occur on a parcel of land at the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) that the applicant has under contract and which will be the subject of Pitkin County development application. Twelve (12) bedrooms, consisting of 4,469 square feet are the replacement housing requirement. Based on initial review, it does not appear that there are any site constraints or adopted neighborhood plans which would necessitate the replacement units being built off -site. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE I I An interpretation can be made that the amount of required replacement housing is such that to replace it all on -site as well as accommodate a free market development would not be possible because the site and zone district would not support such building mass and parking. However, staff has always interpreted site constraints to be physical constraints, such as steep slopes, wetlands, extensive mature vegetation, not financial constraints. At the same time, staff questions how wise it would be to place all of the required replacement units 'within the new building, especially given the site's premier location and the desire to have a high number of "hot beds" generating income to the community. It is always staff s position that having the replacement units built on the site where they were demolished is preferable to having them built off -site because in doing so maintains a healthy mix of socio-economic groups, allows occupants of affordable housing to retain access to established neighborhoods, creates more vitality by having year around residents in these "in -town" locations, and reduces pollution by allowing residents to walk or bike to major activity centers such as downtown and the ski area. Staff would encourage the applicant to try and replace as many of the demolished units on -site as possible, while accommodating the highest permissible number of lodge units. ARCHITECTURE; According to the application, the architectural character of the proposed structure is influenced by the mining history of Aspen. The proposed materials include masonry, timber, plaster, and weathered copper to help convey what the architect calls "the refinement appropriate of a world class destination resort while still paying homage to the area's mining history." Through the use of a series of shed roofs and the way the building appears to be flowing down the hillside, the design is reminiscent of mining structures that existed in Aspen and other mining communities over one hundred years ago. With the exception of some height concerns expressed earlier, staff finds the design to be appropriate to the location and a good mix of high quality materials. Further, the design will contribute to the existing mixed architectural styles of the base by incorporating similar style elements, while putting forth its own architectural statement. The AACP encourages this in the following policy: "RETAIN AND ENCOURAGE AN ECLECTIC MIX OF DESIGN STYLES TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY" REZONING; A rezone of proposed lot containing the timeshare lodge (Lot 1) from existing Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) to Commercial Lodge (CL) is proposed to 1.) accommodate the commercial uses in the proposed lodge (L/TR does not allow commercial uses) and 2.) to be able to attain the desired density (L/TR allows 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) while the CL allows a 2:1 FAR). Staff finds the rezoning to be appropriate because it complies with a number of goals and policies of the AACP, including the Future Land Use Map, which designates this site as Lodging. Being that the site is directly adjacent to the gondola - the most important interface between the ski area and the town — and to other relatively dense and large, tourist oriented buildings, it is vital that what is built here is a dynamic, mixed use, and larger structure that provides a strong presence. To meet these goals, would be difficult and impossible under the current L/TR zoning. The following are AACP policies that support the rezone request: RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 • COMPACT MI) ED USE DEV. THAT ENABLE TRAVEL BY FOOT, BIKE, AND BUS • PRIVATE SECTOR PROVISION OF AH HOUSING ■ MAINTAIN A HEALTHY, VIBRANT AND DIVERSIFIED YEAR AROUND ECONOMY ■ ENHANCE THE WEALTH GENERATING CAPCACITY OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY SETBACK (FOR THE LODGE STRUCTURE); With the rezone to CL, there are no requirements for minimum setbacks from property lines. Consequently, the structure is situated up to the property line along Dean Avenue, Galena Street and the terrace and sun deck are oriented close to the property line on the ski area side. Along the western boundary, however, staff is concerned about a stretch of building over 100' long and over 40' high that is situated only 8' from the property line. Although this meets the new CL zone district and would comply with the existing L/TR zone district standard of 5', staff feels that consideration should be given to moving that particular mass farther back from the property line as a buffer to the neighbors of this project. The site plan indicates that there is room on the other side of the site to shift the building to the east - assuming it can be properly accommodated with the interior programming of the lodge. By shifting the building, a smoother transition from the lower density structures along Galena to the higher density lodge is achieved so that these residents would not be burdened by looking up at a large wall of building at the top of the hill off of their east property line. TIMESHARE; The sale of fractional interests in the thirty lodge units to be developed is proposed. Each purchaser of a fractional interest in the timeshare lodge will own an undivided 1/7`l' interest in a specific unit, which will result in 210 timeshare estates (30 units x 7 estates/unit--210 estates). Each room will have lock -off capability for an actual total of 60 possible rooms. The proposed use plan will guarantee each timeshare estate owner use of a unit a maximum of four weeks a year — two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer. All days not accounted for as part of this system will be made available to the general public for rental and to the owners, subject to certain limitations. Details regarding this aspect are still in the conceptual stage and more detail will be provided with the final plan. A full complement of amenities will be contained within the facility, including two pools, living and fitness rooms, a business center, and a bar and restaurants. In addition, the lodge will contain a fully staffed, on -site front desk to provide guest registration and reservation services, including late check in and other off hour owner and guest needs. Timeshare development provides benefits not only to the developers and owners of such development, but also to the community. The primary benefit of a timeshare development on this site is that there will be more of a turnover in the units with seven different owners rather than one owner with a traditional condominium arrangement. More people in the beds of the lodge translates into more sales tax collected for the community both directly from rentals of the units and from money guests spend around the community. Real Estate Transfer Taxes will also be paid on each sale of each interest and benefit the community. The alternative to the timeshare concept is the traditional, undivided condominium unit which may only be occupied several times a year generating little benefit to the community in terms of sales tax. