Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880517 {1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 17. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Roger Hunt, David white, Michael Herron, Ramona Markalunas and Welton Anderson. Jim Colombo, Mari Peyton and Jasmine Tygre were excused. COMMISSIONER' S COMMEN'.rS David: When you drive by the golf course at night now there are these 2 Pepsi signs. Michael: Those signs have been there for years. I am sure the signs can be disconnected from the machine without any loss because people are only buying during the day and don't need the lights at night. Michael: Would it be appropriate for us to make a recommendation to City Council that they give some kind of thanks or proclamation on behalf of both the Board and City Council thanking steve Burstein for his service to these Boards? There was agreement on this suggestion. Michael made a motion to this effect. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: One thing that has been on my mind for quite some time is an analysis of the six month minimum lease and if it is accomplishing anything close to what we want it to accomplish. We are experiencing a second wave of second home ownership. If there is any kind of example in another city or if there is any kind of solution to the problem of vacant units that aren't doing anybody any good. All of the stuff we approved for Main Street and Original Curve is going to end up being very expensive second homes. Where I live 3 units sold recently. They sold to out-of-town people who are going to be using them for 2 weeks in the winter and 2 weeks in the summer and they are not going to be doing anybody any good the rest of the time. The 6 month minimum lease guarantees they won't necessarily be short term but I think in some cases short term would be better than long or better than no terming. Any kind of way of preserving the stock of housing that we have. Alan: What we have heard from Council on this is areal commitment to maintaining the regulation. There is going to be a work session with City Council regarding a list of priority items to be worked on and we will add this to the list. PZM5.17.88 Welton: I don't have any problem with the 6 month mlnlmum lease in concept. But I don't think it addresses or solves this particular problem. David: When we were going through with Council at the last session there was brought up the idea of some kind of code for permanent resident. There was interest in that. There has to be some way of preserving the permanent resident. They are hav ing a problem in Hawai i and the Mayor of Honolulu-- there is something going on along with that and they are looking because the Japanese are buying up everything and the people who live there can't afford anything anymore. So they are looking at some kind of permanent resident solution. Welton: Another item that is worthy of being added to the list is the preservation of essential services such as gas stations. Alan: That is on the list already. MINUTES OF MARCH 22 & APRIL 12. 1988 Roger made a motion to table adoption of these minutes to the next regular meeting. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. RITZ-CARLTON POD/GNP AMENDMEN'.r (CONT. TO 6/28) Alan: We are asking you to continue the Ritz to a date certain of June 28, 1988 based on the expectation that Parry will be submitting something to us in the next week or 10 days and it will take a few weeks for us to get through it since there are some significant changes that occurred with the Council. Michael: At one time we considered at the Ritz's request, and I think we approved it here regarding the tandem parking issue that City Council just jumped all over. But is there a way to br ing that back to be considered less emotionally? It seemed to be logical and made a lot of sense. Alan: I have already talked to Parry and John Sarpa about doing that. I have asked them on this submission to try and be comprehensive in terms of bringing all the changes that have occurred during the process so that in one document we will all be up to speed. Welton re-opened the public hearing and continued the public hearing to June 28, 1988. 2 PZM5.17.88 PUBLIC HEARING 212 W. HOPKINS HISTORIC DESIGNATION Roxanne: This is a wonderful home that deserves to be designated. It is rated a 4. It was built in 1888. This was a small miner's cottage that is in very good condition. HPC's recommendation for designation included a condition volunteered by the applicant that the front porch be restored or made transparent. I understand now that the front porch is going to be restored. The proposed development is a 2 story addition which will be attached to the rear portion of the property as the plans ref lect. Welton asked Jan Darrington if he had any problems with the conditions for designation. Jan: The owner has not given us negative feedback. He was hoping to keep the porch enclosed. If it is a matter of trading the porch for the addition he is going to give up the porch enclosure. We haven't heard anything to the contrary so we are proceeding on that basis. We have made some modifications to the height of the structure as recommended by the HPC. We are well within the existing zoning regulations. Wel ton asked for questions from the Commissioners. none. There were MOTION Roger: I move to recommend historic designation to the structure at 212 W. Hopkins with condition from the Planning Office of memo dated May 17, 1988. (attached in records) that the front porch be restored or be made transparent as volunteered by the applicant. Michael seconded the motion. Ramona: Are they changing the appearance of the original house? Jan: They are adding to the rear of the house. changing the existing house at all. We are not Everyone voted in favor of the motion. 