HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030121AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES C J�A,j . 2. 00 3 /jo v. a o o z
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD, Scott Woodford,
continued from 12/7
B. 1390 AND 1392 SNOWBUNNY LANE DRAC VARIANCE
FROM SINGLE STALL GARAGE DOOR REQUIREMENT,
James Lindt
C. TIPPLER LODGE /TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION GMQS
EXEMPTION, Scott Woodford, renoticed for February 18th
V. BOARD REPORTS
VI. ADJOURN
P1
CITY AGENDA
City Council-2"d and 41h Mon. @ 5:00 PM, P/Z-1 s` and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM,
HPC-2 Id & 4`h Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4:00 PM, or as needed
Revised 1/13/03
1/13 Council 5:00
Notice: 12/24
2nd Reading, AMPUD Lot 3 PUD Amendment/Text Amend, PH -SW
1 /21 P &Z 4:30
Notice: 12/31
Residences at Little Nell (PH continued, if necessary) -SW
1390 Snowbunny Lane Variance PH-JL
Tippler Lodge/Townhomes Subdivision, GMQS Ex. PH -SW -table & renotice
1/22 HPC 5:00
Notice: 12/31
2 William's Way- work session and site visit
Trustee Townhomes, Smooke- Minor, PH -AG
Holland House- Conceptual, PH (previously noticed)- withdrawn
1/27/03 Council 5:00
Notice: 1/7
1" Reading, Holland House -Request to de -list from the Aspen Invent of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures -KE (to be rescheduled)
15t Reading, Infill Code Amendments -CB
1" Reading, MCC Lots 1 &2 PUD Amendment -SW
Molly Gibson, Extension of Vested rights PH-JL
1000 East Hopkins PUD Amendment-JL
1/28 Council Work Session 4:00 with P&Z re. Infill
214/03 P&Z 4:30
Notice: 1 /14
220 E. Hopkins DRAC PH -SO
Dancing Bear Lodge PUD-PH-JL
2110/03 Council 5:00
Notice: 1 /21
Residences @ Little Nell Conceptual PUD Reso-Action Item (tent.) -SW
1" Reading, Maroon Creek Road, Assignment of Zoning after Annexation -SO
Colony Restaurant TUP PH-JL
2/11/03 Burlingame Parcel D Open House/Work Session
2112/03 HPC 5:00
Notice 1 /21
P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directm`;k<D
FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlanneQ&
RE: RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL, PUBLIC HEARING, CONCEPTUAL PUD,
TIMESHARE AND SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-, SERIES 2003
DATE: January 21, 2003
This application has been continued twice. —.once from the December 3, 2002 meeting
and the second time from the January 7, 2003 meeting. At the last meeting, the Planning
and- Zoning Commission took positions on issues related to the physical characteristics of
the proposal, such as building height and mass. For this third and, likely final meetincr
the discussion will focus on the following, remaining issues:
• Growth Management Quota System allotments and exemptions
• Affordable housing requirements and proposal for mitigation of those
requirements
• Rezoning
• Timeshare
• Special Planned Area Amendment
• Any other outstanding items
To accomplish this, staff proposes to begin with a presentation on these remaining issues
followed by comments from the applicant. Then, after questions by the P&Z and public
comment, the P&Z Commission, will have an opportunity to formulate its position on
these items. Although discussion is encouraged on all remaining issues, the items that the
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 PUD, CONCEPTUAL TEVIESHAItE, AND
RECOMMENDATION: CONCEPTUAL SPA AMENDMENT, WITH CONDITIONS (SEE RESOLUTION
FOR CONDITIONS)
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE I
P19
P&Z is required to make a motion of approval or disapproval is with regard to PUD,
Timeshare, and Special Planned Area Amendment. Findings for those are found in
Exhibit A, B. and C, respectively. The following section of the staff report describes the
remaining issues to be discussed and the staff position on each:
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
(16 x 2.95 = 47) and then use 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) R.EQUIREMENTS:
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.
RESIDENCEs AT LITTLE•NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
2,020 sq. ft. retail space @3.5 Employees/1,000
sqft..............................................
FTotal Lodge/Commercial Employees Generated
F60�%N�mp=oyeescl(Generated
o/Coeral Employees to be Housed @
(88 x .60)
Tippler Townhomes Mitigation Requirements
(Conversion of BR to # of Employees)
2-1 Bedroom Units ...............................
2-2 Bedroom Units ...............................
Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program
Tipple Inn
Bedrooms ..................................... .
Net Livable Area .............................
Tipple Lodge
Bedrooms ......................................
Net Livable Area ..............................
?'otal'mployees to be Housed
Lodge/Commercial Employees
Tippler Townhomes
TotalReplacement Houszng to.:be*..,, Ta
Net Livable Area ..................................
7
88 (38+50)
53
3.5
4.5
11
4,011 sq. ft.
1
458 sq. ft.
53
8
4,469 sq. ft.
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.
RESIDES ICES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 3)
P21
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 off -site. An initial proposal to provide that housing on a 1.6 acre site in the
Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) has since fallen through. The applicant is now
actively seeking alternative locations for the housing. Given the limited number of sites
within the city boundaries, it is possible that the site they do find will be located in the
County (but within the Urban Growth Boundary). If the site they find for the affordable
housing is in the County it would be the first project to mitigate a portion of its affordable
housing requirements outside of the City limits. The applicant understands that they must
have an approval for the off -site affordable housing prior to the Final PUD for the
Residences at Little Nell. In fact, the City will not schedule the final hearing for
Residences at Little Nell until the applicant has this approval.
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 supportthis
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 PROXIMITY 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 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 is where their housing proposal would likely
transpire. The Plan also encourages that housing be located within the city to reduce
environmental impacts. 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 it is located within the urban
growth boundary.
RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY 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
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
P22
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 that would necessitate the replacement units being built off -site. An
interpretation can be made that the amount of required replacement housing is such that
to replace it all on 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 staffs 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.
