Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060117 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 2 BOOMERANG SOUTH REZONING ...................................................................10 CASTLE CREEK LOT SPLIT & PUD AMENDMENT....................................... 11 1 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 pm with members Steve Skadron, Dylan John, Ruth Kruger, Mary Liz Wilson and Jasmine Tygre present. Brian Speck arrived at 4:45pm. Brandon Marion, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger were excused. Staff present were Joyce Allgaier and Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Steve Skadron inquired about the Fox Crossing Parking; it appeared on Lone Pine Road the parking was dedicated to construction parking. Chris Bendon stated there was discussion that parking be located on Lone Pine rather than Race. Skadron asked why the need for construction parking superseded the need for public parking; why couldn't they just put the parking on the development. Bendon replied that in some cases they can park on site and in others they can't. Skadron asked if there was a condition of approval on the Mocklin Property about the non-removal of native grasses. Bendon said that they will ask the Parks Department. Skadron complimented RFTA on the extraordinary job that they do especially with the weather. Skadron noted the sidewalk where the Galena Street Shuttle crossed over was a sheet of ice. Jasmine Tygre said that the meeting with City Council turned out to be the impact fee discussion, which was valuable but she thought there should be a meeting to address the wish list from P&Z. P&Z will talk about the issues and concerns first and staff could help with the discussion. The commission chose to postpone the approval of the minutes from 11/29/05; 12/13/05; 12/06/05; 01/03/06. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns said there was a potential conflict on the Castle Creek Lot Split. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 11/29/05): SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Sky Hotel Redevelopment. Chris Bendon recapped that the current development contained 45,000 square feet of development; 21 parking spaces; 5600 square feet of commercial space with the new project having 90 hotel units in a building of 2 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - J anuarv 17, 2006 103,0000 square feet; 10 free-market residential units; 3 affordable residential units; 62 underground parking spaces; 3700 square feet of accessory commercial space. Bendon noted there was a site visit today with Jasmine, Steve and Brian; the 2 Chateau buildings and the Aspen Alps were represented as well as the applicant. Bendon commented they met on the Durant side and talked about the bulb-out landscape area on Durant, the entrance ramp into the parking garage, the setbacks along the alley for the Sky project and the Chateau buildings, the Alps parking physically located on the Sky property with an agreement, existing heights on site and surrounding the project. Bendon said that there was a question about Dean Street being a street or an alley; it is in fact an alleyway from research from the original townsite, which platted this as a 20 foot wide unnamed right-of-way. Bendon said to the west it was a 50 foot wide street from Gondola Plaza west. Bendon said that there was argument that the Chateau buildings were developed with their front to the alleyway but that doesn't create any legal standing, it was just a matter of the way that they configured their buildings. Bendon said that the cull de sack could be cleaned up with a partnership with the city and the Sky, Alps and Little Nell; if the parties think that it was a good idea it should be passed along to Council. Bendon said it wasn't this applicant's soul responsibility for a better pedestrian experience. Bendon said staff did not believe that the Sky was grandfathered for former rights- of-way that were attributed to lot area for the purposes of development rights. Bendon said the change in the code in 1975 did not attribute lot area but since that was 30 years ago there was no grandfathering or reliance from that long ago. Bendon said there were questions about the architecture studies provided by the neighbors but staff was not able to provide much guidance on that; it was hard to gauge where the setbacks were on these renderings. Bendon said there were questions about the loss of views and it was apparent the proposed building was taller than the existing building and there will be some loss of views from the adjacent properties. Bendon noted this was not an area where views were protected by the city and the applicant was not requesting any special consideration for setbacks. 3 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 Bendon said there were commercial design review criteria for the mechanical equipment on the roof; the equipment had to be either setback or screened from a pedestrian viewpoint. Bendon said that standard was met but there was a question about what could be seen from above being adjacent to the ski area. Bendon reiterated that the project was going through new code sections with commercial design review; the growth management review, which qualifies as an incentive lodge development that additional heights and FAR were allowed in the zoning. Bendon said the incentives were to encourage dense lodging in the lodge zone district. Bendon said the Conditional Use deals with the cafe, bar and retail space within the project. Bendon said the subdivision review was because the residential units technically qualify as a subdivision although lot lines were not being moved around. Bendon