3 PZM5.17.88 212 W. HOPKINS PARKING REDUCTION SPECIAL REVIEW Tom Baker: The P&Z has the authority to do that to historically designated structures. And in talking to Roxanne I understand that the site is very sensitive to the addition but that does mean that they are constrained in terms of parking in the read. By having the addition of the garage back as far as it does sit, it does have access off the alley, preserves vegetation, and preserves the historic character of the house. The staff really does not have a problem with reducing the off- street parking from the required 4 spaces to 2. Welton opened the public hearing and asked for comments. There were none so he closed the public hearing. He then asked for comments from the Commissioners. There were none. MOTION Roger: I move to grant to 212 W. Hopkins Special Review Approval for reduction of on-site parking requirement from 4 spaces to 2 spaces subject to historic landmark designation of the property. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. MARTIN CONDOMINIUMIZATION 311 GILLESPIE AND 710 NORTH THIRD Michael excused himself from this hearing as he is the applicant's attorney. Cindy Houben: This is a request by Bill and Mary Martin to condominiumize the units on their 2 properties located at 311 Gillespie and 710 N. Third Street. The Planning Office has no problem with granting the condominiumization. The Martins are requesting the waiving of the minimum lease restriction on the unit that has been a rental unit on the property at 311 Gillespie. Neither the new or old code allows us to waive in the R-6 zone district--the 6 month minimum lease restriction. Therefore I am suggesting that that be maintained. The Engineering Department had several issues which they brought up as conditions of approval. They noted that a condominium plat should be presented as well as adding and constructing a 5 ft sidewalk along the right-of-way on the North 3rd. Street frontage. This was an issue that came up in Resolution #19 of the City Council. 4 PZM5.17.88 Bill Martin: I don't have any trouble with the 6 months minimum lease restriction. We have owned the property since 1960. The property has never been rented long term. We have kept it for our children and we occasionally rent it for 6 months or less. But there is no problem on that issue. So if you all are not inclined to waive that, I don't see any problem with it. I do have a problem though with the requirement of building a sidewalk. There is absolutely no other sidewalk on all of 3rd. Street and I find it unacceptable for the City to even bring this up. If they want all the occupant s on 3 rd Street to create sidewalks then there must be other ways of doing it. Can you imagine my property having a sidewalk and the property right next door not having a sidewalk. I can't understand their reasoning. A 5 ft setback on that lot would destroy the historical designation of that unit because the old homes were built close to the roads and with the way 3rd St. was placed in there, it will put the sidewalk within 3 ft of the property line. One of the conditions Hammond wants is to help easement for the transformer on the southwest corner of the property. I have al ready told them they can have the easement. It is already built. So I don't see why they throw that in there. I do want to negotiate with the City because I permitted them to put it on my property at no cost to them. Now I want to see if I can't get them to put--I am already underground on my property on electricity. But I want to see what they will do to put the electricity from there to the pole. So that, to me, is a little bit unreasonable too because I have already given them the right- of-way. It is built. Cindy: They just want it to be shown on the map. welton: what would be the difference between requiring the sidewalk being put in now and letting it be contingent on an improvement district sometime down the road when it could all be done at once? Bill: If they want that condition that is fine. else builds a sidewalk, I will build a sidewalk. If everybody Ramona: I don't believe the sidewalk condition has come up on any of the new construction on 3rd. David: There has been a couple of new construction around there and we didn't require them to put in sidewalk. I don't think it is fair if we didn't require sidewalks of them to require it in this case. I would like to see it down there all the way but not just piecemeal. 