REZONE:
A rezone of proposed lot containing the timeshare lodge (Lot 1) from existing L/TR
(Lodge/Tourist Residential) to CL Commercial Lodge is proposed to 1.) accommodate
the commercial uses in the proposed lodge (L/TR does not allow commercial uses) and
2.) 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/or impossible under the current L/TR zoning. The following are
AACP policies that support the rezone request:
• COMPACT MIXED 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
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE HELL STAFF REPORT PAGE J
P23
A rezone of the parcel to be acquired from the Aspen Skiing Company from C
(Conservation) to CL (Commercial Lodge) is also proposed. Staff has reviewed the
proposed rezoning against the standards for an amendment to the Land Use Code in
Section 26.310.040 and finds it to be generally in compliance with the standards. Two of
the standards, however, have come into question by some members of the public,
specifically whether the rezone is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP) and whether there has been a changed condition affecting the parcel that
supports the amendment.
First, staff believes that the proposed rezone is consistent with nearly all aspects of the
AACP., including allowing for the revitalization of a portion of the base of the ski area
with a well designed, mixed use, infill project that includes both on and off -site
affordable housing and public amenities. Without the rezone of this portion, the
proposed uses would not be permitted and the proposed size of building - allowing for a
critical mass of lodge units (and hot beds), space for commercial uses, mitigation of a
portion of the affordable housing requirements and provision of public amenities - would
not be possible.
An area of the AACP that the proposed rezone is not clearly supported, is with regard to
the Future Land Use Map (the "Map"). This Map shows the parcel to be Existing Open
Space as a future land use, whereas the applicant proposes to use the space for outdoor
deck and a portion of the structure. According to the AACP, the Map was developed
primarily from existing zoning and generalized to reflect expected future land use. Staff
feels that, in this situation, there are circumstances that warrant flexibility with regard to
applying this map. First, when viewed on -site, the subject parcel appears to be part of the
larger development site for the Residences at Little Nell and not part of the ski area
because of how it is separated by a small ridge. The parcel in question does not appear to
be connected with the ski area, which comprises the majority of the Existing Open Space
as designated on the Map. In addition, and more importantly, because the project
complies with the all of the AACP policies and will achieve larger community goals, we
find the discrepancy with the Map to be outweighed.
Secondly, staff believes that there have been changed conditions that support the
proposed zoning map amendment. Over the last several years, there has been
considerable community discussion about the need to revitalize the town with measures
to promote economic stability and to interject more vitality into the downtown area. The
Infill Guidelines, which seek to facilitate new redevelopment and infill, are a response to
those goals. In the case of this development, the proposal is for a larger, mixed use,
timeshare development that aims to bring additional excitement and vitality to the ski
area base and to encourage the more efficient use of .residential units so that there are
more visitors in the community contributing to the sales tax base. Because this key
redevelopment site is fairly narrow, it is difficult to redevelop at any feasible scale
befitting of its locale. In order to redevelop the site properly- to be able to provide a
critical mass of units, the apres ski outdoor decks, the commercial units, and the on -site
provision of some of the affordable housing unit — additional site area is necessary.
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT PAGE 6
P24
Then, to accommodate the proposed uses, it is necessary that the parcel be rezoned to
Commercial Lodge.
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 1/71'
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 translate into more sales tax collected for the
community both directly from rentals of the units and from money guests spend around
the comrunity. 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 that may only be occupied several times a year generating
little benefit to the community in terms of sales tax.
SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved Little Nell Subdivision SPA in
order to subdivide a portion of this property and convey it to this development parcel.
Because the to -be -subdivided parcel is already non -conforming with respect to minimum
lot size and because the Code does not allow the subdivision process to create or extend a
non -conformity, the applicant proposes amending the SPA which governs Lots 1 and 2 of
the Little Nell Subdivision to reduce the size of Lot 2. The proposed reduction in the size
of Lot 2 will have no adverse regulatory impact as the approved floor area for the SPA is
based on the portion of the SPA zoned CC, Commercial Core. Staff supports the
amendment. Staff findings are contained in Exhibit C.
STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment for the
Residences at Little Nell.
RESIDENCES .AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT
PAGE 7
P25
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. �, Series of 2002, for a Conceptual Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area
Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell"
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: PUD - STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B: TIMESHARE - STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT C: SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT - STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT D: P&Z MINUTES (12/3/02 AND 1/7/03)
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL STAFF REPORT
we
PAGE 8
EXHIBIT A
PUD — STAFF FINDINGS
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.
STAFF FINDING: 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.
STAFF FINDING: 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.
STAFF FINDING: 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.
P31
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: 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 square feet)
Dirnens tonal Re' uu-ement
done Di�tr;lct
_ Proposed
}
Re uiremen
Minimum Lot Size (square feet)
Lot 1 CL, PUD.........................
6,000..................
73,060
Lot 2 L/TR, PUD......................
6,000..................
3,540
Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L...................
152000.................
4,600
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
Lot 1 CL, PUD.........................
No Requirement.....
N/A
Lot 2 L/TR, PUD......................
6,000...................
3,540
Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L..................
15,000................
4,600
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............... 1
6 feet
- 14-
P32
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
Minimum Percent of Open Space
Lot 1 CL, PUD.........................
25%....................
55%
Lot 2 L/TR, PUD......................
25% ....................
TBD
Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.................
None... ...........
N/A
Allowable Floor Area (FAR)
Lot 1 CL, PUD.........................
109,500...............
109,500
Lot 2 L/TR, PUD......................
2,200..................
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
��ietbacks 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
P33
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
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.
- 16-
P34
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.
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.
- 17 -
P35
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: 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
P36
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: Initial review of the proposal demonstrates that the project will serve to
advance many goals of the A.A.CP, 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:
L 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
- 19-
P37
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.
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. Afire 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 1.0,000 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.
-2o-
P38
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:
I. 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.
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 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.
P39
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 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:
_ _
P40
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.
I 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:
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.
I 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
P41
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.
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
-24-
P42
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:
L 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.
I The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
b
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.