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 PARKING; Off-street parking of the proposed development will be in a seventy two space, sub -grade parking garage accessed via a ramp off of Galena Street. Forty-two spaces are proposed to accommodate the thirty lodge units (30 lodge units/60 keys x .7 spaces per key = 42 spaces). Twenty parking spaces (2 per 1,000 square feet of commercial) are proposed for the lodge's 10,200 square feet of commercial. An additional ten parking spaces are proposed for the project's three free market unit dwellings (the one condominium unit within the lodge and the two existing single-family residences to remain) and the four affordable housing units. At this point, there has been no discussion about the use of shuttles or other mechanisms to address minimizing trip generation and car use. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on November 13, 2002. The comments from that meeting follow: Fire Department: How will we access the upper single family lots? (Applicant response: access will be enhanced over the existing situation with the old tram, by the addition of the elevator access, standpipes, and storage box at the top of the hill for extra fire hose so that the fire department personnel will not have to carry the hose up to this area). Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In order to construct the service tunnel to this building from the Little Nell Hotel, the applicant will have to cross water service lines coming down from the mountain. Three agreements will be necessary, including a service agreement and formal agreement for temporary service. Downstream fees will be high. Environmental Health: Conceptually agree with the applicant's trip generation figures, however would like the additional opportunity to review the project with the potential for 60 lock -off rooms. Would like to see a shuttle system from the off -site employee housing site; noise ordinance limiting sound to no more than 65 dB will be enforces, especially for any special events planned for this site. Parks: Landscape plan and proposed mitigation will be necessary with the Final PUD; would like to arrange for a site visit with the applicant to discuss trail easement alignment. Parking: Interested in how the business will be serviced — by the alley? (Applicant response: all service access will be through the underground parking garage). New ordinance requiring emergency access to be maintained during construction will be enforced. En ineering: No on -street parking will be allowed in front of the project, on Galena Street due to limited right-of-way width. A one time construction impact fee (for the haul route to US 82) will be levied. Who will maintain Dean Avenue? (Applicant response: They believe that Aspen Ski Corp. does some of the maintenance. This project will also contribute to the maintenance as part of a maintenance agreement with the surrounding property owners). We will need to collect an access and drainage mitigation impact fee. The site is subject to the Drainage and Mudflow Master Plan which requires the protection of openings in the buildings from mud. Colorado Department of Health requires that site one acre or larger in size need to employ Best Management Practices for sedimentation control. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Residences at Little Nell. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No.54 Series of 2002, for a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Residences at Little Nell" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution Exhibit B: Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit C: Referral Comments Exhibit D: Letter from Neighboring Property Owner Exhibit E: Application (In 3-Ring Binder) RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-96033 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for the Residences at Little Nell Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed, public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the Residences at Little Nell; and WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 3, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to January 7, 2003, by a to vote, recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD Application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Rezoning, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Specially Planned Area, Condominiumization, 8040 Greenling and Timeshare, approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, The Commission finds that the development review standards for a Conceptual PUD plan have been me, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development of the Residences at Little Nell allowing a 109,500 square foot, multi -story structure to consist of 30 timeshare units, 1 condominium unit, 4 affordable housing units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial and ancillary space and a 72 space sub - grade parking garage. Section l: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission, as described above. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: a. An application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for parking, Growth Management Quota System, Specially Planned Area Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, Timeshare, Condominiumization. A pre -application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application; b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. c. A proposed subdivision plat and PUD plans. d. A construction plan describing timing of construction components, areas of disturbance, contractor parking, and a physical plan for maintaining adequate access, including emergency access, to land uses remaining active during construction shall be provided with the Final PUD application. e. A detailed phasing plan that describes overall timing of specific project phases, including the off -site improvements to Dean Avenue and the moving of the Little Nell chairlift, and describing construction affects on the neighboring properties. 3. Based on comments from the DRC meeting on November 13, 2002, the applicant shall: a. Consult with the City Engineer in order to comply with all required permits and standards. b. Consult with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District in order to comply with all required permits and standards. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 4. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall make the following revisions to the plan: a. - Lower the height of the portion of the lodge building which is 56' 6" tall, so that the structure will better conform to the heights of the surrounding structures and not be so prominent on the hillside. b. Shift the southern portion of the lodge building to the east, to create a larger buffer space between it and the lower density residences to the west of the property. Additional landscaping could then be added to further bolster the buffer area. c. Either move the four on -site, affordable housing units to another location in the building, or mitigate the impacts (i.e. location adjacent to parking garage ramp and concerns of noise, headlight intrusion, exhaust, etc.) of the existing location of the affordable housing to improve livability. d. In accordance with the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program, accommodate the highest number of demolished units on site as possible, while recognizing that it is in the better interest of the community to locate the highest number of lodge units in this location as possible. 4ection 2-- This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 7, 2003. RESOLVED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this day of 2003. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 7, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 EXHIBIT B PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. Among the policies and goals that the project complies with are: compact, mixed use development that enable travel by foot, bicycle, and public transportation, the provision of on and off -site affordable housing, enhancement of pedestrian corridors, and the retention of the eclectic mix of design styles within the community to maintain and enhance the character of the community. The AACP also promotes economic sustainability, which includes a significant tourist element promoting the continued vitality of Aspen's ski base area. In addition, the Action Plan portion of the AACP speaks directly to the importance of increasing density through infill in Aspen's original townsite, especially for affordable housing. Despite, however, preferring that the affordable housing be located as close to the town core as possible, it does state that such housing located with the urban growth boundary would be acceptable as well. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The subject site is located in a predominantly resort oriented section of the community with numerous condominium structures, a hotel, and several duplexes and single family residences in the area. The tourist oriented Hyatt Grand Aspen timeshare project will be constructed on an immediately adjacent site. As this application proposes timeshare lodge development geared towards tourists, staff finds this land use to be consistent with surrounding land uses. At the same time, an increased buffer between this proposed large structure and the lower density uses to the west should be investigated to provide a smoother transition between two different scaled and massed buildings. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Given that the entire surrounding area has already been developed, this project will not adversely affect any of its future development, or redevelopment, especially if a larger buffer is created between the proposed lodge at the top of the hill and the lower density uses at the bottom of the hill. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the -20- proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The proposed lodge units are exempt from GMQS as their development rights are to be derived from residential and lodge reconstruction credits. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or souare feet) Dimensionai Requirex�nent'roposed Zone district e Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 6,000.................. 737060 Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 6,000.................. 35540 Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 15,000................. 400 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... N/A Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 6,000.................. 33,540 Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 155000 ................. 41600 Maximum Allowable Density N/A N/A Minimum Lot Width Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 207 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 60 feet................ 60 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 75 feet.. ....... 60 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 2.5 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 10 feet................ TBD feet .... ......... Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. .... 25 feet.. .............. 13 feet Minimum West Side Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 5 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 5 feet................ 11.5 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. .. ... ........ .... .... ....... 10 feet... .. 5.5 feet Minimum East Side Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 207 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 5 feet................ 12 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. ... ........ ..... 10 feet... .............. 4.5 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 20 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 10 feet................ 6 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.... ...... ....... . . 10 feet.. ............. 12 feet Maximum Height Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 28 feet................. 56 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 25 feet................ TBD feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 25 feet... TBD feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings No Requirement 10 feet -21- Minimum Percent of Open Space Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. . ................ 25% .................... 25%.................... None.. ................. 55% TBD N/A Allowable Floor Area (FAR) Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 109,500............... 109,500 Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 21200.................. Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. ................. 2,412. . ................ Minimum Off Street Parking Lodge Units ............................ .7 spaces/BR Lot 1: 68 spaces Free Market Dwelling Units......... 2 spaces/D.0 Lot 2: 2 spaces Commercial ............................. 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft Lot 3: 2 spaces Affordable Housing Units............ Special Review *Setbacks and height vary in the development program. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The applicant requests variations from the proposed new CL zone district dimensional requirements to include maximum building height and open space (not for the minimum amount, but for how it is oriented on the site). Staff finds the requests are generally appropriate and compatible with all of the criteria above with a few concerns. The proposed height represents a significant increase over the zone district allowance (56' at the tallest point versus the allowed 32' with a special review). This high point is for a relatively small portion of the structure, while the overall height varies and averages approximately 42'. Staff does have some concern over the tallest portion of the proposed building and has recommended that the applicant investigate lowering this portion. The remainder of the height is slightly taller than the adjacent tourist residential structures, but is appropriate to its location at the base of the gondola. While this increased height will likely impact the views from the North of Nell Condominiums over what exists now; that impact should only affect the very lower part of the ski mountain and views of existing structures higher up the hillside, and not the vast majority of the upper sections of the ski mountain. As proposed, there will be an impact to the hillside on the southern portion of the site. In fact a large cut of the hillside is proposed in order to "sink" the lowest three floors and a portion of a fourth floor underground. Once construction is complete; though, the natural - 22 - grade of the hillside will remain and appear as though the building is merely "sitting" on top of the hillside. Most, if not all of the existing mature landscaping on site is proposed to be removed for construction of the lodge. There exists some very mature evergreen and deciduous trees on the site. While this impact cannot be denied, the applicant insists that it is necessary to remove them as many of the trees are in the center of the site, which would make it impractical to construct around them. In response, they propose an aggressive replanting of the site after construction is done that they believe will help soften the visual impact of a large structure and provide an amenity to its guests. The proposed use of the PUD for the single-family residences on Lot 2 and 3 establish what dimensional standards that already exist. They are existing non -conforming structures with respect to setbacks, floor area ratios, minimum lot sizes and potentially to building heights. This PUD seeks to establish them as conforming setbacks. With the provided information at this stage, staff finds the requested variations are generally appropriate and compatible with all of the criteria above. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes a mixed use, 30 unit lodge with up to 60 rooms (lock -off capability) timeshare lodge at the very edge of the ski area adjacent to the gondola. Staff believes that this type of development and density is appropriate and favorable to the character of the area. The character of the area is the heart and soul of the base of the ski area and as such, should be a dynamic and inviting place. To help create this type of environment, larger, well designed, and higher density buildings framing in the base area are necessary along with great public spaces to generate a reason for people to congregate. In order to accomplish that goal, this project requests increases in allowed height, which allows for higher density with less site, coverage and provision of a sizeable terrace area fronting the ski yard and extra open space. With our concern of the tallest proposed portion of the structure notwithstanding, staff finds this to be a favorable trade- off for allowed increases in height. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. -23- Staff Finding: The proposed amount of parking spaces should be appropriate as no variations are proposed to the requirements of the CL zone district (.7 spaces per bedroom). In addition, the convenient location of the site to the ski area gondola and to downtown, along with access to the public bus system, should decrease the need of an automobile and/or the extensive use of one. The affordable housing units are to be provided one bedroom per unit, which is consistent with previous similar projects. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The project site benefits from adequate infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions are necessary. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for this project, all utilities appear to be available to the site and, with an increase in the size of the water line, the existing capacities will be adequate to accommodate the proposed density. Galena Street is a City of Aspen public right-of-way and, as such, is already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. Dean Avenue is also a public right-of-way, however, is maintained privately by the owners in the vicinity. The Aspen Fire District station is several blocks from the project site, and this site is served with existing hydrants and is .located within the fire protection district. The entire lodge will be required to install a fire sprinkler system as required by the Aspen Fire Marshal. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding - 24 - With the limited information presented at this stage, the project site appears to be free of natural hazards and suitable for the proposed development. It is already developed with multiple structures and the proposed expansion will not consume a significant amount of additional land. The site is flat on the northern side increasing to steep slopes to the south. Steep slopes will present challenges during construction with stability issues, however, proper precautions should be able to properly mitigate this problem. A site specific drainage study will be submitted with the final development plan at which time, specific drainage impacts to existing drainage and mitigation will be determined. The proposed development should not be detrimental to the natural watershed and should not result in water pollution. No wood burning devices will be installed. Further, the development should not have a pernicious effect on air quality as most guests will likely arrive by air and then by shuttle to the lodge where a central location, good pedestrian facilities, and a short walk to the Rubey Park bus station and ski slopes should result in not needing the use of a car. An impact to traffic generated will likely be created by new employees of this facility. It is estimated that the facility will generate the need for 88 employees. Not all of these employees would be likely to drive to work, as parking on site will be limited. Some employees may live in town and will be able to walk or ride a bicycle, while others may ride the bus. Regardless, the applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the Environmental Health Department in connection with the issuance -of building permits, and this will ensure that affects on air quality are addressed. Initial calculations indicate that the number of vehicle trips to the site will actually be reduced compared to the existing development on -site. No additional driveways, roads, or trails are proposed on the project site. There are no critical natural features on the site, and site disturbance will be kept to the minimum required for construction. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding -25- Initial review of the proposal demonstrates that the project will serve to advance many goals of the AACP, however, there is no request by the applicant at this time to increase the density over what is allowed in the CL zone district. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health- and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The site does not contain any unique natural features or a specific reference to the past, but it does have a hillside that provides visual interest. There will be an impact to the hillside with the construction of the lodge as a large cut in the hillside is proposed. Once construction is complete, though, it will be difficult to discern this impact as the final grade next to the structure will be similar to its existing configuration. In addition, the hillside already has development on it with the two existing single family homes that will be demolished to accommodate the lodge, so it is not a pristine hillside. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding Apart from the two single-family residences to remain on the site, the new development consists of only one structure and will be clustered adjacent to the residences. Taken together, they are clustered to preserve significant open spaces and vistas to the extent possible on a relatively small site. Significant existing vistas from adjacent structures will likely be impacted with a taller, larger building, however, staff believes that the vast majority views of the upper ski mountain will be retained from most locations. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The site has a relatively short street frontage on Galena Street, but the portion of the project that does front that street contributes to the urban context by locating the building at street edge and signifying its presence and main entrance through a peaked design feature. Along Dean Avenue, the structure will greatly enhance the pedestrian experience by adding retail and restaurant spaces and by adding street trees and furniture and removing the service access to another location. IMIC 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Service vehicles will be able to access the building through the underground parking garage. Emergency vehicle access will occur from Galena Street or Dean Avenue, but will be limited in access to the remainder of the building due to site constraints. To account for this limited fire truck access, the structure will be equipped with fire sprinklers and standpipes. A fire equipment storage shed will be located on the south terrace patio to allow firefighters to more easily handle any fires to the two single family residences. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding Greatly enhanced pedestrian access is proposed with this project. The grade changes in Dean Avenue will be leveled out and street trees and street furniture will be added, along with a new retail element on the first floor of the building, which will provide a much improved pedestrian experience. Currently, pedestrians walking in this area experience the service area and the rear of the existing buildings on the subject site. New street front retail opportunities will be created for the North of Nell Condominiums as well, although are not part of this application. Skier pedestrian access will also be enhanced by extending the existing Gondola Plaza to the new terrace of the new building. Handicapped access will be provided through the front door and via the elevator, through the parking garage and the elevator, or up an ADA accessible ramp from Gondola Plaza to the terrace. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding Based on initial information, the site drainage will be properly accommodated with an enclosed drainage system discharging into City stormwater collection system. A more detailed drainage plan will be submitted and reviewed with the final development plan. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces, between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The development does include about 10,000 square feet of non-residential uses and will have all service access take place in the underground parking garage, therefore there is no need to design outdoor spaces between the buildings for these functions. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and IWM with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated 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. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The site has existing, mature landscaping located in places where there isn't already an existing structure or parking lot. Much of what exists now may need to be removed to make way for the new building and the re -grading of the south eastern portion of the site that is proposed to help make the interface between the adjacent ski slope and the building more seamless. In its place, extensive new landscaping is proposed including trees, ornamental shrubs, and flowers. Street trees along Dean Avenue are proposed to beautify this pedestrian way and on the lodge's rooftop terrace. At time of the Final PUD approval, the applicant will be required to receive tree removal permits from the City Parks Department as necessary as a condition of approval, as well as consult the City Forester regarding appropriate additional planting to take place on the property. View of the ski area edge which is proposed to be re - contoured with this development proposal. The purpose is to make a better transition between the new lodge and the ski area. In the process, the base of the Little Nell Lift and up to five lift poles will be moved to the east. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the -28- City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Evoking what the architect describes as a "blend of influences", most notably Aspen mining vernacular, the project attempts to respect the eclectic, architectural nature of the of surrounding structures while trying to break down the large mass and be cohesive with a limited palette of materials. Based on initial building elevations, staff believes that this represents a character suitable or, and indicative of, the intended use and will enhance the visual character of the city and the base of the ski area. There also appears to be proper accommodation of shedding snow, ice and water by proper roof design and drainage. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Although this is still the Conceptual stage, an outdoor lighting plan has been submitted (such plan will be required with the Final Review). As no fixture details have been 1W= provided, staff has not been able to determine its compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards. Wall sconce and ceiling mounted lights are proposed. Any future lighting plan will have to comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Regulations, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non -Residential Lighting Standards (including mixed use projects). Compliance with said sections will ensure consistency with this PUD review standard. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity ' (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The project contemplates an undeveloped open space area between the new building and the ski yard edge and actively developed open space areas in the form of a roof top deck and terrace and sun deck. All areas will be accessible by the owners of the project and the terrace will be open to the public. These areas enhance the character of the proposed development for the areas of the site that have physical and/or visual access to them. One area where more open space could be added is on the west side of the building near the existing Galena Place Condos and Blitz Duplex. This would allow additional landscaping in the area and push the structure a little farther away from the top of the slope and the adjacent structures. How the areas will be maintained and how ownership of these areas will be deeded to individual owners has not yet been determined. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: - 30 - 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding Engineered utility plans are not required for a Conceptual Review of a PUD. With the Final Review, engineered utility, drainage, and grading plans will be submitted and reviewed. Upon early review with limited information, it appears that the adequate public infrastructure exists to accommodate the development. If it is later determined that there are required upgrades to the public system, the developer will be responsible for financing and constructing such improvements. Four (4) affordable studio dwelling units are proposed for use by employees, and these should have negligible affects on schools and parks. At any rate, the project will be required to pay certain school land dedication fees and park dedication fees as a result of this proposed growth. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located adjacent to a public street, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the Applicants shall agree to bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. Pursuant to Section 26.610.020 of the Regulations, park development impact fees for the new lodge bedrooms (but not the affordable housing bedrooms) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding Each lodge unit and existing single family residence will have access to a public street (Galena Street) directly via a private ramp leading from a sub -grade parking structure. - 31 - 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding The proposed development should not create any adverse impacts to vehicular access points or create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the development. Sufficient parking is provided in the underground parking garage and several loading and unloading spaces are provided in the porte cochere. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in - lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding This criteria is not applicable at the Conceptual Review stage. A detailed assessment of any proposed phasing will occur at Final Review. - 32 - EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on November 13, 2002. The comments from that meeting follow: Fire Department: How will we access the upper single family lots? (Applicant response: access will be enhanced over the existing situation with the old tram, by the addition of the elevator access, standpipes, and storage box at the top of the hill for extra fire hose so that the fire department personnel will not have to carry the hose up to this area). Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In order to construct the service tunnel to this building from the Little Nell Hotel, the applicant will have to cross water service lines coming down from the mountain. Three agreements will be necessary, including a service agreement and formal agreement for temporary service. Downstream fees will be high. Environmental Health: Conceptually agree with the applicant's trip generation figures, however would like the additional opportunity to review the project with the potential for 60 lock -off rooms. Would like to see a shuttle system from the off -site employee housing site; noise ordinance limiting sound to no more than 65 dB will be enforces, especially for any special events planned for this site. Parks: Landscape plan and proposed mitigation will be necessary with the Final PUD; would like to arrange for a site visit with the applicant to discuss trail easement alignment. Parkin: Interested in how the business will be serviced — by the alley? (Applicant response: all service access will be through the underground parking garage). New ordinance requiring emergency access to be maintained during construction will be enforced. Engineering: No on -street, parking will be allowed in front of the project, on Galena Street due to limited right-of-way width. A one time construction impact fee (for the haul route to US 82) will be levied. Who will maintain Dean Avenue? (Applicant response: They believe that Aspen Ski Corp. does some of the maintenance. This project will also contribute to the maintenance as part of a maintenance agreement with the surrounding property owners). We will need to. collect an access and drainage mitigation impact fee. The site is subject to the Drainage and Mudflow Master Plan which requires the protection of openings in the buildings from mud. Colorado Department of Health requires that site one acre or larger in size need to employ Best Management Practices for sedimentation control. -33- EXHIBIT D LETTER FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER Steve and Debbi Falender 712 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 November 25, 2002 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Community Development, Attention: Scott Woodford CC: Scott Writer Re: Residences at Little Nell Conceptual Development Plan Our family lives year-round at 712 South Galena Street in the north half of a duplex referred to on the Residences at Little Nell maps as the "Blitz Duplex." Our backyard adjoins Lots 1 and 2 of the Residences PUD. Because the portion of the site behind our home is hidden from easy viewing, we invite any and all members of Planning and Zoning and the Community Development Staff to our home to see the existing buildings, topography, vegetation, and open space. Please feel free to call us at 920-1816 to arrange this, individually or as a group. We would like to state, at the outset, that we are very supportive of redevelopment at the base of Aspen Mountain where the Tippler, Tipple Inn, and Tipple Lodge now sit (approximately the north two-thirds of Lot 1 of the PUD) (Parcels A, B, and C on the Improvement Location. Survey on page 3 of the PUD Submission), and we agree that a fairly intense development is appropriate at the base of the mountain on that relatively flat and open portion of the site. We also have no objection to extending the redevelopment to include what we refer to in this letter as the south one-third (south 1/3) of Lot 1 of the PUD, where there are now two platted lots (Parcels D & E on the Improvement Location Survey on page 3 of the PUD submission). However, we strongly believe that the scale of development on the south 1/3 of Lot 1 (Parcels D & E) should be significantly reduced to be appropriate for the steep wooded terrain and to be considerate of the existing uses, the existing LTR zoning, and the existing platted lots. This south 1/3 Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 2 of 8 of Lot 1, and particularly the west side of the south 1/3, is the portion of the site that directly affects us, and most of our comments relate to that part. 1. We believe that the development proposed for the south 1/3 of Lot 1 is too big, too tall, too massive, and the setbacks on the west and south lots lines of Lot 1 are grossly inadequate for the increased scale of this proposal. The existing construction on the south 1/3 of Lot 1 now consists of two separated single-family homes, with openness between them and on all sides of them. The proposed new structure is one single, solid mass, stretching very close to the west lot line nearly the entire length of Lot 1 from south to north. The number of units on the south 1/3 of Lot 1 (Parcels D & E) increases from the existing TWO single-family homes to at least NINE proposed three- and four -bedroom residences, each averaging about 2500 square feet, and a small portion of eight other units, as far as we can tell from the development plans. The proposed nine residences on the south 1/3 bring with them a corresponding increase in the floor area and mass, a corresponding increase in the number of outside decks and associated noise, and a corresponding decrease in privacy, open space, view corridors, and vegetation. We believe that a drawing overlaying the proposed plans over the existing improvements and lot lines should be prepared by the developer and would be very helpful to an understanding of the developer's proposal. Such a drawing would show that virtually the entire land area above us is to be covered by a large new building with the aforementioned nine, or more, residence units. The south 1/3 of Lot 1 is currently zoned LTR (Lodge/Tourist Residential). We think it would be extremely relevant and instructive to know what new development would be allowed today on these existing platted lots if the development was done in conformity with existing LTR zoning and all applicable regulations, such as slope reduction. This information would allow us all to determine the impact of the requested change to CL (Commercial Lodge) zoning, compared to what is permitted under the existing zoning codes. We believe it was not in the developer's best interest to provide such data, because we believe that the proposed development grossly exceeds, in square footage and height, what exists or is currently permitted. We ask that the developer or staff make such a comparison. Because we, and all citizens of Aspen, rely on zoning to Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 3 of 8 protect our reasonable expectations about uses, heights, setbacks, and open spaces on our property and on neighboring property, a study of the extent of the upzoning is very important to the analysis of the impacts of this proposal. The developer's submission does not discuss why the developer proposes a change from LTR to CL. It appears that the existing LTR zoning permits all uses within this proposal - namely, lodge units, hotel, multi -family dwellings, time-sharing, and restaurants. All we can presume is that this zoning change is requested in order to increase density, reduce setback requirements; increase height, and eliminate the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. However, the south 1/3 of the project (Parcels D & E) is in an LTR zone, and is surrounded by LTR on the west and south sides. Wouldn't it be appropriate and logical to review the south 1/3 using LTR requirements, rather than CL? At least it would seem appropriate and logical to know what the LTR requirements are when evaluating whether this project will be a good neighbor for existing adjoining LTR properties. Furthermore, we have noticed that virtually every large building in town fronts on at least two streets, and has an alley on a third side, providing significant separation between buildings. If this degree of separation were applied to the developer's proposal, it would justify a significant setback on the west and south sides of the proposed structure. 