5 PZM5.17.88 Roger: The sidewalk should be designed with a master overview. Cindy: I am sure Jay is going to ask for an encroachment permit so the porch on the old house be applied for and granted prior to the signature of the plat. Bill: We are going to have to make an application for the consideration of that because the second house is actually 18 inches on city property. Cindy: So I suggest that a condition to state that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for the 311 Gillespie house for the house and porch area and that this be granted prior to the signature of the plat. MOTION Roger: I make a motion approval of the condominiumization of the Martin parcel at the corner of 3rd and Gillespie. Conditions 1 and 2 being the same conditions as the Planning Office memo dated May 17, 1988. (attached in records) And new condition 3--applicant shall apply for encroachment license for the house on Gillespie and be granted prior to condominiumization plat approval. And condition 4 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated May 17, 1988. (attached in records) Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. HARMON GROUP CONDOMINIUMIZATIONl214 LAKE AVENUE Cindy Houben: This is a request for condominiumization of 214 Lake Avenue. The applicants are requesting condominiumization for separate ownership purposes and the Planning Office has no problem with the request. The applicants understand the 6 month minimum lease restriction requirement and the Planning Office is recommending approval with conditions. Lennie Oates: Apparently Mr. Chiffon made some sort of deal with the next door neighbors whereby the next door neighbors would get better frontage on Hallam Lake and then the front duplex which fronts on Lake Avenue would then get a better front yard. The comment that Jay Hammond made with respect to this is that it appears to be some sort of a back-handed lot line adjustment. We don't disagree with that. The position, and I would like to go ahead and have you guys go ahead and somehow author ize us or 6 PZM5.17.88 recommend depending on what the procedure is and I am sorry I didn't get a chance to look at it. Let me shortcut that step so I can go to the next step with a formal lot line adjustment to get this straightened away. That is to assume that I am going to get the co-operation of the next door neighbor. I think it is in everybody's best interest to get it squared away. If I can't I am just stuck with what I have today. There are no problems with the other conditions. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Harmon Group Condominiumization of Lot 17 with the following conditions: 1 through 3 being identical to Planning Office memo dated May 17, 1988. (attached in records) Condition 4 being changed to read "The applicant shall apply for a lot line adjustment between Lot 16 and 17". Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. LITTLE NELL HOTEL SPA AMENDMEN'.r This is tape #1 side 2 which is completely garbled. Tape #2, side 1. Fred: At that time The Aspen Skiing Company was prepared to operate the hotel with its sister company Pebble Beach and began discussion with them to more formally put the whole thing together. The schematic design was completed in August of 1986. There was a per iod of time then that we worked on design development stage of the hotel which took us into 1987, approximately July of 1987. During that time we worked with a couple of people who are very, very good with hotels who had some additional ideas. We also at the end of the process had discussed a Little Nell's bar that was probably significantly different than what Little Nell's was just before it was torn down. It was a 2,832 sqft 2-story structure that was to be more in line with a hotel that was going to cater more to the luxury side. Subsequent to those approvals and the ends of those discussions we have had the opportunity to reflect on that determination and also had a number of conversations with an awful lot of people who had very strong feelings about what Little Nell's should be and what it should be like and who we should cater to. The design modifications you can see are the product of those 7 PZM5.17.88 discussions and those clarifications as to what makes this hotel operate better, what makes this hotel look better and what makes this hotel, in terms of a Little Nell Bar, a more affordable ski oriented, locals oriented place to go. John Cottle, architect: The sandstone base that is going to be added is shown right at the base all the way around. This replaces what had been proposed as a color change and obviously sandstone has a place in Aspen's history and is a nicer material. This will have no effect on the height. We are going to replace the small sloped roofs at the third level and replace them with flat decks. The decks that we are proposing go in where the small roofs are around the courtyard. They do a couple of things. First of all they become very effective snow stops. Secondly the early concept of the hotel has always been to keep your eye down at a 2-story mass. That has always been one of the strong concepts of the hotel. Then on a day to day basis people can get out and use the decks. So it becomes more of a people oriented space from both Durant and the hotel courtyard. As far as the visual mass of it there it is always broken by the smaller roofs or the larger dormers so there is never a long unbroken run of it. The snow skirt: During the approval process we had discussed a 5 ft snow skirt. We are now proposing a 2 ft snow skirt. There are a lot of reasons why that is appropriate. First of allover a large part of the building, we now have flat decks. So instead of going from sloped roof to sloped roof to snow skirt it stops at a flat deck is snowmelted internally and drained internally so there are no drips and it stops at a higher elevation. The scale of this roof is really of a residential scale. It is not as if we have an acre and a half under roof that slides towards us. We also committed to provide snow stops. the roof that are continuous rods