P43
EXHIBIT B
TIMESHARE — STAFF FINDINGS
An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are in
addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision
applications.
A. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an
existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate
that the proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the
City. In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion,
the applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD
application.
STAFF FINDING: This proposal does not involve a conversion of an existing lodge.
B. Upgrading of Existing Projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be
converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and
modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be
determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing
facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character
with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be
brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes.
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
STAFF FINDING: This proposal does not involve a conversion of an existing lodge.
C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventory. An express purpose of these
regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory.
Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that provides
short term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the
existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the
applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge
development shall replace the existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the
applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of these
regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either the
existing number of units or bedrooms.
STAFF FINDING: This proposal does not involve a conversion of an existing lodge.
D. Affordable Housing Requirements.
- 26 -
P44
1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing,
mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the
City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be
calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the
development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or
other functions proposed in the lodge.
2. The conversion of any multi -family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi -family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program, even when there is
no demolition of the existing multi -family dwelling unit.
STAFF FINDING: The proposed timeshare lodge's affordable housing mitigation complies
with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code and APCHA's affordable housing
requirements.
E. Parking Requirements.
1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be. calculated by
applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The
parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed
lock out rooms in the development.
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest
transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an alternative
to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a
parking space on -site when the owner is not using that estate.
STAFF FINDING: The parking provided is based on the total number of lock -off rooms
proposed (60 spaces for 60 .lock -off rooms). The PUD Agreement and timeshare
instruments will prohibit the owners of timeshare estates from storing their vehicles on site
when not in residence and the PUD Agreement will also require the provision of van service
for the use of owners and guests.
F. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of
timeshare estates shall be governed by the real estate. laws set forth in Title 12,
Article 61, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and
licensed marketing entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare
development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall not
be permitted:
P45
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street, mall, or
other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead potential
purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to
visit a timeshare development is penmitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen
economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants
in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are
permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not
permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that the
purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of receiving
the gifts; and
C. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to attend a
sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on the gift being
offered.
STAFF FINDING: The above requirements will be incorporated into the PUD Agreement and
timeshare instruments.
G. Adequacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be
appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and
continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will
be provided, and shall also address the following requirements:
l . A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve any
fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare development,
to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that
management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately.
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that
the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its
lifetime.
STAFF FINDING: The above requirements will be incorporated into the PUD Agreement and
timeshare instruments.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title
-?s-
P46
12, Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.;
including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a
sales contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow.
STAFF FINDING: The timeshare instruments to be submitted with the applicant's final PUD
application will comply with the above requirements.
L Approval By Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the
owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development,
including any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may
propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed
timeshare development, and that all condominium units in the timeshare
development will be included in the same sales and marketing program.
STAFF FINDING: The standard does not apply, as the applicant is not converting an existing
condominium to timeshare.
J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement
contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any
of the following practices:
1. The creation, operation or sale of a right -to -use interest or any other timeshare
concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the requirements
of this section. Right -to -use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease -holds and vacation clubs)
are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval,
timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement.
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who
may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest.
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in
violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant
hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter, or
an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter.
STAFF FINDING: The applicant maintains that they will not engage in any of the above
practices and that these restrictions will be included in the timeshare instruments.
P47
ExHIBIT C
SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT — STAFF FINDINGS
A. General In the review of a development application for a conceptual
development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council shall consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
STAFF FINDING: Staff believes that the amendment to the Special Planned Area to allow a
non-confonning parcel with respect to minimum lot size to be subdivided will help the
overall development to be compatible with surrounding development in terms of land use,
density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
STAFF FINDING: According to City Engineering and the applicable utility departments, there
exist sufficient public facilities and roads to service the proposed development. Where there
may not be sufficient facilities, the applicant agrees to upgrade those facilities to meet the
applicable standard.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow,
rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
STAFF FINDING: The parcel is generally suitable for development with regard to the hazards
listed above. The final engineered grading and drainage plans will make recommendations,
if any, to properly mitigate any hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land -planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
STAFF FINDING: Although the structure does not violate any restricted view planes, the
development will, to a great extent, preserve the majority of the existing views and will not
greatly extend above surrounding structures. Regarding environmental impacts, there will
be significant excavation to the hillside for the building and the removal of most of the
existing vegetation; however, after development is complete and new landscaping is
installed, ,the site will not appear to have been "adversely" impacted. Because the building
has been designed to step up the hillside, at least as it will appear above grade, it is our
opinion that the overall appearance of the site will not be greatly altered from what it is
today. Public open space in the form of the outdoor decks and privates open space is
-30-
P48
proposed, a ski trail easement across the upper portion of the property will be maintained
and improvement and enhancement of Dean Avenue into a mixed use, pedestrian walkway
is planned.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: As is indicated in the findings for PUD, staff believes that the proposed
development is in general compliance with the AACP with regard to all of its applicable
policies.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
STAFF FINDING: No expenditure of public funds to provide public facilities to this parcel is
contemplated or anticipated.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2).
STAFF FINDING: The proposed development meets the slope reduction and density
requirements of the Section cited above.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
STAFF FINDING: The development has sufficient GMQS allotments or exemptions through
existing GMQS allotments from the Tippler Townhomes Subdivision, the conversion of
residential reconstruction credits to tourist lodge units, Residential Multi -Family
Replacement Program, and replacement of demolished commercial space.
P49
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD
Eric Cohen opened the public hearing for the Residences at Little Nell. David
Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice was provided, the commission had
jurisdiction to proceed. Cohen noted that with a project of this magnitude there
were specifics to this meeting on architecture, building height, building mass, site
planning, setbacks, parking, off -site improvements, urban design and open space.
David Hoefer commented that there would not be a final vote on any issue tonight.