stated the remaining reviews were with City Council for the allocation, vested rights and condominization. Tygre asked for a criteria page for incentive lodge development. Bendon responded that there were criteria listed in the November memo and the zoning did not have criteria other than if the project meets the 500/500 requirement. Skadron asked for Bendon to state the 500/500 requirement again. Bendon responded that was a density standard; the incentive was to meet the goals to replenish the lodge rooms base. Skadron asked about the rights-of-way in relation to the lot area; it had to basically to do with what can be done on the lot. Tygre responded that it was what the allowable FAR was. Bendon replied that there was the gross lot size and you subtract former rights-of-way, vehicular easements, areas under high water line to get the net lot area, which is used to derive the property's development rights. Bendon said for example floor area ratio becomes derived from the lot area; in the 1960s Spring Street was vacated in exchange for moving Spring Street over to the west without a discussion or qualifier to the vacation. Bendon said that in 1975 the city became concerned with floor areas and development rights and there was a decision and an ordinance passed that former rights-of-way would be subtracted from the lot area; it would not apply to pre 1975 vacations. Bendon said that the 1961 and 1962 vacations that affect this property were not affected by that 1975 ordinance; that language carried through until 1988 at which time the pre 1975 exemption was dropped. Bendon said the initial discussions with Sunny included should there be a code amendment as part of the application that changed the 1988 change; there was a request from the applicant to change the 1961 - 1962 vacations so that the pre 1975 exemption would be restored just for this property. Skadron asked the impact on this application exactly. Sunny Vann responded the building that was there today could not be built. Bendon said they were talking about 1/3 of the development right was 4 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 affected. Vann explained the reason the 1975 exemption was there with the vacations on this property done in the 1950s and 1960s; the Hotel Jerome was a good example of the vacated right-of-way with the alley stopping at the Jerome property. Vann said the mid 1970s began the modern zoning regulations for FAR. Vann said the city did not loose a street but simply swapped the street to the current alignment with the jog. Skadron asked if there was a condition in the resolution. Bendon replied that it was iri Section 5 that required the building permitted show compliance with the lodge zone district including the lot area; Council will either amend that vacation and provide lot area back to the applicant or not. Vann said it was a moot point because if Council denys then the application would have to be withdrawn because it can't be processed and the site would be frozen to what was there today because it becomes a non-conforming structure with all the unintended consequences of that designation. Skadron asked the principal behind the new pedestrian amenity. Bendon responded the legislation stems from development in the early 1970s that people reacted to such as the North of Nell Building, the Aspen Square Building that essentially developed the whole site and there was a requirement put in place for open space (25% of each and every lot had to remain open to the sky with visual access). Bendon said that met the need quantitatively but not quantifiably creating dismal spaces, which detracted from the pedestrian experience; the city can determine if the 25% is met on site or through an outside solution. Bendon said it was more quality for the pedestrian experience. Sunny Vann stated the incentive lodge provision basically grew out of the old infill regulations in which they were trying to promote additional lodging development close to the mountain and the downtown core. Vann said the dimensional requirements of increased height and increased FAR that were adopted specifically contemplated adding more units without having to go through the planned unit development process. Vann said the lodge incentive program was deemed to be more appropriate community wide and addressed the fact that height and FAR would be increased in the downtown core and the area was designated subject to review under other criteria. Vann said this was the first project to come in under the new criteria with a specific decision made on behalf of the client to not use the PUD process so this project complies with the new dimensional requirements with the exception ofthis limitation on non-unit space, which was an unintended consequence not providing enough floor area for lobbies, corridors and those types of mechanical areas. Vann said that all of the lodge units were replacement lodge units and were taking advantage of the 25% of the project floor area for free- market residential, which was the incentive to make project viable and then they had to provide 30% of the free-market units as affordable housing therefore 3 on- 5 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 site affordable units were provided. Vann said all of the parking requirements were provided for the affordable housing, residential, commercial and lodge units. Vann said the small cafe space was an amenity with a lounge bar area. Vann said that if it were not for the Lodge Incentive Program this older lodge would not be in here because it could not be designed under the old 1: I lodge zone district, the mitigation would be onerous and would not work. Vann said the size was driven by the