so that They are 3 of the most effective European avalanche potential at different levels. and continue as drip or stay there rather There are 3 rows along the snow cannot slide. designs used. It stops It allows it to melt than build up. Roger pointed out a potential problem at a double dormer on the shady side of the building which would funnel snow all to one spot and then during freeze-melt time form a great icicle. John said he had not tracked an icicle path off that roof and would do so. 8 PZM5.17.88 Roger: The only other potential problem place might be the porte-cochere. Fred: The Little Nell's portion of the hotel is almost exactly in the same location and elevation it was. The deck will be substantially larger and this edge along here will have a planter in it with vegetation. The planter is to keep some separation from the hotel space from the after ski space. As you can see in this final proposal there is no second story deck and we committed to working with a grand entrance into Aspen. There was a great deal of discussion which evolved around the grand entrance and what was finally accomplished at the City Council level was to remove a large dormer that existed at this portion of the building. We felt dur ing the course of development if removed would allow that part of the sloped roof, the hip element, would just simply open up more so we got rid of that. What our concept is at present and is now evolving into final form is to provide, unlike what we talked about at the approval process and in fact were marked down on the GMP scoring--we intend to provide something that is ski oriented, something that is Colorado, something that is felt to be an enjoyable place to enter into that if you spill a beer, we can wipe it up and not shampoo it out--a non-cushy, non-posh, non-glitzy kind of place that college students or anyone coming to Aspen can feel comfortable walking through the door. We also want to provide a deck at the second level in order to establish the opportunity of a breakfast place in the summer time as more and more of the activities in the summer time are beginning to center at this portion of town because of the operation of the gondola. John: One of the points in Alan's memo was the height of the roof. In the final approval process the roof stepped down right in here to a lower ridge. There is cur rently a 4th level right in there. In fact this is a mechanical grill. The only purpose for that 4th level is to enclose the equipment for the restaurant. The mechanical is all underneath this roof. That is a pretty prominent element. Fred: Back in December of 1985 David asked the question, when we were originally talking about this and the 22 ft height and what would go above that 22 ft height is what would the height of that mechanical be and Larry responded "Someplace in the neighborhood of 25 ft". That comment stimulated an awful lot of additional looking at so we could cover that because the building and how it 9 PZM5.17.88 appears is not only important important as to what it looks is why we are coming back with from the streetscape but like from the mountain. this. is very And that Lar ry: Our response to the 22 ft we did remove this and this extended a little further but the resultant viewplain is better than the original representations with that dormer in. We think it nets out as improvement in a couple of ways. It takes care of the visual issue by keeping it open and it gives Little Nell's Bar about the size of the one that exists rather than the 2800 sqft version of it. Fred: The main issue in that was the grand entrance. We have retained these photographs of the computer model that were done with the dormer in place. Today we did a new set that looks at the same points and shows what the new building looks like in terms of that same entrance with the design modification we are discussing. John: The 22 ft that keeps coming up was to the break point where the eave occurs, where the roof breaks back. It never was 22 ft from this deck to the top of the roof. And that was really unclear in the minutes. But also if you look at the model of the town, this is 22 ft vs. 44 that the North of Nell is. Welton: That was one of the most heavily discussed corners of the building and I remember that I wanted to see that whole Hunter Street extension widened and the plaza widened at the expense of the building. The rest of the Commissioners seemed to be willing to go with stepping that roof back and then down more so that it visually opened it out and up the mountain. Looking at the drawings that were approved in the Planning Office a few weeks ago with Cindy. The amount of increase in roof height is not consistent with the way the discussion went and what was approved. I understand your need or your desire to want to hide the mechanical equipment. There has got to be another way of doing it. There was a dramatic drop in that roof line that came about as a result of a lot of concerns on the part of the Commission. Now the roof is back up there again. Alan: That is exactly the point that I am raising. really have a concern about increasing size. I don't Welton: I think increasing the size is wonderful. Alan: I don't see the need to do it at the cost of more building in that area. I looked back and saw my reference in the process wanting to keep that plaza from feeling like there was a big building on the west side and a big building on the east side. 10 