Joyce Ohlson noted the Planning & Zoning Commission went on a site visit today
Scott Woodford stated that this was a two-step process, after P&Z there will be a
Council meeting and then final review with P&Z and Council. Woodford
submitted letters from the public from Michael Johns, Debbi and Steve Falender
and Joe Raczak into the record. Woodford said that the issues related to
affordable housing would be discussed on the 7`' of January along with rezoning,
time-share and any outstanding items not covered.
Woodford stated that this PUD was to (1) establish the open space and building
height requirements for the proposed lodge, (2) to allow time-share lodge
development, (3) establish the.non-conforming dimensional standards for the
single-family residences as conforming, (4) establish the non -conforming parcel of
land to be conveyed to the applicant by the Aspen Skiing Company as a
conforming parcel. The growth management quota system exemptions requests
are for residential reconstruction credits to tourist accommodation units,
replacement of demolished units under the Residential Multifamily Replacement
Program and reconstruction of existing commercial square footage. These
exemptions will provide the development rights for the time-share lodge units and
commercial space. Subdivision is required to carve off the piece of land owned by
the Aspen Skiing Company to be transferred to this site as well as for approval for
the time-share units. The time-share units will be divided into 1/7 undivided
partial interests and it is necessary that they meet the time-share criteria. Parking
for the affordable housing is established under special review; several rezonings
are contemplated, the SkiCo portion is proposed to be rezoned from Conservation
to Commercial Lodge; Condominiumization is required. The current residential
units being demolished are zoned LT-R and the proposal changes them to
Commercial Lodge. The Specially Planned Area of the Little Nell Subdivision is
to be amended and an 8040 Greenline Review is required.
Sunny Vann explained the basic site and parameters of the application. The
applicant was CWA, LLC a limited liability formed for the purpose of
development and management of this property. The owner of the land was Aspen
Land Fund with CWA, a group of investors composed of Centurion Partners, a
limited liability company out of New Port Beach; Westpac, Aspen LLC, which is
4
P50
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3 2002
a development company out of San Luis Obispo; Aspen Blue Sky Holdings, which
is an Aspen entity with Brooke Peterson, as representative.
CWA assembled a number of the parcels, Tipple Inn, Tippler nightclub, Tippler
parking lot, Tipple Lodge, the Anderman residence, Westpac residence and Jacoby
residence. The applicant will acquire a parcel of land from the Aspen Skiing
Company and also operate the resulting time-share lodge as an extension of the
Little Nell Hotel. Any other operator could operate .the time-share lodge but they.
prefer the Aspen Skiing Company. Vann stated that they would voluntarily merge
all the properties and, then subdivide into 3 separate lots. The bulk of the property
is presently LT-R, the Ski Company parcel is Conservation with the lower portion
had an SPA overlay, which was placed when the Gondola Plaza and Little Nell
Hotel were developed.
Vann stated that the 30-unit time-share lodge incorporated the new time-share
regulations with one free-market owner from Tipple Inn that won't be part of the
time-share, which will be a whole ownership unit. The rest of the units will be
fractional. 2 single-family residences will remain with an amendment to their lot
boundaries to make them conform to facilitate future ownership. The applicant
will modify Dean Avenue to increase pedestrian friendliness by removing the
hump in the street and landscape from the Gondola Plaza, which will enhance the
pedestrian access. There will be commercial retail space like the Little Nell with
extensive public facilities, 2 restaurants and an outdoor plaza with a seamless flow
of people from the Ski Area Base to the public areas of this -facility. When the
owners don't use their unit they will be available for nightly rental to the public at
large. Vann stated that they would relocate the base of the Little Nell ski lift
slightly to the east of the Gondola building, to accommodate the outdoor areas of
their facility. Vann said lowering Dean Avenue will help the North of Nell
commercial spaces and to enhance their pedestrian right of way.
Scott Writer added there is a ski trail access to Durant, which will remain, be
maintained and expanded across the slope as part of this proposal.
Bill Poss, architect, introduced Kim Weil, and Michael Hamberg from his firm
and Alan Gray from OTAK. Poss discussed the architecture and the urban design
with the project on the ridge. Poss said that there was good access to the gondola
and gondola plaza with retail space; the design was to create more public and
pedestrian space in gondola plaza, restaurant and apeas ski bar to create more life
at the base of the mountain. There will be a parking garage under the building
with auto access off of Galena Street.
Poss said there was an auto lobby and check -in space and although the building
was residential it also operates as a hotel. There were 4 affordable housing --units
J
P51
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002
and spaces for the residential units; 2 story lobby space with a club lounge on the
second floor with steps and ramps. There were multilevels of residences, 3 levels
below grade and 2 levels of parking. The description from floor plan was
provided. Poss said that the design adds interest and vitality to the community
with the rich history of Aspen mining by using patina and red sandstone and
rubble rock from the site. Poss described and utilized drawings to describe the
elements of the buildings and relationships to the community. There will be a
waterfall feature with boulders from the site. Vann said that there would be few
visual impacts from town as a whole because of the site going up the hillside, as
viewed from the easterly portion of Galena; the height on Dean was reduced to 3
stories.
Poss stated that the Dean Avenue side was considered the identity level with the
restaurant and apres ski bar and possible second restaurant; the building steps back
as it goes up the hill with ski in and out on both sides.
Vann described the lockout units with multi bedrooms that could be rented out
independently with different configurations. Vann stated that there would be a
model for the next meeting for the massing of the surrounding properties.
Scott Woodford stated that staff liked the modulation of the facades. Staff
concerns included the building height, using all of the allowed FAR for site in the
zone district, the zone district allows a 2 to 1 FAR. The upper portion height is at
56 feet, but it is orientated towards the ski area side. There were concerns for the
setbacks on the west property line and to establish a different type of open space
requirement to the orientation of the street. The parking requirements meet code
at one space per unit.
Joyce Ohlson provided information on the conceptual PUD with 4 steps; P&Z
makes the recommendations to City Council. Council reviews the concept;
conceptual only means that the project can proceed to submit a final plan for
review with very specifics addressed at that time.