dimensional requirements for the zone district and the need to meet the 500 square foot density requirement, which requires 86-87 units to be put back onto the site. Vann said the street was the surrounding history of the lodge. Vann said the open space requirement was about 6% and they were about 25% not counting the proposed open space landscape improvements to the public right-of-way in the front portion of the building. Vann said there was a request to vacate about 30 feet of the alley, which was part of the old Spring Street right-of-way and a pragmatic solution to some issues but not be added to the floor area of the project. Vann said the alley vacation will not change accessibility for the adjacent properties and will not limit accessibility to their project. Vann stated since the last meeting there were a couple of changes to the project denoted on the site plan sheet #4 (application addendum), which shows the 10 by 30 foot strip of the alley that was proposed to be vacated. Vann said the original access ramp was 2 way and there were concerns raised regarding circulation in the alley; they went back and checked with the fire department and the fire marshall, who provided turning radius information and the ramp, was modified to a single lane (depicted on sheet #7 of the packet). This moved the existing circulation lane, right now people enter the garage by coming off of Durant turning right or left through what is not a parking lot into the alley and the parking spaces at the rear of the Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont, this moves that driving lane about 10 feet to the east but eliminates or provides an opportunity to do a landscape buffer (sheet #18) adjacent to the Chateau Dumont. Vann said they basically reduce the amount of circulation in that area back there and included a new landscaped area between our project and the adjacent Chateau Dumont. Bill Poss stated the fire lane was indicated; the ramp down to the garage has been narrowed down to the garage in the gray area; they have moved things over a little bit to allow for a two way or one way access in. Tygre asked how you got out. Poss said you enter this way and come out here. Vann explained that most of the ramps were one way for example that goes down to a lot ofthe hotels, there was a light that controls the ramp. Bendon replied that it was two ways but only one at a time, either up or down with the light. Poss said as a car approaches 6 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 the ramp in the garage a sensor puts a red light up so that another car cannot come down. Vann noted that it was Valet Park. Vann said that the ramp will function in either way for access and they think that there will be less opportunity for conflict if the one way was reversed and will go along with whatever recommendation the city engineer makes. Vann said that both directions will continue to maintain access to some surface parking spaces at the rear of the Chaumont and Dumont. Vann said the one other change was the way the pedestrians circulate along South Spring Street; currently the building comes right up to the curb and there was a revised drawing indicating the ability to provide a sidewalk in the current location and they would make their case to city council; either one works and they can do it either way. Vann said there was one significant enhancement on South Spring Street with activity with the access to the Aspen Alps, the delivery dock to the Little Nell Hotel and currently accessing the Sky Hotel's drop-off. Vann said this proposal brings a new covered entry at the north end of South Spring Street, which will reduce traffic at the south end of South Spring Street for drop-off and passenger drop-off purposes; it also enable them to queue cars underneath a Porte Cochere on their own property hopefully reducing further congestion on South Spring Street. Vann introduced the team: Bill Poss and Les the architects; Dave Myler the attorney; the owners' representatives Dave Jackson and Cheryl Jones. Vann remarked that they were asked to comment on the pictures of the alley generated by Michael Hoffman and his clients from the Chateau Dumont and Chaumont; it was difficult for them to duplicate the photos since they did not create them but they believe them to be generally representative of the fact that there will be a fairly tall building in the alley. Vann said the model that they have is much more indicative as to what was going to be built with the fenestration and decks and provide a clearer idea of what's going on in the alley. Steve Skadron asked to see the 15 foot area. Bendon responded the alleyway comes in and the elbow of the property. Vann noted that drawing #4 showed the area pretty well (a red cross hatched area). The public viewed the model and drawings. Skadron asked what happens to the property if this project doesn't gain approval. Vann replied that you would have to ask the owner but it was an ongoing maintenance situation on a deteriorating building with rooms that were too small to try to stay competitive in the market place. Skadron said he wanted to ask the 7 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 question differently to Chris; the underlying area was zoned incentive lodge, what is allowed there, if the Sky Hotel is no longer financially viable to the owner can they come under a PUD or SPA or something and ask to build 4 townhomes. Bendon replied that there was no limitation on what you can apply for but what was allowed in the lodge district; all of the regulations, now that the lodge district has been amended, are really geared to a lodge proposal. Bendon said the FAR for a free-market residential development