PZM5.17.88 Fred: That is the reason I had those computer simulations redone. It was to try to give you a feel that it is not so much the roof height but the way the roof slopes back at the eave lines. Larry: We had taken the primary issue which was the one of that view. It is lower now as a result of manipulating these forms not only account for the openness of it but account for the increased size of Little Nell. I would really like to hide the mechanical equipment. The point is that it is more open now and has a better visual site plain now than it did. Welton: It is less open than in the negotiated roof line that came about as a result of a lot of discussions. John: The step was a maximum of 7 ft at which there would then be mechanical equipment that would go back up into that. Larry: Also what your sketch doesn't show is that there was an approved dormer here. Welton: Isn't that dormer in roughly the same location? John: This rendering has the taller dormer there and the roof stepping down that you are talking about. This is to show comparison as to the impacts as far as opening out. Fred: It has an enti rely different feel. But both plazas cape and mountainscape I really think hiding that mechanical wi th a peaked roof is a far superior design. Roger: I have to agree with them. The only place where that roof height is a factor is on the Dean streetscape. That is the only place where you will really see that that height is of any significance and I don't have a problem with it if it is covering the mechanical. I know how obnoxious that mechanical can be. Welton: You see it for the entire width of Durant that it is not obscured by this thing. It is not until you get really closer to Hunter Street that you lose them. Larry: But I think you are sitting down at the Red Onion. You gotta be up here--and that is what the computer simulation does. It takes it from the newspaper rack on Durant and Hunter. Welton: We are not back to where it was in the first place but pretty close. If the rest of the Commission doesn't have any problem with it then I am only one vote. 11 PZM5.17.88 Fred: Our attempt here is not to create new space. It does add to the mass of the building in order to cover the mechanical equipment. Welton: Which should have been factored in the mechanical workup and factored in. Fred: It was. It was discussed in December and it was determined that the mechanical equipment should show above the building. It has just been something very difficult to relieve. welton: The roofscape is allover Aspen. Larry: This is a roofscape that we are going to be looking down on as a skier. We really don't want it junked up. Welton: I have always had other things on my mind as I was skiing down Little Nell other than the roof there. I never once recollected looking at the roof of the old Little Nell's. Fred: There was an awful lot of stuff up there and it looked bad. Roger: I like it covered. David: I like it covered but I tend to agree with Welton. Welton: I did meet with Mark Penthorn on this very issue in the Planning Office. I said "What if you have your equipment in the side of that main thing so that you can step it down to this point?" Larry: We think we have the best solution. It really accommodates all of your prior requests and issues and we sure would like to have you go along with us on this. Fred: This is a building, like Michael said, that people are going to look at for a long, long time and more people will probably see it coming down from the mountain than look at it from any other viewplain. Larry: It is an issue that we will work with but I would hope that you can see the value of all the work that has been put into it to try to bring the lines naturally stepped down. Welton: I realize that it is a good solution to solving the mechanical problem but in comparing it with the first set of drawings that raised a lot of red flags because people were afraid that from the vantage points in here that it was getting too tight. I want to move this whole thing over 6 or 10 feet. 12 PZM5.17.88 The compromise that was worked out at that time which seemed to satisfy the other Commissioners, was if you take a significant amount out of this roof you are going to get more of a view of the bottom part of Little Nell. Larry: I think we have gone to a lot of trouble with the perceptual lssues. As I said we have a more wide open viewplain than we did. We have worked with that hard to make that happen. The fact that the roof is up there hiding the mechanical doesn't alter that view one bit. In fact it is more open and with the added benefit of hiding the mechanical. So we think this is definitely better even though, by the letter of the law, looking at the elevation there is a difference. We made what we thought was a tradeoff. It netted more positively toward the issues you initially raised. Ramona: I would like to see the mechanical covered. Welton: I would like to see the mechanical covered too but not at the expense of raising what was negotiated down. Michael: I wasn't here for the initial concept but I do like the idea of the mechanics being covered. Welton: I hate to compromise a stand that we negotiated in the SPA process because the sketch neglected to take into account the mechanicals. I realize we have to have a lot of air-moving equipment now so what we showed you before was just pretty pictures and we couldn't do it. Lar ry: We have mitigated that perceptual issue. than it was. It is better Welton: This simulation I think a large portion of this light blue roof, if it was lowered, would be out of the way behind the dormer and you see just a touch more than now. I am not convinced that you can't do a different sort of treatment and still accommodate the mechanical in something that is not that high. You are not going to have any mechanical equipment in the top 3 ft of this roof. Larry: We don't want a flat roof up there either in the top 3 ft of the roof. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion that they further study that corner with an eye toward reducing the height but still shielding the mechanical equipment under a roof form that would be visually 13 PZM5.17.88 less objectional than seeing the mechanical equipment. to be done with staff making the review. David: I so move. Conceptually I want to see it covered. What I want to see is you guys work at it as much as you can. If it is going to be something that is not possible then I can understand that. This is Michael seconded the motion. Roger: I am going to vote against this motion because I am in favor of their solution to this problem. I can foresee what they can come up with as an alternative and that is, yes, basically they will lower the roof line. Maybe they will leave it open on the top so you can probably still see it from coming down. You haven't accomplished anything because in the process of lowering it they have made vertical walls instead of the peaked roof. I think this is just a ruinous motion and it should be defeated. Welton: You convinced mel My response to this is I am not going to second-guess what the designers are going to come up with. I am sure they are going to come up with one of two things. They are going to come up with something that satisfies our concerns that is much better or they are going to come up with something that is so atrocious that we are going to flop back to this. Michael: I would just like to send a message out that I would rather see them come back with this and say it is the best they can do than come up with some crap. Ramona: Me too. Larry: That is where we are now. We have spent since July of 1986 playing with this thing and this is where we are. The luxury of time has now passed. And so we need to build what you are approving this evening because we have steel guys building steel right now and we have got to tell them yes or no. welton: I think that is great. I just don't think it is fair that everybody that goes through these types of processes to make promises that they don't deliver on. Fred: Our purpose here was to introduce the deck, introduce the little bit larger structure and at the same time create some additional mass to cover it. If that is not acceptable I can accept that and we will go ahead and work with Alan to do something about it. 14 PZM5.17.88 Alan: You understand that this has got to go to the Council. Fred: I understand. We will work as hard as we can on this. What I am suggesting is that I have watched this design since December of 1985 and I have watched these architects work with this and I have watched them stumble and discuss and try to figure what is going to work best. I have watched 3 separate hotel people go through this whole thing and everybody deal with the same problem because there was a great deal of discussion on it and I think what they have established here is what they think aesthetically is the best resolve knowing full well that it exceeds some of the height discussions. And that is why we had a model made. That is why we brought it back here. We felt that we have accomplished to the best degree that we could and aesthetically resolved hiding that equipment. If what is desired here is to go back and flatten the roof out, double dormer it, leave some of the stuff sticking out, that is what we will do. Welton: The motion was to restudy it in an effort to lower it but still accomplish hiding the mechanical equipment underneath a roof form rather than being exposed. Fred: This isn't conceptual design. We have been working with the mechanical guys for a long time now and there is a platform that sits up in here--a false platform that sits up in that that holds that amount of mechanical equipment. As you begin to strip that thing away from this platform, something has to happen. The platform can't move. Michael: That is why I asked you "Is this the best we can get?" If this is the best we can get and you are going to tell us that then fine I am prepared to vote against the motion. But if you can look at it and possibly come up with something different-- Fred: I would not have brought it here if I thought there was something different that could be done that would accomplish what Welton suggests. Larry: The issue is a perceptual one. To think with all that is going on up here that somebody is going to notice that little difference from the perspective of a pedestrian walking in here, the difference is really almost ludicrous The vote on the motion was 2 in favor and 3 against. DECKS AT THE 3RD & 4TH LEVEL OF THE ASPEN ALPS END OF BUILDING 15 PZM5.17.88 Fred: To preface for this, as you remember we also discussed the step-downs here. This corner of the building will probably be a most desirable a space in terms of a hotel room as any place in Aspen. One of the GMP questions that came out was your dissatisfaction with the amount of conference, seminar and meeting space which was included