Ron Erickson asked if the heights were 40 feet or 56 feet. Vann replied that the
finished grade at the building was 56 feet. Kim Well said the heights on the
Galena side were higher. Vann said the heights vary on every elevation depending
on the grade and elevation.
Bert Myrin was concerned with the height, mass, setbacks, parking and asked how
much these were being increased by developing the property as a PUD. Vann
responded that new PUD dimensional requirements were established using the
underlying zone district as a guide. The proposed underlying district is CL with a
28 or 32 feet as the guide in determining the height of the building. Vann said that
6
P52
ASPEN -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002
the basis for the hotel lodge was that it was more appropriate for this site. There
was a chart on page 21 of the staff report that shows the different dimensional
requirements. Myrin asked about decks towards the ski slopes. Weil replied that
every unit had a deck. Myrin said that there would be noise and impacts from
parking proposed and asked how they would be mitigated. Vann replied that the
site was extremely constrained but the parking would be valet parking meeting the.
parking requirement from the code. The use -of the garage should be less than the
typical condominium project because of the location. Myrin asked if the view
from Dean Street would cause a canyon effect. Vann replied the benefits
outweigh the disadvantages for the development of a condominium; there will be a
covered walkway over the retail.
Roger Haneman asked the interior height of the restaurant and the reason for such
a tall roof. Kim Well responded than the restaurant roof height was to be able to
look up the mountain and pointed at Bell Mountain; the roof was 25-28 feet.
Vann said that it forms an architectural anchor. Scott Writer replied that it helps
revitalize the area.
Dylan Johns asked about the landscaping plan on the ski slope side; on page 26
the new grades were shown higher than the existing grades. Well responded that
the intent was to take the height down; the landscape architect said it was to be
lower. Johns asked if the upper part of the slope was being controlled by the ski
easement and how the terraced space was affected. Vann replied that the ski
easement was at this spot (utilizing a map) and that they moved the ski lift over
closer to the buildings. Vann said there would be mitigation for the loss of trees
with the city's tree mitigation program.
Erickson asked if Lot 2 & 3 were non -conforming and what happened if they
became conforming? Ohlson replied that if they remained non -conforming there
were limitations to how much they could expand. Vann responded that the
conforming issue was to remove the stigma of non -conformity for finance
purposes and other considerations; there was no intent to increase the development
potential over what existed; the same setbacks, height, FAR would be part of the
approval. Vann said that the development potential would be established as part
of the PUD approval. Vann stated that exact building heights on the single
family's would be of record at final; if the residences were to be expanded in the
future the PUD would have to be amended. Erickson requested more information
on Lots 2 & 3.
Eric Cohen stated the applicant said Dean Avenue right-of-way would be a
pedestrian walkway for the new entrance to the building; he asked how the
pedestrian/auto mix would flow. Vann replied that it was not a vacated right-of-
way, there was parking located there and emergency vehicle access with a 20-foot
7
P53
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 312002
clear corridor between the trees. Vann answered that there was a pedestrian area
that was the same as Regis where vehicles cross the pedestrian corridors; the
public access mitigating factor was controlled by the valet parking. Vann said that
just like the Little Nell there would be bollards at the entrance to Dean Avenue
with less traffic than what was there today. Cohen stated that he thought there
would be more cars, because of the Grand Aspen and the number of people going
there, and an increase in the number of service vehicles. Scott Writer said that
there was validity to what he said but they were trying to bring in a hotbed proj ect
on this location. Vann stated that they could take another look at the concern with
a signage program or look at north side of the right-of-way maybe with the
pedestrian Cohen recommended that rather than have the Valet parking coming
through Dean Avenue and back onto Galena and then underground, maybe the
traffic should flow the other way from the Main Entrance to where the additional 3
parking spaces were located, then the valet vehicles would never have to go back
onto Dean and Galena.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue this meeting to 7:30 pm;
seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 5-0.
Public comments:
Lisa Blake, public, said that this looks like a great project and is needed for town;
this was an amenity that we can all use.
Lennie Oates, public, stated that he was counsel for North of Nell Condominium
Association. Oates agreed with Eric Cohen's comment on the traffic flow and that
the traffic flow should at least go clockwise rather than counter. clockwise. Oates
said that he wanted to make sure that all of the issues are open for discussion on
Jan 7`h. Oates asked to clarify the height of restaurant 25-28 feet at an inside
height; he asked what the exterior height was at the very northeast corner. Oates
asked when the 8040 Greenline would be discussed. Ohlson replied the 8040
Greenline Review would be at final review. Oates stated that there would need to
be careful consideration paid to structural issues relating to the re -grading of Dean
Street because it would go right up to the building structure of the North of Nell;
the re -grading could have potential damage to North of Nell and needed to -be
handled carefully; he requested reviewing the plans on that issue.
Steve Falender, public, utilized Galena Street drawings to show his residence that
abuts the site; his letter was included in the packet. Falender asked about the
development potential with the proposed CL zoning rather than what would be
allowed with the current LTR zoning; he said the comparison was essential in this
project. Falender said that the slope was 30%; he spoke of the construction of the
site impacting the surrounding existing buildings. He said 35% was currently
conservation. Falender wanted a comparison of LTR to CL; he said that there was
s
P54
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3 2002
no relationship of the*mass of the building to the setbacks. Falender voiced
concern for the impacts of this project on the adjacent properties and the lack of
fire access to the one end of the site with a confined area.
Cohen reiterated the questions from the public regarding the exterior height of the
northeast corner at the restaurant. Kim Well replied that on page 24 of the staff
report the height was five feet below the ridge at 40 feet 6 inches from re -graded
Dean Street.
Cohen asked if staff could show the difference between the allowable height and
FAR glven the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning. Woodford replied that
Mr. Falender actually wanted the actual square footage and number of living units;
the impacts from construction and emergency access were guided by fire code and
building code. Vann replied that a detailed engineering plan will be provided to
the North of Nell Condominium Association and could be in the conditions of
approval.
Myrin asked where the access for service was located. Vann replied the access for
delivery and service was through the garage where there was a loading dock.