was cut in half from what it was before so now it's at .5:1; it doesn't prevent someone from tearing it down and coming back in say they want to build a pure townhome project but none of the incentives exist and the FAR was severely limited. Vann said that they can only assume that if they came in and the FAR was .5 and they wanted to do a residential project increase it 2: 1 that you would laugh us out of the room. Dylan Johns asked if the existing development in the dimensional requirements chart under commercial space .13 was just interior. Bendon replied that was in the building so there was also the outdoor patio space not reflected in this number. Johns asked if that included kitchen space. Bendon replied that it did. Vann responded that net lease able was anything except storage, bathrooms, common circulation, and stairwells; everything else was net leaseable. All letters received to date were part of the packet materials. Public Comments: 1. Helmut Rhinehart, public, owner of Chateau Chaumont #8 said he owned the condo since 1972 with a view of the mountains and gondola; the value of the condo was with the mountain view. Rhinehart said that if this project goes through with the height his view is a wall of buildings; it was a big impact for his guests not to see the mountains. Rhinehart asked ifhis view counted or not. Tygre replied that this particular area does not have protected view planes under the new legislation the height of the building that they are asking for would be allowed by code. 2. Bruce Jeans, public, owner of Chateau Chaumont #19 said he became aware of these changes and can understand Council wants to improve density in parts of Aspen but the effect of these regulations on neighboring buildings was quite devastating. Jeans said the model showed the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont had their access from Dean Street and it was clear that with the 42 foot high wall down the side of Dean Street it become a canyon with no sunlight entering into it during the wintertime. Jeans said the total effect on the whole city was quite negative and put that to the commission for consideration. 8 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 3. Michael Hoffman, attorney representing the owners of the Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont; the applicant has taken the position that the city is required to approve this application because it meets the parameters of the new lodge zone district no matter what the impacts are on the neighbors. Hoffman said that was just wrong and unfair. Hoffman agreed with Sunny that the model speaks volumes and to the fact that any views from the Chateau Chaumont or Dumont will be devastated but perhaps more to the point was any access to air and to heat and to sunlight will be devastated. Hoffman said the assumptions on which the lodge zone district were based included the assumption for the width between projects. Hoffman disagreed with the comment about no legal status to the orientation of Chateau Dumont and Chaumont; these two projects opened onto Dean Street and have existed that way for almost 40 years and they were approved that way and will continue to exist that way. Hoffman said the distance between structures would be approximately 60 feet with a 55 foot right-of-way with a 5 foot setback on each side, with those assumptions even on December 21 st ( the lowest sun angle) only the bottom floor of the Chateau Dumont would be in shadow and maybe 2 or 3 weeks on either side of that in terms of the month of December but the rest of the year Chateau Dumont and Chateau Chaumont will be in sunlight and the street itself would be the beneficiary of those sunlight months of the year. Hoffman said this was different Dean Street was a 20 foot wide right-of-way with a 5 foot setback on the side of the proposed hotel and 7 foot 8 inches on the side of Chateau Dumont; for 6 months of the year no sunlight will hit Dean Street because of the height of this proposal. Hoffman said there were other negative impacts that substantially impact Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont; the 2 condominium associations asked TDA of Colorado to complete a traffic study (he passed out to the commission) and David Leahy of that firm made a number of conclusions; the plan submitted was as the original plan. Hoffman spoke of the prescriptive easements that could not be moved lawfully and this could be avoided by requiring the applicant to amend the application to minimize the impacts on Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont. Hoffman asked the applicant to reduce the height of the structure form the current 42 feet along Dean Street to something that matches the Glory Hole Building at around 28 feet; move back off of Dean Street; the ramp to the garage should be removed from the alley and placed on Spring Street; the deliver and trash area should be required to be fully enclosed within the building. 