in this hotel. We also believed it ourselves. It was not satisfactory. We spent a great deal of time in discussions with our ownership as to how we might change that. what has evolved is adding some deck space to 2 of the floors. We changed the interior space of the rooms so that they may not only be used as suites but they would also provide for very superior type of meeting space for things like weddings and places for 50 to 60 people to have a cocktail party in the afternoon in the spring as well as all summer. with our conference space being on one level underground, we think that the addition of these decks is far superior to creating only seminar space for 1 or 2 rooms and that that was one of the principle driving forces behind this. We have discussed this issue at length with representatives of the Aspen Alps. They concur that there had not been enough change for them comment negatively to the design modification. John: As Alan points out we need to terminate the building using the same elements that started the rest of the design. We have beveled most of the corners of the building both at the large scale and the small scale and we have continued that. Another element we have used in a number of cases, at the porte-cochere and other elements, is that we have taken the roof of what is a 4 story building and tried to bring it down as low as we can which brings the scale down closer to a human pedestrian level. So this roof material comes all the way basically to the ground. So basically it terminates the building here as it does at the porte-cochere and then at the apres ski. And then this little jewel box that terminates this whole hotel at this point is only 12 ft wide. It really terminates in a real small jewel-like element that is wrapped in glass. At night, of course, it will be lighted up and quite transparent. The decks that are being proposed are tucked inside of the existing dormers here. There is an increase in this area of 900 sqft in the C zone. Alan: I just think there was a delicateness about the previous approach that was much more angular and this just doesn't feel as good to me. Not hav ing spent a lot of time looking at that corner in the review process. I don't think we focused near as much on this side of the building as we did the Durant. 16 PZM5.17.88 Fred: The Aspen Alps people have looked at it real close and we discussed this and the reasons for it and the purposes behind it and again I say that Mr. Huey and Sonny Vann who represents the Aspen Alps comments that they do not see a significant modification in this enough to comment either way. Alan: It seems to me that the other finish to that corner of the building was much more successful. Michael: It seems to me that what Alan is saying is that unless you are living at the Aspen Alps you are never going to know the difference anyway. Welton: this. Those people who see the mechanical are going to see Michael: We were just talking a minute ago that when we skied down, we never noticed what was at Little Nell's which was crap. We are not going to notice this. I think there is a positive trade off. I think the idea of having space up there that is available for the people in town for weddings or small parties is really a nice benefit. I just don't see how the people living in Aspen, other than the people living in Aspen Alps, are really effected by one design as opposed to the other. Larry: At the last operational review we really felt that those decks were important. They are a kind of space that the rest of the hotel doesn't have. They are the best view being on that end. I think that the end benefit is that we will have people on those decks whereas before we didn't. Roger: I generally like that idea of the decks. My only comment about it is that it would look to me better if it appeared to step back more. The second floor is tending to stick out a little bit. Other than that I like it. Welton: I agree with Roge r . Maybe the first one needs to come out more. David: I like the concept of this. If some kind of a slight modification could be done in order to step this down, it is not normal for me but I would give more square footage. The concept is real good and there is a benefit there for the community. I really like these decks. Welton: The Planning Office can look at this and sign off on it. There was general agreement on this. 17 PZM5.17.88 FOOTPRIN'.r OF THE BUILDING John: The Boot Lounge has been expanded out to the roof line. Welton: Does anybody have a problem with that? There were no comments. MOTION I will entertain a motion to recommend approval of the design changes for the hotel with the conditions being--The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction-- Alan: A we have no problem with. B. ______should state with conditions ______ C. We should deal with Roger's icicle--should provide a snow protection system. The only comment that I heard was icicles coming off the double dormer. We want them to look at that and demonstrate the adequacy of that to the staff. D. The extended deck for the apres ski lounge is accepted. The applicant shall re-design the building to provide a total area in the apres ski lounge of approximately 4,000 sqft. E. Dealing with the step-down to the satisfaction of the Planning Office. (Recommendations of Planning Office attached in records) Roger: I will so move. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:45 pm. J""ic.~;~Y~~;; 18