Cohen stated that the clockwise entrance was a better solution in conjunction with
the concerns of the North of Nell.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on the
Residences at the Little Nell to January 07, 2003; seconded by Bert
Myrin. APPROVED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
9
P55
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD
Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Residences at Little Nell.
David Hoefer noted that a letter from the Aspen Alps, Pamela Cunningham, was
placed into the public record. The applicant provided a model of the area.
Scott Woodford reviewed the issues from the December 3r1 meeting beginning
with the character of the architecture, the design and height of the restaurant
portion of the project with a ridge height at 45 feet, 56-foot high on another
portion of the building, the massing and FAR with the proposed 2-1 ratio, the
minimum height was 32 feet, neighbors concerned about building being too large
at 110,000 square foot building, the setback of 8 feet being. too close to the
neighboring building, open space requirement with regards to the street, site
planning, traffic flow, mitigation for pedestrian vehicular conflicts at the porte
cochere at Galena, affordable housing parking, construction management
precautions and non -conforming single-family residences. New issues were the
affordable housing, rezoning and time-share.
Sunny Vann commented that the architecture was an appropriate way to deal with
the difficult site; Kim Well could discuss the character. Vann said that height of
the restaurant was a concern to the North of Nell Homeowners Association; there
was an attempt made to reduce the impact on Dean Avenue of the building by
recessing the building from the street front. The upper level was setback from the
facade; the roof of the third level was the same height as the North of Nell. The
restaurant was to have a visually inviting plaza area. Vann said that an acceptable
condition would be to continue to study the visual impacts of that roof on that
portion of that building. Vann stated that the average building height was 42 feet
with a portion at 56 feet in which a height variance would be required; they were
not prepared to change the height at this time. The mass and size was at a 2 to 1
ratio; similar to the buildings established in the surrounding area and large enough
to make this a financially viable project with the wide variety of amenities. Vann
said that moving the ski lift at their expense to accommodate the outside amenities
would change the setback issue along the upper Southwest portion of the building;
he said .that they exceed the city open space requirement but the definition of how
open space was calculated by dimension was not met. Vann noted the change in
the traffic flow and porte cochere on behalf of North of Nell. Vann said that there
was enough parking for the affordable housing, free-market and commercial and
construction management would be satisfied. The non -conforming homes would
conform to the zoning requirements after re -zoning; there would be no additional
expansion capabilities for those 2 homes. The final PUD for the dimensional
requirements would be complete with a survey.
Lennie Oates, public, stated that he represented the North of Nell Condominium
Association; the concern was with the signature building height. Oates noted that
a portion of the building was located in the Conservation zone district. The
3
o
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7 2003
conservation zone was to provide areas of low -density development, to develop
public recreation, conserve natural resources and contain urban development.
Oates stated that they were not opposing the general development but rather this
specific aspect of it, which would set forth that there have been any changed
circumstances which would dictate that they would be able to develop their
property under the existing zoning.
Pamela Cunningham, public, general manager of the Aspen Alps, stated that her
letter was submitted into the public record. Cunningham said that there were 2
major concerns for the excavation and drainage contained therein. Cunningham
also stated concern for the shipping and receiving service area.
Steve Falendar, public, 712 South Galena, stated that he agreed with Lennie Oates
comments. Falendar was also concerned about the massing of the buildings and
the soil stability on the site; he asked for some protection during the construction
process. Falendar stated concern for the reduction in the side yard setback
between the south end of the building and the single-family houses, which directly
impacts their light and views. Falendar said that 56 feet was high and the 42-foot
average was too big.
Peter Thomas, public, representing the Galena Place Townhomes, stated that
Galena Place sat directly to the west of this project. Thomas stated that the
objections were the height and the setbacks; Galena Place was 8 feet away at one
point from the proposed structure. Thomas said that they were happy about the
staff sensitivity to the site. Thomas stated that the PUD language in the code was
that underlying zone districts shall be used as a guide; he echoed Mr. Falendar's
comments on 56 feet being twice the underlying zone district allowable height.
Eric Cohen asked for clarification regarding the location of the service and
receiving. Vann responded that it was designed as a loading/service dock from
Galena Street within the parking garage with service elevators. Vann said that
there was a so-called tunnel under the Gondola building to provide shared use
from the Little Nell Hotel.
Ruth Kruger asked for clarification on the property line by the steps from the
Tippler. Kim Weil, Bill Poss Associates, stated that the steps would be taken
away and the property would be acquired from SkiCo. Kruger asked the access to
the landlocked lot #2 and where the conservation piece was located. Well replied
that it was through the building. Vann responded that the SkiCo owned the parcel
of land that the Little Nell hotel, Hunter Street and up to the east side *of this
project was located on with a SPA overlay. Vann stated that a portion of the hotel
was zoned CC commercial and the rest was C conservation. They received SPA
approval to build the hotel, gondola and commercial space below it then
4
.P57
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
subdivided into 2 lots. Vann explained that the land acquired from the .SkiCo was
a strip on the east side of the project, the restaurant portion, the land under the
outdoor terrace area and a portion of residence building. Vann further explained
that the majority of the zoning was LTR and the commercial space on the Dean
Street right-of-way is not a permitted use in the LTR zone district; the CL zone
district (North of Nell) permits both lodging and commercial space; they propose
to rezone everything except the 2 single-family homes CL. The allowable FAR in
the CL zone is 2 to 1; the allowable FAR in the LTR zone is I to 1. Vann noted
that the simplest approach was to rezone everything CL.
The commission agreed that the architectural character was acceptable. The
design/height of the restaurant was not acceptable (4-2). The location was
acceptable to the commission. The overall building height at 56 feet from grade to
the peak and 53 feet higher up the slope was not acceptable to the commission.
The commission did not support the size of the building (5-1). The proposed
setback from the neighbors at 8 feet was not acceptable (5-1) to the commission.