4. Todd Yerigan, public, owned a Chateau Chaumont unit and was the president of the association with full support of the board of directors. Verigan said the concerns were the height, deprivation of light, serious adverse impacts on their building and neighbor building the Dumont. Verigan said they met with the applicant last week and expressed concern for the traffic flow and objected to the traffic being reversed and thought the area should be entered from Durant as it now 9 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - J anuarv 17, 2006 does because there was angle parking on Durant. Verigan said they objected to the vacation of the 1500 square foot of Dean on the west end because it may be unbuilt upon today but he did not know what would happen in the future. Verigan objected to taking out the trees and objected to the shutdown of Dean Street or any impairment in the use of it; this was access for ambulances. Verigan said that Dean Street was the front of the building and asked where the increase in lodging units was. 5. David Barzone stated that he owned Chateau Chaumont #3 and asked if the proposed project was 100% bigger. Bendon said it went from 40,000 to 100,000 something. Barzone asked what percentage comes from building into the alley and what percent would come from just be higher. Poss and Vann responded that they did not know how that would break down. Barzone asked if the surrounding heights of buildings were less than 30 feet in height. Bendon replied they did not go through the heights of the surrounding properties but they could come back and clarify; the Little Nell was 42; the Aspen Square was over 40 and the Chateau Buildings. Barzone asked the height of the existing building. Bendon responded that on Durant it was in the mid 30s and on the alleyway it was probably the upper 20s. Barzone asked the height of the Glory Hole. Poss responded about 31. 6. Pamela Cunningham, general manager of the Aspen Alps, thanked the commission for the site visit; the principals and their team have met with the Aspen Alps on several occasions about their concerns. Cunningham stated concerns about the pool area, which was probably environmental as opposed to com dev. 7. Chuck Frias stated that the unintended consequences of this new code was not anticipated and really because of the width of Dean Street. Frias said hopefully council will look at that and come up with something respectable. 8. Tim Clark stated that he was from Frias Properties and commented that Pam talked about the how the applicant consulted with the Aspen Alps and in retrospect if the applicant had consulted with the Chaumont and Dumont associations perhaps some of the negative impacts that we were talking about tonight could have been addressed early on. PUBLIC HEARINGS: BOOMERANG SOUTH REZONING 10 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 CASTLE CREEK LOT SPLIT & PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearings for the Boomerang South Rezoning and Castle Creek Lot Split and PUD Amendment. Joyce Allgaier provided proof of notice for both hearings. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearings on the Boomerang Rezoning and the Castle Creek Lot Split & PUD Amendment to January 2lh; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. Resume the Sky Hotel Hearing. Dave Myler offered facts and circumstances in response to comments made at the previous meeting and tonight's meeting on the heights, views and setbacks as they relate to this project. Myler said the roadway between the two buildings was an alley with legal status of an alley and from a standpoint of building separations and setbacks it is to be treated as such. Myler said there was a condominium map recorded in 1968 for the Chateaus and the roadway (Dean) was labeled as an alley. Myler said height was a very sensitive issue when it affects views and light; they understand that and views that a property owner enjoys over the top of somebody else's property or undeveloped property is not their property, it belongs to the people who own the underlying property. Myler said for the last 40 years the individuals that have the 6 or 7 units out of the 50 that face toward the Sky Hotel have been enjoying the property that was owned by the predecessors of the Sky Hotel; the air rights are not owned. Myler said that this property is not asking for anything that the neighbors haven't either already done or could do under the zoning that affects their property. Myler said that in 1968 the two Chateaus obtained a variance to increase the height of the building by 8 feet 3 inches, the underlying zoning was 25 feet and it was built to 33 feet 2 inches. Myler said that when measured from grade the building (Chateau) comes out to 33 feet something in one place and 38 feet along the westerly side of the building; they also obtained a setback variance, the building is 3 feet closer to the alley than the underlying setback requirements would have allowed. Myler said the developers of the Chateau and subsequently the owners of those units that have enjoyed the benefits that those developers were able to achieve have been enjoying the development potential of their property, actually more than the development potential based on the underlying zoning of that time. Myler stated that fundamentally they were not asking to do anything else; he brought this up to address the views that can't be protected. Myler said the results from that circumstance were that the first guy to build will control everything else 11 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 that goes on in the neighborhood. Myler said that they did not set out to destroy people's views; we set out to take an advantage of an incentive ordinance that allows them to replace aging lodging products. Myler said there wasn't an alley in Aspen that was in the sun and that was a fact oflife in the core area; it will affect them when the Chateau redevelops and when the Aspen Alps redevelops. Myler asked that the commissioners keep that in mind. Myler said that he could not comprehend how they could be inconsistent with the comp plan when they were following an ordinance that was adopted to implement the comp plan. The ordinance itself needed to be found consistent in order to be adopted and be legitimate. Myler questioned the owners of the Chateaus having a prescriptive easement through their property; they have acknowledged that they have been