2. Maximum Building Height. The proposed zoning is CL (Commercial Lodge). As the developer notes, the building proposed on Lot 1 does not even conform to the proposed CL zoning, and it appears that a significant portion of the nonconformance is on the south 1/3, again, the part that adjoins us. Here is what the developer says in the submission, at pages 54-55: "The proposed lodge on Lot 1 complies with all of the dimensional requirements of CL, Commercial Lodge zone district with the exception of maximum building height and minimum open space.... [T]he height of the lodge's roof measures approximately fifty-six feet at its highest point which exceeds the district's maximum limitation of thirty-two feet by approximately twenty-four feet. The lodge's maximum height, however, is limited to a single gable roof located in the Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 4 of 8 middle of the Galena Street fagade. The average height of the structure is approximately forty-two feet." If you will refer to the East (Little Nell Ski Slope) and West (Galena Street) Elevations on pages 22 and 23 of the submission, it surely appears that the south 1/3 of the building bears the largest visible mass of building and the tallest roof points. Not only is the south 1/3 of the building closest to us, it represents the steepest, most heavily treed, and highest part of the site, and is furthest from the base of the ski area. It seems more appropriate that the highest density of this project should be located at the flat area closest to the gondola and closest to town, rather than higher up on the steep hill. The highest point of the proposed building (56') exceeds the 32' CL zoning maximum by 24' (75% over what is allowable), and doubles the existing 28' LTR height maximum. The average height of the building (42') exceeds the 32' CL zoning maximum by 10' (31% over what is allowable) and exceeds the 28' LTR zoning by 14'. What justification exists for these large height exceptions? We think that the south 1/3 of the building, which abuts us and the other existing residences on Galena Street, should meet the existing LTR height requirements, or at least conform to the CL height limitations. 3. Floor Area Requirements and Calculations. Although the developer r 4' concludes that the proposed building meets the dimensional (floor area) requirements of CL zoning, we think this is true only because of a creative transfer of land between partners in this development. Let us explain our thinking. According to the charts on page 56, the total lot size of Lot 1 is 73,060 square feet. According to the plat map on page 3 of the submission, parcel H, which is a part of Lot 1 currently owned by the Aspen Skiing Company, is 25,970 square feet (35% of the total land area of Lot 1). Parcel H is currently zoned Conservation and Conservation (SPA), a zoning that severely limits any development. You will see on the Conceptual PUD plan (page 6 of the submission) that most of the Parcel H portion of Lot 1 is to be left either totally open or occupied by a proposed pool and deck area (also considered open space under the codes). Although the developer might have you believe that leaving this current open space as open space in the development proposal is a generous gesture on its part, the developer's discussion of Y Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 5 of 8 slope reduction calculations (at pages 64-68) exposes the reason that such a large Parcel H is to be transferred to the developer from the Aspen Skiing Company (a part ner as the intended Managing Agent of this development), and then left mostly undeveloped. Beginning at the bottom of page 64 through page 67 of the submission, the developer describes the calculations for maximum allowable floor area on areas containing steep slopes. As applied to Lot 1, the calculations and analysis appear on pages 66-67. The developer says, top of page 67: "[T]he area of lot 1 after reduction for slopes greater than twenty percent is 41,630 square feet. Based on the CL zone district's 2:1 floor area ratio [CL is the requested zoning], a maximum of 83,260 square feet of floor area would theoretically be allowed on Lot 1 after slope reduction. This figure, however, represents a forty-three percent reduction in the allowable floor area which exceeds the twenty-five percent maximum limitation. As a result, the allowable floor area on Lot 1 is 109,590 square feet, or seventy-five percent of the lot's gross land area." Consider how these calculations would work if, as an example, half of Parcel H was not transferred from the Aspen Skiing Company to the developer. (Half of Parcel H is chosen because it is our best guess as to the portion of Parcel H on which no improvement of any sort is proposed to be built.) Total Parcel H 25,970 sf _ 2 = Half of Parcel H = 12,985 sf Total Lot 1 less Half of Parcel H = 73,060 sf - 12,985 sf = 60,075 sf 60,075 sf x 2:1 Floor Area Ratio = 121,150 sf 121,150 sf x .75 = 90,112 sf If half of Parcel H is not included in Lot 1, then the allowable floor area on Lot 1 is 90,112 square feet, significantly less than the 109,590 square feet that the developer concludes is .allowable when all of Lot H is included. What does all this mean? It seems to us that the developer proposes to receive a transfer of existing open space from a partner and proposes to leave most of that open space as open space, but uses the entire transfer to increase the square footage of development on the remainder of the parcel by over 19,000 square feet, effectively avoiding the slope reduction regulations of the code. Where does this increased Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 6 of 8 development go? A lot of it goes on a steep slope on the west side of Lot 1, squeezed very close to the south and west lot lines, nearest our property We don't object to the inclusion of Parcel H in the site. We do object to the inclusion of this existing open space to manipulate calculations that then increase significantly the floor area of the development. If Parcel H is to be included in the calculations for floor area, it should absorb a corresponding portion of the development. The developer may believe that a proposal to place any significant development on this existing open space is politically doomed; still, the desire not to develop open space does not make it appropriate to use that open space to increase the floor area ratio on the rest of the property. 4. Approval of Lots 2 and 3 "as built." The PUD proposal requests that Lots 2 and 3 be approved "as built." The discussion on page 60 (last paragraph) of the submission states clearly that the improvements on these lots are nonconforming in virtually every way: lot size, setback, floor area, and possibly height and open space. Although not mentioned in the developer's commentary, if you refer to pages 55 and 56, and if you compare "L Existing Site Area" of Parcels F and F (really G) to the 115. Proposed Lot Size" of Lots 2 and 3, you will see that the lot areas of both Lots 2 and 3 are to be further reduced in size. The developer's solution to the existing nonconformities is to ask you to accept them "as built." However, in spite of the words "as built," the reduction in lot sizes means that the developer is really asking you to increase the nonconformities and then waive them. We believe it would be more appropriate to increase the sizes of Lots 2 and 3 to make them conform to the existing zoning. We would like to see a drawing showing such a plan, because we think there is a good chance that it would substantially increase effective setbacks and open space between the existing homes and the proposed new building. In addition, it appears that the proposed reductions in the sizes of Lots 2 and 3 result in a corresponding increase in the size of Lot 1. This affects the slope reduction calculation above and increases the allowable floor area on Lot 1 to the benefit of the developer. Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 7 of 8 The developer states, on page 60, that the nonconformities on Lots 2 and 3 "have existed for many years and are believed to have resulted primarily from various changes in the City's zone district requirements." This is a surprising inaccuracy. The house on Lot 2 was totally new construction built approximately two years ago, and is now occupied by a partner of the developer. We are, of course, curious how Lot 2 received approvals such a short time ago, with such significant nonconformities. 5. Decks and Roof Terrace. Directly facing us on the west side of the south 1/3 of Lot 1, the developer proposes new residences with at least seven decks and a roof terrace, instead of one existing single-family house with two decks. To offset the impact (noise and privacy) of this increase, we would ask that the developer either eliminate decks on the south and west elevations (at least at the south end), or significantly reduce deck size so that decks are only large enough for a couple of chairs and a couple of people, but not large enough for parties and larger gatherings. In the narrow space between the proposed building and our home, sound will travel as. if in a megaphone. We also question the need for a common area roof deck and spa. There is certainly an adequately spacious pool, deck, and open area on the east side of the project, facing the ski slope. 