Open space was a non -issue for the commission as proposed. The site plan
orientation was acceptable to the commission. The traffic flow because of the
parking problems to the garage with the circulation was a problem for the
commission and more review was requested for the porte cochere on Galena. The
orientation of the building on the site in general was acceptable to the commission.
The parking was acceptable as proposed. The engineering plans were of concern
to the neighbors; the engineering plans being made available to the public was
acceptable to the commission. The non -conforming structures on Lots 2 and 3
would be brought into conformance by establishing the dimensional requirements,
which was acceptable to the commission.
Sunny Vann said the restaurant was 8,000 square feet divided between two floors;
Jasmine Tygre stated that the restaurant did not have to have that height if it were
redesigned. Ruth Kruger said that she did not feel that 42 feet was all that high in
that location because it was only a few feet taller than the North of Nell with
greater mass. Eric Cohen stated concern for the over all height variances, which
seemed to significantly impact the neighbors. Tygre said that the building was
very large and if there were variations in rooflines with towers it might be more
attractive; right now the buildings were excessive in height. Roger Haneman said
that the overall building was about 20% too large.
Vann explained that the model calculations were taken from the city's GIS. Vann
said one way to solve the problem of the buildings being too close was to move
the building to the east, which would solve the Galena Place setback problem and
Mr. Falendar's setback problems. Dylan Johns stated that shifting the building
would be a better solution. Bert Myrin stated concern for shifting the building
into the conservation space.
5
P58
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003
Vann stated that the garage would not be redesigned but rather conditioned in the
resolution and forwarded to council. The resolution would be updated to reflect
the changes from each public hearing. Several commissioners would go with staff
on a site visit prior to the next meeting.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on the
Residences at Little Nell to January 21, 2003; seconded by Ruth
Kruger. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AMENDMENT, GMQS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OFF -SITE REPLACEMENT SPECIAL REVIEW
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 1000 E. Hopkins PUD Amendment,
Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing,. Off -Site Replacement
of Employee Housing Mitigation, and Special Review to Vary ADU Design
Standards. David Hoefer stated that two notices were provided.
James Lindt explained that Bob Blatt submitted the application for an amendment
to 1000 East Hopkins PUD, amendment to the GMQS exemption for offsite
replacement of affordable housing mitigation and a special review to vary the
ADU design standards. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council. The
applicant requested removal of a deed -restriction in the 1000 East Hopkins
building, deed restrict a replacement unit in the Ajax Condominium Building as a
Category 4 for sale unit and to deed restrict the unit in the 1000 East Hopkins
Building as an ADU. Staff felt there was community benefit gaining an additional
affordable unit and the Ajax unit was a more livable unit but the proposal does not
meet the review standards for off -site replacement of affordable housing because it
would be incompatible with the adopted neighborhood plan as a review standard
for off -site replacement. Staff had concerns about the retaining wall in need of
repair at Ajax Condominium. If the off -site unit were approved there was concern
about the assessment to repair the retaining wall; a condition was proposed for an
amended condition to require the applicant to provide escrow money to cover any
future costs incurred by repair of the retaining wall based on a private engineer
hired by the applicant to provide a cost estimate. Staff did not support the
proposal because it did not meet the off -site replacement conditions.
Francis Krizmanich, applicant representative, said that there were 4 free-market
units and 4 deed -restricted units; the free-market owners had the right of first
refusal to purchase the employee units associated with their units. Krizmanich
said that three of the employee units were sold as employee deed -restricted units;
the fourth unit below Mr. Blatt's was different from a site design perspective.
Krizmanich noted the access was separate from the other units and was the only
rental unit; they did not feel that it functioned well as an employee rental unit but
6
P59
w
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning & Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee
THRU: Julie Anri Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director .
FROM: James Lindt, Planner
RE: 1390 and 1392 Snowbunny Lane Garage Door Variances
DATE: January 21, 2003
APPLICANT: Alice Brien, Represented by
Ed Daniels.
PARCEL ID: 273 5-013-11-007
ADDRESS: 1390 and 1392
Snowbunny Lane
ZONING: R-15 (Medium Density Residential)
CURRENT LAND USE: New Duplex
PRO I>OSED LAND USE: The applicant is
seeking a variance from the residential
design standards to allow for both units of
the newly constructed duplex to maintain
double stall garage doors. The residential
design standards that are established in Land
Use Code Section 26.410 require that any
residential use that does not have access from
an alley or private road shall have single -stall
garage doors.
Above Photo: View of the westernmost
garage door from Cemetery Lane.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant, Alice Brien, seeks a variance from Section 26.410, Residential Design
Standards to allow for double stall garage doors at 1390 and 1392 Snowbunny Lane (See
Exhibit A for a description of the specific standard.) All applications for appeal from the
Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review
standards in order for the Plaiuzing and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review
Appeals Committee (DRAG) to grant an exception, namely the proposal must:
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
P61
b) Nlore effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds
to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific
constraints.
Background:
Alice Brien ("Applicant"), represented by Ed Daniels of EJD Enterprises ("Contractor"), are
requesting approval for a variance from the Residential Design Standards. Specifically, the
applicant is requesting a variance from the following standard:
Section 26.41.0.040(C)(2)(f) Park-ing, Garages and Carports. For all residential uses that
do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met:
The garage doors shall be single stall doors.
The applicant has received approval of building permit plans (see approved site plan attached
as Exhibit "B") that show the garage doors on both sides of the proposed duplex as
containing single stall garage doors as the residential design standards require. Double stall
garage doors were constructed on both units as can be seen in the photo included at the
beguiling of this memorandum. The applicant feels that the approved configuration of the
garages will not allow for a safe turning radius out of the garage stalls. Therefore, the
applicant requests a variance from the residential design standards to allow for the garage
doors to be maintained as double stall garage doors with the appearance of single stall doors.