driving through their property since 1968 when the Chateaus were built. Myler said whether or not that rises to the level of a prescriptive easement that could be used to preclude them for redeveloping that alley, they never conceded; that certainly was an issue for a few more discussions with the Chateau representatives. Vann commented that the consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan was in every land use review and you have to look at it in the specific context. Vann stated the Plan spoke of replacement units but not architecture. Vann noted the Conditional Use in this application was the Commercial Space within the hotel and not the hotel. Vann stated that they were not subdividing anything but by developing more than one free market unit in a mixed use building that by definition it was a subdivision. Vann said there were new commercial design standards, which get specific about whether or not this was an appropriate design and that was the area in which design comes into play because they were not a PUD. This project was consistent with the specific review criteria for these types of in fill projects in the downtown core. Vann said the alley was in the shade during the winter with the building at 2 stories today; adding additional floors will not increase the shade on the alley driving surface itself. Skadron asked what prescriptive easement meant. Bendon replied it was a right that you assume as a property owner over someone else's property based upon your history of use; the city did not determine it or regulate it but rather determined through the courts. Vann said the clarification was there was no challenge to preclude their historic access to the alley through their property but if they could assert that they could block the applicant's realigning it and therefore preclude them from accomplishing their proposal. Myler stated that you might be more familiar with the term adverse use or adverse possession; a right an individual may obtain by meeting various criteria for open notorious continuous adverse hostile 12 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 use of someone else's property. Tygre asked in what way would the prescriptive easement ruling affect the applicant's project. Vann replied that if they found that even reversing the direction of the alley made more sense but if the neighbors and city engineer concur then that was acceptable to them. Vann said if the neighbors blocked the ability to relocate the easement then they would not be able to develop the project as approved and certainly would not go forward without resolving the Issue. Skadron said that he had everything he needed. Skadron stated that was important was the relationship of the development to the surrounding environment of the community; he was sensitive to promoting harmonious and compatible site planning. Skadron said he would look at the impact on the Chateaus and the Alps. Johns stated concern for the neighboring property owners; it was difficult to come to terms with this because they were not asking for anything they were not allowed to do and the rights of property owners. Johns stated concern for the Chateaus entrance on the alley without something hammered out as far as how the alleyway and all the connections was important and it had a nebular solution at this time. Vann said there was a condition that required that they had to maintain access for the Chateau Chaumont and Dumont and the public alley for no other reason than fire protection purposes. Vann said they did not intend to close the alley whether it was necessary to maintain access through their parking lot, which they presently enjoy was a question of the city and a matter of talking with the Chaumont and Dumont. Mary Liz Wilson said that the relations and concerns for the neighbors were very important; she stated concern for the height of the building. Brian Speck said that David Myler's view on the land ownership was clear and after 30 years the Chateaus Dumont and Chaumont have had views but they did not own those views. Speck voiced concern for the massing of the building and the effect on the neighbors. Tygre stated that the fact of the matter was the new regulations were recently passed and people that own units in the neighboring properties have owned them for quite a while and had an expectation of a certain height limit that has recently changed. Tygre said that she liked to follow a set of criteria that are logical with a basis for decision making. Tygre noted that the condominium units in the Chateaus and the Alps were traditionally short term accommodations and they were popular lodging properties at the base of the mountain and proximity to downtown. Tygre asked at what point do you give all the incentives to a lodge that 13 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Meetin!! Minutes - Januarv 17, 2006 definitely needs to be rehabilitated/upgraded to the detriment of existing lodging properties that have a history of short term rental in this particular neighborhood; she wasn't sure where the balancing act would come out for herself and was concerned about not having specific criteria to balance that. Tygre said that she did not believe that one size fits all for all in the infill process; each project should be evaluated on a site specific basis. There were areas where the impacts were greater on the neighbors. Tygre requested criteria sheets. Brian Speck excused himself at 6:45 pm. Vann asked to continue the hearing on the Sky to January 31 st. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing on the Sky Hotel to January 31"; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned. " ckie Lotliian, Deputy City Clerk 14