6. There are four other important issues we would like you to consider. (a) Given the steepness of the slope above us and our neighbors on Galena Street, we hope that the city engineers will take a very careful look at the grading plan and soils reports to make certain that there will be no adverse affects from water, mud, or soils coming down onto our properties during or after the construction, and that the construction will not result in earth movement or vibration that would adversely affect us. (b) Although the developer's submission on page 110 says "the proposed lodge will be accessible from Galena Street and Dean Avenue," you will note that access on Galena Street is only at the far north end of the building; therefore, we hope that you will take a hard look at fire and other safety considerations, as well as maintenance and repair constraints for the large portion of the building that is relatively inaccessible. Comments, Residences at Little Nell Conceptual, 11/25/02, page 8 of 8 (c) We hope you will not accept the developer's approach of stripping the entire property of its existing vegetation (pages 104-105 and 109 of the submission), and we hope you will require construction fencing to protect existing trees and vegetation on the site and the existing trees and vegetation on the neighboring properties adjoining the west and south property lines. There are existing trees on the site that would take more than a generation to replace. (d) We would like a covenant that the existing house on Lot 2 will be used as a single-family home, and will not be subdivided into multiple units or sold or rented as part of the Residences in any way inconsistent with the normal use of a single-family property. The impacts of this proposed development affect our home and our everyday lives. The increase in density of this proposed project will almost completely eliminate our sense of privacy and quiet. The developer extols the virtues of the improvements to Dean Street and the improvements to a new and expanded gondola plaza and restaurant at the base of Aspen Mountain. We agree that these benefits will improve the base of the mountain, but they will in no way mitigate the impacts that we will incur from this development. We have worked many years, and countless hours, to be able to own and live in our home here. We ask that you respect the existing zoning and use it as a baseline to determine the impacts that we face and the mitigation that is appropriate for these impacts. While the developer faces a difficult task to recoup high land costs and the high development costs that a difficult site like this entails, the developer must carry its own burdens and mitigate the impacts that it causes. While we may be sympathetic to the developer's difficulties, the fact is that they aggressively pursued this challenge, not us. Thank you so very much for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Debbi and Steve Falender November 29, 2002 Mr. Brooke Peterson CWA-Development 500 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado S 1611 The North of Nell Board of Managers has concerns regarding the recent Conceptual Submittal of the Residences at Little Nell fractional -ownership project. The presentation appears to be purposely vague and we are requesting additional information before we can make a decision to support the project. The additional information requested is the following: 1) The elevation and building section designs do not provide how the building accurately steps back up the slope. We are also concerned about the actual height of the ornamental restaurant tower and how the additional building projects fifteen feet to the east on the Little Nell slope. and it's effects on the North of Nell building. Scott Writer and CWA photographers took numerous shots from different slope -side units of the North of Nell. Please provide a simulation of the impacts from each floor that were photographed. 2) Please provide a shading analysis for the development that adversely affects Dean Street and the south side of the North of Nell building. 3) There are major concerns regarding the auto court plan proposed for the main hotel entrance at the intersections of Galena Street and Dean Avenue. Current directional patterns wl11 have headlights flashing consistently into those units located on the west end of Nortll of Nell building. We are requesting that the flow be reversed and that sufficient barriers be implemented. We look forward to your response to our request for information. Sincerely, .foe Raczak General Manager Cc: Lenny Oates Scott Woodford, Aspen Community Development Scott Writer, CWA Director. of Development Sunny Vann, Vann Associates 555 E. Durant Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1510 • Fax (970) 925-1550 Web: http://www.ifoa.com/northnell E-mail: northnel@roLnet DEC 03 ' 02 01: 49PM QUEST ENTERPRISES P.S Ccmanents, Residex►ces at Littis Nell Concep%sl' 11/25l021 page 8 of I (c) We hope you wM wt accept the devrlope.-r's �, .pproao of strippzng the =tire PCM' of its 049ng vegetation ea 104-105 arid, ' 109, of the submission), arA wc hope you will require consta:'tkction f=iug to pmtvot emi�;thig trams an4 Vegetation or, the site and the e#stkg trams and vegctation oa the ii:ighboruig pmpetties adjoining the wcst 4d3 Mth prOporty des. Theme are exiaWS trees and the sire that wotdd t mare tbAn a generation to replace. (d j We would like a Covenant zhRi the existing lun me on :dot s will be us&, as a single-family home, and wW not be subdivided irsto multiple ardts or sold or rented as pan of"the Rsidences m any way inconsistent with the wrtud use of a single-f� p., The hpacts of this proposed development area bar home and our everyday Eves. The. ihoresse in density of this proposed project will a it complet8ly eurrbate, otIt Sege OfPriwy Md qukt. The devbl4por extols the virtues of the rMovements to Dean Street W4 ti-9 i9T; VcM=ts to a nc w wid expanded gondola pI n Ltd restotmant at the lnsc of Aspen Mou&aim We ae rce thAt thcFc ltrwfits win =prove the base of the mou=ki but they wAI its no ways Mtigate the impacts that we WO intro tom this dcvclopnt. . We have 'worked rnaI ye4M and countlem boars, ro be able to Guru and Rve in our hnnic here, We ask thatyob respect the exist4 zoning Md use it as fi 5aselinc to dctcrm'n'C the m4acts that we face alui the rnitigatuanthat is appropriate fbz these aMacts. WNIC ft deeper faces # difficult task to recoup h bnd costa and the high develop costs that a dit5clilt ske like the entails, th© davelowr must carry its own burdow UA 11�tate the impacts that it causes. While we ,my be synvatbetic to The de ,eloper's difficulties, the .fRot is that try aggressively pursued tl�is oba=ge, rut us. 10,nlr 702 w very r h for yow consideration of our e0mm .its, �h�cereLY, QLDebbi &M Stcvs Falfier QII�'1`�� 3�315 STMi 60 6 bT0Z' C0 Zt CIEC -T322 01: 49PIll QUEST ENTERPRISES P. 2 Michael Johns Myriad Investments 135 E Bennett St. Suite 200 Saline, M! 48176 December 2, 2002 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Cornission Aspen Community Development, Attention: Scott Woodford Subject: Residents at Little Nell Development Plan I never received a notice of the proposed subject project, This is not what I would expect oJ since our property 714 South Gelena adjoins Lots I and 2 of the Residents YUD. I have therefore had many conversations with my neighbor Steve Falender and wish to support his November 25 2002 letter that I have elected to co-sign. I give Steve Falender authorization to represent 714 Gelena in any future Aspen Planning and Zoning meetings concerning the subject project. Michael Johns