Staff Comments:
The vehicle entrance to the newly constructed duplex is located off of Snowburuzy Lane. The
driveway swings around the easternmost side of the duplex and enters the garages from the
north as can be seen on the site plan that is included in the application. The entryway to the
two garages faces the rear of the property. Thus, practically speaking the driveway acts in a
similar fashion as an alley and the garage doors are not going to be seen extensively from
either Cemetery Lane or Snowbunn_y Lane. Therefore, staff does not believe that proposed
double stall garage doors are contrary to the intent of the "Parking, Garages and Carport"
standards which are intended to "minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and
automobile by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence
of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist".
Furthermore, the garage doors have been designed in a manner that gives them .the outward
appearance of being two (2) single stall garage doors.
For information purposes, the Cemetery Lane Character Area Plan that was adopted by City
Council in 2001 included a survey of some of the Cemetery Lane Residents regarding the
appropriateness of certain residential design standards. The above -mentioned survey
included a question that asked the residents if they felt that the single stall garage door
requirement was appropriate for the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. The survey results
indicated that a majority of the residents that were surveyed felt that the single stall garage
door requirement was not appropriate and in character for the Cemetery Lane neighborhood.
2
P62
Nonetheless, the single stall garage door standard still exists in the land use code and
currently applies to all residential properties within the City of Aspen. As has traditionally
been the case,* staff finds it difficult to support a residential design standards variance request
on a lot that is not substandard and is greater than 15,000 square feet. Therefore, staff does
not feel that the proposed variance application technically meets the review standards to vary
the residential design standards. Staff believes that there are no site -specific constraints on
the property that would necessitate the need to grant a variance for the garage doors. The site
is relatively flat and contains more than the required minimum lot area in the R-15 Zone
District in which it is located.
Moreover, staff does not feel that the proposed variance better addresses the issue that the
garage related residential design standards respond to. Staff acla-mowledges that the applicant
does appear to have a turning radius problem in accessing the garages that would be
alleviated by allowing for the double stall garage doors to be maintained. However, the need
for the variance has been created by the design of the residence. Staff feels that the applicant
could have pushed more of the above grade square footage in the westermmnost unit towards
Snowbunny Lane, which would have made allowances for the garages to be setback further
from the rear property line and would have given more turning room for entry into the
garages. Staff cannot support the proposed variance requests because we do not feel that the
application technically meets the standards for granting relief from the residential design
standards.
STAFF RECONIMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
RECOMMENDED MOTION ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. D'S-, Series of 2003, approving a variance from
Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall garage doors to be maintained on the
garages at 1390 and 1392 SnowbumuZy Lane finding that the review standards have been
meet".
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Approved Building Permit Plans
Exhibit C -- Application and Plans
P63
Resolution No._-.(15
(SERIES OF 2003)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE TO ALLOW
FOR DOUBLE STALL GARAGE DOORS AT 1390 AND 1392 SNOWBUNNY LANE,
LOT 1, BLOCK 2, SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Prcrcel No. 2735-013-11-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alice Brien, seeking a variance from Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards,
requesting relief from the single stall garage door requirement for 1390 and 1392 Snowbunny
Lane, Lot 1, Block 2, of the Snowburmy Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property contains 16,662 sq. ft. and is improved with a
duplex and two accessory dwelling units; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's proposed application for
compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and
found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with the residential design
standard set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410(C)(2)(t), Garage; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an
application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with
any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the
application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to
Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
applicant stibinitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen
Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to garages; and.
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of
Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the
Plaiming and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee or other
decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must:
a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds
to; or
c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints;
!I
WHEREAS, the Com1hunity Development Director, after review of the requested
variance, recommended approval of the requested variance from the residential design
standards to allow for double stall garage doors; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on January 21,
2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee,
approved variances from the single stall garage door standard of Section 26.410.040(C)(2) of
the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards for Lot 1, Block 2,
of the Snowbunny Subdivision by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
,Section 1
That the proposed variance from the single stall garage door residential design standard for
the duplex located at 1390 and 1392 Snowbirnny Lane, is hereby approved pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2), to allow for the double stall garage doors to be
maintained on both duplex units.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 21, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS
COMMITTEE:
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
Plarming and Zoning Cornrnission
5
P65
ExHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the
Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
26.410.040 Parking,, Garages and Carports
The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the
potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parkinb G
arages,
and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part
of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. The code specifically indicates that for all
residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards
shall be met:
f. The garage dooms shall be single stall doors.
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, staff makes the following findings:
a) If granted, the exception would yield greater compliance with the
Goals of the AACP; and,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the variance being requested from the single stall garage door
requirement does not vary in this situation from the intent of the residential standards that
speak to garages and carports. In this situation, the double stall garage doors face the rear
of the property and cannot be viewed from Snowbunny Lane and can only slightly be seen
from Cemetery Lane. However, staff does not feel that allowing for the double stall
garage doors to remain will yield greater compliance with the goals of the AACP than
would providing single stall garage doors' to meet the requirement on the site. Staff does
not believe that this criterion is met by the proposal.
b) More effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard
Zn
or provision responds to; or,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed variance to allow for the double stall garage doors does not
negatively affect the duplex's compliance with the intent of the garage related residential
design standards. The subject garages face the rear of the property and cannot be seen from
either Snowbuluiy Lane or Cemetery Lane. The intent of the residential design standards
relating to garages is to ensure that the location and design of a garage is such that it does not
6
'o.
become the focal point of the street facing facades of a residence. Staff does not believe that
in this situation the proposed double stall garage doors have considerable interaction with the
street. However, staff cannot make a finding that granting the variance will more effectively
address the issue that the garage related design standards respond to than if the applicant had
met the single stall garage door standard on the site. Therefore, staff does not believe that
this criterion is met by the proposal. .
c) Is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the site contains any unusual site specific constraints given that it
is relatively flat and contains more than the minimum amount of lot area that is required by
the underlying R-15 Zone District. Staff feels that the turtling radius problem has been
created by the design of the duplex. Staff believes that the applicant could have fit the same
amount of square footage on the site, created more room to turn into the garages at the rear of
the duplex, and still complied with the required setbacks by pushing the westernmost duplex
unit closer to Snowburnly Lane. .Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is met by
the proposal.
VA
P67